Loading...
1997 04 08 PCJ � 2 - - a yOFTH� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California April 8, 1997 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution 97-025 Beginning Minute Motion 97-004 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of March 4, 1997 and March 25, 1997 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. VI. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Item .................. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-032 Applicant ............ Mr. and Mrs. Fred Wolff Location ............. 77-227 Calle Ensenada Request .............. Approval of use an existing detached guest room as one bed an breakfast unit in conjunction with a single family residence. Action ............... Resolution 97- B. Item .................. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-033 AND PARCE] MERGER 97-318 Applicant ............ Thomas N. Dodd Location ............. 49-080 Eisenhower Drive (La Quinta Golf Estates) Request .............. Approval to merge two lots into one parcel and construct secondary residential "Granny" unit and carport structure on th resulting lot which contains an existing single family house. Action ............... Resolution 97- C. Item .................. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410 AND SITE DEVELOPMEN' PERMIT 97-602 Applicant ............ McComic Consolidated, Inc. Location ............. South of PGA Boulevard along the east side of Cedar Crest, sout of Riviera along the east and west sides of Medinah, South c Merion along the west side of Interlachen, and west of Colonial Request .............. 1) To subdivide 17 acres into 69 single family and other commo lots in PGA West resort and club, and 2) approval of three hour plans (compatibility review) Action ................ Continue to April 22, 1997 BUSINESS ITEMS A. Item .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-590 Applicant ............ Lapis Energy Organization/Mr. John Gabbard Location ............. Southeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Highway 111 Request .............. Approval of a revised layout for Parcel 1 of Tentative Parcel Ma 28422, relating to the public fueling facility Action ............... Resolution 97- CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Report of the City Council meeting of April 1, 1997. IX. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular adjourned meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California March 4, 1997 CALL TO ORDER 10:00 A.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 10:04 A.M. by Chairman Abels who asked Principal Planner Stan Sawa to lead the flag salute B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Newkirk/Gardner to excuse Commissioner Woodard. Unanimously approved. Chairman Abels noted that Commissioner Butler would be late. C. Staff present: City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA - Confirmed III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued - Tentative Tract 28470, Environmental Assessment 96-333, Change of Zone 96-081 Conditional Use Permit 96-031, Site Development Permit 96-599, and Certificate of Appropriateness 96-001; a request of Tradition Club Associates, LLC for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; approval of a change of zone to redesignate the zoning classification for the proposed golf course from RL (low density residential) to GC (golf course); approval of a conditional use permit to allow grading and construction of six residential lots and tee boxes within higher slopes; approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 746.6 acres into 241 single family homesites, 18-hole golf course, private street system and accessory lots; approval of a site development permit to allow the construction of a clubhouse cart barn, maintenance building, half -way house, main entry guard house, and parking lot; and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow PC3-4-97 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1997 modifications to the Hacienda del Gato and grounds as recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission, for the property located at the south terminus of Washington Street, east of Avenida Bermudas. Chairman Abels informed everyone that the public hearing had been closed and this meeting was for Commission discussion. He then asked if there was a staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio reviewed the changes that had been requested by the applicant and staff as noted in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked that the spelling of Frances Hack Lane be corrected. 3. Commissioner Gardner stated his confusion as to where the walls are to be erected on the northern portion of the property. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand explained the location of where the walls would be constructed. Discussion followed regarding the walls. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were any plans for the northwest corner. Staff stated the applicant had no plans at the present time. Commissioner Gardner asked that with the number of homes that are proposed to be built, are staff s figures accurate for the projection for the year 2000. What is time frame of the project. Staff stated that as this is a custom home development, and not a phased tract, it could have a ten to 20 year build out. 6. Commissioner Gardner asked if the drainage had been readdressed by the Public Works Department. He was concerned about the neighbors to the northwest and northeast of the project handling the water runoff. 7. Mr. Mike Rowe, speaking for the applicant, stated the current retention basin was designed to handle in access of what the 100-year storm would create. The water that use to run in the storm channel along the south side of 52nd Avenue will now be directed and stored onsite. This would eliminate any off -site stormwater runoff. 8. Commissioner Gardner asked City Attorney Dawn Honeywell that in the event none of these flood provisions work, who is legally responsible. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that when you have a custom lot division, the approvals require all flood control measures to tie into the overall flood control provisions. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that they are providing for more than the 100-year storm, legally the City is only to provide PC3-4-97 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1997 for the 100-year storm. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City will always be named in any suit, but we are only required to plan for the 100-year flood. Commissioner Gardner asked if everyone within the project is taken care of in regards to the flood control, what about those outside the development. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there are water laws that allow the people up or down stream that have private rights of action. As long as the City is meeting the acceptable Engineering standards for the 100-, year flood, there isn't much more the City can do. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that this project is not creating any problems, it is actually a solution to many of the problems of the Cove. The large retention basin were constructed to handle the water runoff from the mountains and the Cove. This project will solve the problems for the east side of the Cove problems. No water will leave the site according to the capacity of the basin constructed. 9. Commissioner Seaton stated she had listened to the tape to know what had been said at the first meeting as she was absent. She complimented staff and the applicant on the report. Her concerns are about the infringement into the mountain conservancy area, the requested 22-foot height limit, and the wall down Avenida Bermudas be attractive. Her main concern is the mountain conservancy. 10. Commissioner Butler stated he had gone to the site to distinguish where the six lots were to be constructed and to the best of his knowledge, they are at the base of the slope and not in the hillside. However, there does appear to be some grading in this area. Staff clarified that this grading, or disturbance was done by CVWD as they were mining for rock or fill material to use in the construction of the flood control facilities. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified that there were two areas being discussed. One is the canyon area and the area that has been graded for lots. The area in the alluvial fan area is not graded but is scarred. The area at the south end of their project has been graded, but this area is not where the six lots area proposed. Planning Manager di Iorio clarified that the tee -box area proposed for the hillside, is allowed by virtue of the conditional use permit. 11. Commissioner Tyler stated he had no concerns regarding the environmental assessment or change of zone. Regarding the conditional use permit, the resolution and the conditions needs to be corrected to include all the lots, as well as Conditions #5 and #7. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained that these are the lots that are in the hillside and the others lower are not in the hillside and do not impact any of the natural areas outside of the scarred area. PC3-4-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1997 12. Commissioner Tyler asked if there shouldn't have restoration areas included in Condition #7. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified that Condition #7 has to do with the restoration area where it is not part of the pad or grading. The lower areas will be graded and landscaped and will not be affected therefore it is not included. Staff explained that the reason behind Condition #7 was to consider the slopes at the rear of these lots. The other three lots in the front could be added. 13. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #10 and the turnouts onto the streets or driveways. Staff explained this was a verbatim condition from the Fire Marshal and he called out driveways. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that it applies to driveways and is not the street. There is one lot, Lot 236, that could have a long driveway, but it will not be longer than 150- feet. The remainder of the driveways have frontage onto the street. 14. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not understand how the hillside could be restored to its natural condition. The Environmental Assessment stated that the slopes between Lots 230, 231, and 232 on the lower road will be landscaped. Depending on what type of landscaping is used, it could hide or accentuate the cut area in the hillside. Need to see that the landscaping complies with the landscaping standards of the Code; is it necessary to have a condition added to require this. Staff stated they would add a condition stipulating compliance with Sections 9.110.070 and 9.140.040 for Hillside Conservation Regulations. 15. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #54 of the Tentative Tract, as to who was going to going to be responsible for maintaining the improvements along Avenida Nuestra in light of the effects of Proposition 218; who is going to maintain the parkway? Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that the landscaping conditions may seem erroneous on the surface, but 10-15 years ago 52nd Avenue dissected this property. It was at the request of the owner at that time to have 52nd Avenue moved to their north boundary of their property. If they had constructed at that time, they would have had to build and maintain both sides of 52nd Avenue. As 52nd Avenue was moved to the north, staff did not feel they should maintain both sides. In regards to Avenue Nuestra, the street is on the other side of their project wall and is not adjacent to a street that they will be using. Staff is therefore suggesting the City accept it for maintenance, and ask that it be planted with a hardscape landscaping. A landscaping that requires little or no maintenance for the north side of the wall on Avenida Nuestra. The applicant is required to maintain both sides of 52nd Avenue perimeter landscaping but not the median. PC3-4-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1997 16. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition 78 regarding the maximum pad elevation being measured from the center of the building pad. The pads as currently constructed are too high and should be returned to the original requirements at the original height. He concurred with staff s recommendation in Condition #8. On Avenida Bermudas between Calle Ensenada and Calle Nogales, there are two areas where the dirt has been piled higher than the two feet berm. Staff stated they are temporary due to the applicant's need to move dirt around on the site. The applicant has placed some PVC on top of the berm to show how high the wall will be. 17. Commissioner Newkirk asked what control were being placed on the applicant in regards to the lighting. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated they will need to be in compliance with the Dark Sky Ordinance. Any lighting for the tennis courts would require a minor use permit and the lighting would be reviewed by staff for compliance with the Dark Sky Ordinance. 18. Commissioner Tyler stated that at the last meeting, individuals asked if the chainlink fence on Avenida Bermudas would cut prohibit the residents from accessing the mountains. It was stated at that time, the access would remain. Staff clarified that there is no public access across this private property to the mountains. The public access to the public mountains is to the south of this property. It will not be restricted unless the Bureau of Land Management or other State agency does so. Commissioner Tyler asked how far the public would have to go to reach the trail head. Staff stated there is no planned trail head or access planned by this project, the mountainous areas within this project, have been private ownership since 1902. The mountains to the south are in public ownership and have always been accessible. There are no formal trails at this time. 19. Commissioner Tyler asked where the proposed well site for CVVb'D was planned to be. Mr. Rowe explained this is a process they will have to go through with CVWD. They would like to propose a site in one of the areas at the corner of Frances Hack and Avenida Bermudas if this is acceptable to CVWD. At the present time they have not accepted any site. 20. Commissioner Tyler asked if the maintenance building was proposed to be two story and also what the distance was between the clubhouse and the tennis court, and the tennis court's proximity to the northern boundary and the possible lights on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff explained the maintenance building was a single story building and the one tennis court would have to go through a minor use permit for which the lighting would be reviewed by staff. PC3-4-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1997 21. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #45.B. relating to the emergency access onto Avenida Bermudas and Frances Hack Lane. If the emergency access is for emergencies, it should be restricted for that purpose only. He further stated his concern about the proposed height of the clubhouse. Staff explained that the building height is 28-feet and they are in conformance with the City Code. 22. Commissioner Tyler stated that in regards to Lots 230 and 231 and the Hillside Conservation zone, he would strongly oppose the intrusion of the houses. He has no problem with the elevated tee pads. To preserve the mountains in their pristine state, the Hillside Conservation Plan was adopted in the La Quinta General Plan. However, somewhere along the way, some uses were permitted in the hillside under certain conditions and one of those uses was a single family residence. Therefore, it appears that the Commission's hands were tied as the conditional use permit requires certain findings be made before an application can be approved and it appears they meet these findings. The first of those findings is consistency with the General Plan. In Policy 4-1.2.1 of the General Plan states that development shall be allowed to occur in open space areas, but only when in strict compliance with the Hillside Conservation Zone Ordinance (HC). When reading the Hillside Conservation Zone it states that the HC Overlay District is established. Section 9.140.040 of the Zoning Code re-establishes the regulations for the HC Overlay. Subsection C, states the permitted uses in the HC district; Paragraph C.3. lists the permitted uses on alluvial fans with slopes not to exceed 20%; Paragraph C.3.h. specifically lists single family residences; Section J goes on to establish the minimum standards for the HC Zone by stating, "...the maximum density shall be one residential dwelling for ten acres. On a contiguous parcel, which includes areas both above and below the `toe of the slope', residential units may be clustered together below the `toe of the slope' to take advantage of buildable areas with lower slope angles, provided the overall density for the parcel of one unit per ten acres is not exceeded. Structures shall remain single family, separated, on individual lots having an area of at least 20,000 square feet." According to his review of this project, the six custom lots appear to meet or exceed this requirement. The third requirement is compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and this entire project has been recommended to be in compliance with CEQA. Finally, the surrounding uses shall not create conditions or material that are detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, injurious to, or incompatible with, other lands or uses in this vicinity. The only surrounding use is the balance of the project and this is not a problem. Given free rein he would not approve the construction of the homes in the HC Zone, but as the requirements for approving a conditional use permit are found in the findings, and as they meet these requirements, it appears there are no legal findings to deny this request. PC3-4-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1997 23. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to clarify what areas will be affected by the conditional use permit. Staff clarified it was only the six lots and the tee boxes. 24. Commissioner Gardner asked if the six lots infringe too far into the hillside; the tee boxes will not bother anything. There should be a way to design the project without the six lots. 25. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 017 recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 96-333. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Woodard. ABSTAIN: None. 26. It was been moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-018 recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 96-081, according to the findings. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Woodard. ABSTAIN: None. 28. It has been moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-019 recommending to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 96-031, subject to the findings and conditions as amended below: a. Adding Conditions #12 prohibiting the blasting; #13 restricts the height of the buildings to 17-feet for the six lots under the conditional use permit; #14 delineation of the lines restoration for the scarred area; # 15 the conditional use permit shall be in compliance with Section 9.110.070 and 9.140.040 of the Zoning Code; and Condition #7 include all lots- Lots 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, and 235, the streets, and the golf tee boxes # 17 and # 18. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Gardner and Seaton. ABSENT: Commissioner Woodard. ABSTAIN: None. 27. Commissioner Gardner noted that his objection was only to the lots and not the tee boxes. PC3-4-97 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1997 28. It has been moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-020 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 28470, subject to the findings and conditions as amended and recommended by staff. 29. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the revisions to the conditions: # 7.H. easement to build the drainage improvements and direct the water; #7.I. emergency access easement; #13 allowing the lot line adjustment to occur 60- days after the recordation of the tract; #22 street improvement being reimbursed to the City prior to finalization of the map; #32 imposing the requirement that they construct the drainage and take the water onto their site; #44.C. requiring the building of the emergency accesses; #45.B. the same; #45.D. regarding the turning movement on the access drive to their maintenance yard restricted to a right -turn only; #78 regarding the height of the pads along Avenida Bermudas be measured from the center of the lot; #100 regarding compliance with the mitigation measures attached to the Environmental Assessment; and #101 requiring qualified archaeological monitor be on site. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Tyler ABSENT: Commissioner Woodard. ABSTAIN: None. 30. Commissioner Tyler stated he was voting no only because of Condition #78. 31. It has been moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Newkirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-021 recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 96-599, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: a. Conditions #4 regarding compliance with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling policies; #28 regarding meeting Title 24 energy requirements; #29 landscaping and irrigation compliance with City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance; #30 regarding compliance with the mitigation measures of the Environmental Assessment; and #31 stating that no signs had been approved. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Woodard. ABSTAIN: None. 32. It has been moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-022 recommending to the City Council approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 96-001, as recommended by staff and as amended: PC3-4-97 8 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1997 a. Conditions #1 regarding the retention of the original eucalyptus trees; #2 and #3 as recommended by the Historical Preservation; #4 clarify the location of the trees to be retained as recommended by the Historical Preservation Commission; and #5 as recommended by the Historical Preservation Commission. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Woodard. ABSTAIN: None. 33. Commissioner Tyler stated he was in favor of this project and it would be an asset to the community and he was looking forward to its completion, contrary to his many questions. Chairman Abels stated he too felt the project would be an addition to the City. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS. None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to an adjourned meeting to be held on March 25, 1997. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:43 A.M. on March 4, 1997. PC3-4-97 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California March 25, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag salute B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk to excuse Commissioner Seaton. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA - A. Commissioner Gardner asked that the Agenda be amended to show that the Minutes for March 4, 1997 were not before the Commission for approval. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of February 11, 1997 and February 28, 1997. Commissioner Gardner/Newkirk asked that the Minutes of February 11, 1997 and February 28, 1997 be approve. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None PC3-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TENTATIVE TRACT 28409 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-335; a request of Mr. Charles Murphy and Mr. Lynn Kunkle for approval of a subdivision of 9.15 acres into 19 single family and other common or private streets. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. 3. Commissioner Tyler stated that Ordinance 289 had placed temporary restrictions on the subject site. What happens after this Ordinance expires in September, 1997? Planning Manager stated Council would consider an ordinance that would specify the height requirements. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked about the perimeter wall regarding landscaping, why was the landscaping plan not submitted for Commission consideration at this time. Planning Manager stated the plans had not been prepared and it was not required at this time. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked about the eight foot landscaped planter on the entry street and if it included an eight foot sidewalk. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was not required to submit it at this time. Commissioner Woodard stated that as staff was asking the Commission to approve the project suggesting there be an eight foot buffer zone; but he is uncertain how far the wall is from the house. How far does the wall go into the site. Staff explained it would serve as the exterior side/perimeter wall for the adjacent residence. It would go in as far as the wall could meeting the front setback requirements. Commissioner Woodard asked why eight feet was determined and how does it enhance the entrance. Staff stated it was based upon building a house with the setback requirements. Discussion followed regarding the wall, landscaping, and how they will be addressed regarding the tentative tract. Commissioner Woodard stated he was more concerned about the streetscape than what was planned for on inside of the wall. Commissioner Woodard, asked what the setback was from the curb to the wall on Avenida Montezuma. Staff stated it varied. Commissioner PC3-25-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 Woodard stated there was no wall plan included in the Commission packet. Staff stated the wall plan was to be approved by staff at a later date. Commissioner Woodard stated the distance from the house to the wall could be ten feet from the wall and the distance from the wall to the curb is ten feet. Commissioner Woodard asked if there was to be any undulation of the wall for the length of the wall. Is that the standard of the City for walls? Staff stated it was. 6. Commissioner Woodard asked about the requirement to have the applicant submit his plans on AutoCAD; is the applicant going to be able to scan the plans. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they would accept the scanning. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked for clarification on Condition #26 regarding the pad elevation. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this was a requirement of the City to keep the new lots adjacent to the existing lots from being higher than the other. It is an opportunity for the builder to build on the higher pads first to alleviate the problem of the lower house being constructed before the higher pad elevation and not being happy with the house being higher than his. Commissioner Woodard asked what the home buyer would do if he didn't like it. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that if the higher house was built first, the lower lot would know that he was buying the house with the higher house already existing. Commissioner Tyler suggested that the wording "and buyer satisfaction" be removed. Commissioner Woodard also asked that the wording be removed. 8. Commissioner Butler asked if there was a sidewalk for pedestrian traffic on Avenida Montezuma. Staff explained that the Bear Creek Bike Path is a bike path, jogging trail, and pedestrian walkway. Discussion followed with staff regarding the landscaping along the Bike Path's and the Path's location. 9. Commissioner Woodard stated that if more than eight feet of landscaping is required, Lot 16 becomes almost unbuildable. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping and setback requirements of the entrance and the residence to be built adjacent to the entrance. 10. Commissioner Newkirk asked if a 100 year flood could cause a flood if the creek bed overflowed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that it is an improved creek bed, with a throddled retention basin which controls the water. PC3-25-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 11. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the flood plan designation. Steve stated he would have to look at the map to see what it is. 12. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Lynn Kunkle, applicant, stated they were here to address the concerns of the community. Stated they had met all the City's requirements and hoped for approval. 13. Commissioner Woodard asked how the applicant was going to get water back to the detention basin. Mr. Bill Murphy, applicant, stated it would be by gravity so that the water would flow down to the catch basin through the streets. It was designed according to engineering requirements. 14. Commissioner Woodard asked how the water gets to the detention area. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they had two options; put it in the detention basin or drain into the channel. Commissioner Woodard asked how the water would get from the street to the catch basin and would it have to flow through Lot 1? Mr. Bill Fitch, engineer for the project, stated the water would be picked up at the end of the cul-de-sac, take it along the easement to the detention basin. It is not shown on the plans as they were not designed that far. If the storm water exceeds the detention basin top, it will be taken to the Bear Creek Channel. 15. Commissioner Woodard stated he would be recommending an 15-foot landscape lot on each side of the main entrance and would this affect Lots 15 and 16 negatively. Mr. Fitch stated a 15-foot easement would be excessive. Commissioners discussed with staff and the applicant regarding the distance from the curb to the wall to the house. Following discussion, Mr. Murphy stated he would have no objection to a 12-foot landscape lot. 16. Commissioner Butler explained that in his opinion eight feet might be enough to develop a landscape entrance. 17. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. 18. Mr. Joe Daniels, 51-315 Avenida Juarez, stated his house was directly across from proposed Lot 1. In conversations with the builders, it was stated that before putting up homes, they would use sight poles to determine the view PC3-25-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 that would be blocked by the new homes. If the property lines are moved it will affect his home. In addition, he was concerned about the fence that will be put along the Bear Creek Channel; what is the height and location of the fence. If a wall is built along the CVWD service road, the wall could be 16 feet above his ground level. Developer has not stated where the houses will be built, and according to the pads they are acceptable; is there a way to require the pads stay as they are planned? 19. Commissioner Butler asked Mr. Daniels to identify his house. Mr. Daniels stated his home was located on Lots 4 and 5 on Avenida Juarez. 20. Commissioner Woodard stated Mr. Daniel's home was across from the retention basin and would not have a house constructed across from him. 21. Commissioner Tyler stated it was the pad locations that the Commission was approving. Mr. Daniels stated if that was true, it was acceptable to him. 22. Commissioner Woodard explained the pad locations and asked staff to explain the service road to the rear of the lots. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained that the lot is two feet lower than the elevation of the road and the wall would be on the pad height not the elevation of the road. This would be approximately four feet above the road. The wall is on the property line and would extend approximately two feet above the road and will be sloped. 23. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that this property is designated and zoned Medium Density Residential (four to eight units per acre). However, there is an urgency ordinance in affect that does not expire until September regarding height standards. Staff will be bringing a redesignation of this property to be compatible with the Cove requirements to the Commission prior to that time. 24. Commissioner Woodard asked if the ten foot requirement from the wall to the house, is this same requirements for Lots 1, 19 and 18, and if the new homes could be constructed ten feet away from the rear property line. Staff stated the minimum rear yard setback requirement is ten feet for the Cove. Staff stated that due to the configuration of the adjacent homes, will not be built within ten feet of the adjoining lot. PC3-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 25. Mr. Edward Armendarez, 51-800 Montezuma, stated he did not receive any notice of the meeting. His concern was to see that the height restriction stays at 17-feet. In addition, he asked if anyone considered restricting the sodium lights in the cove. Staff stated they are not permitted in the City, however the existing lights were grandfathered in at the time the ordinance was passed. 26. Mr. Clayton Russell, stated he was constructing a home at 51-715 Avenida Montezuma, and he was concerned about his view. The landscaping and trees presently being planted will eventually block his view. He would like the City to pass a landscape sight easement to protect his view. He was not concerned with the wall as it would enhance the quality of the project. 27. Mr. Mike Wales, 52-870 Montezuma, asked that careful consideration be given to the perimeter wall as it may be creating a nuisance area. 28. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. 29. Commissioner Tyler asked that a condition be added to state that the maximum height of the homes would be 17-feet. Condition #63 be amended to add, "...landscaping, including the perimeter landscaping..." Commissioner Butler stated his concern that the Bike Path is an already approved landscape area and it is included. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the bike path landscaping maintenance would be grandfathered into the landscaping district. 30. Commissioner Tyler asked if Lot A going across the bike path needed to be clarified in the conditions. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated Condition #41.(1). required the easement. Community Development Director Jerry Herman added that Condition 41 also needed to be amended to require the 10 foot median requirement be changed to 4-feet and 59-feet become 46-feet. 31. Commissioner Woodard asked that a new condition be added to require an easement to Lot 1 for the detention basin and that the entrance landscaping on Lot A be increased 12 feet. 32. Commissioner Butler asked that the sight poles be required. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that as this project is approved with the 17-foot high stipulation, there was no need. PC3-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 33. Commissioner Woodard stated that if he were building a home on a lot, the landscaping could eventually block the view. Can the landscaping heights be restrictive? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the city has no limitations on the height of the trees, or any landscaping height restrictions. 34. Commissioner Gardner stated there is a state-wide landscaping code being drafted and hopefully the City will adopt it. 35. There being no further comment it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 023 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 96-335 prepared for Tentative Tract 28409. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. 36. There being no further comment it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/ to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-024 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 28409, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Condition #4.1 - changing 59 feet to 46 feet and ten feet to four feet b. Condition 426 - deleting the words "buyer satisfaction" C. Condition #63 - add the wording "including perimeter landscaping" d. Condition#78 - be added restricting the building height to 17 feet and single story. e. Condition #81 - be added requiring an easement through Lot 1 to the detention basin. f. Condition #80 - be added requiring a landscaping lot along the entrance road be increased to 12 feet on each side. g. Condition #52 - be changed to require the wall and landscaping plans be approved by the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. PC3-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: Commissioner Tyler withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest as he is a member of the Soap Box Derby Committee. A. TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 97-137; a request of the Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby for approval of a one day Soap Box Derby Race and sign program to be held on April 5, 1997. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. 3. Ms. Lucia Moran, applicant, showed a sample of the directional sign of the event and gave a review of the contest. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked if the cars are all bought from the same place. Ms. Moran explained that the kits must be bought from the franchise which governs the cars restrictions. 5. There being no further comment it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 97-002 approving Temporary Use Permit 97-137, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval. Unanimously approved. Commissioner Tyler rejoined the meeting. B. SIGN APPLICATION 97-375; a request of Wells Fargo Bank for approval of a new sign and deviation to the approved sign program for the bank mini -branch located in the Albertson's Supermarket. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. PC3-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked if the other signs in the area were individually mounted letters. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated staff was requiring individual letters for compatibility with the remainder of the shopping center. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify Attachment 1. Staff stated it was the floor plan for the mini -branch. 5. Commissioner Butler asked if the individual letters were used, would they still be able to use the stagecoach logo. Staff suggested that be answered by the applicant. 6. Commissioner Gardner stated that Von's Shopping Center has the Wells Fargo mini -branch without any signs. Why is a sign needed here? Staff stated it is up to the Commission to determine the need for a sign. The mini - branch located within the Von's store is small with an ATM machine on -site. This site is planned to be a manned site with an office and counter. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if this was taking the place of the branch office located at Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive which is closing. 8. Mr. George Hellerich, sign company representing Wells Fargo, stated their problem with the staff s recommendation. If they go with 8-inch letters the sign would be 18' feet long and staff s recommendation is to keep the 13-foot length. The City's 75% Rule would allow 21 linear feet. If they are allowed the 21-feet, they could go with 18-inch letters. They do not use the stagecoach with the individual letters. If they use 15-inch letters the sign would be 15 feet. 9. Commissioner Woodard asked the height of the Albertson's sign. Staff stated they were four to five feet high. If the applicant was willing to have letters as small as on the cabinet sign, they could leave the letter size the same as shown, and make then individually illuminated letters. Discussion followed regarding the sign size. 10. Commissioner Woodard stated he would prefer the 15-inch individual letters. 11. Commissioners Tyler and Newkirk stated they would prefer the 18-inch letters. PC3-25-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 12. Commissioner Gardner stated they had denied the Pharmacy and other signs and now allowing the Wells Fargo sign. Staff stated the signs had been denied because it was determined that signs displayed the products that were sold there. If a sign was requested to distinguish another business within the store, it would be allowed. When McDonalds went into Wa1Mart a sign was approved by the Commission. 13. Commissioner Butler stated he had no objection to the sign but was uncertain as to whether the 15 or 18-inch should be required. 14. Commissioner Woodard stated he shared the concern raised by Commissioner Gardner, as he would assume that as food is sold, signs would not be needed to identify the products. However, he would not assume that a bank would be inside. He would therefore approve of the sign and would go along with the 18-inch letters. 15. There being no further comment it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Newkirk to adopt Minute Motion 97-003 approving Sign Application 97-375, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended by staff and as modified: a. Individual letters be 18-inch in height and 21-feet in length, with the stagecoach logo being deleted; and b. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS. A. Commissioner Woodard stated that while attending the League of California Cities Conference he had spoken with several of those attending regarding study sessions and each time he was informed that they were holding study session. He would therefore, like to see the City's policy regarding study sessions be reinstated. Chairman Abels stated that a discussion would need to be held with the City Attorney to explain what the other cities are doing regarding study sessions. Community PC3-25-97 10 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that it was the decision of the City Council not the City Attorney. The City Attorney has indicated that study sessions can be held for items that are not public hearing items. Discussion followed as to a possible solution. B. Commissioner Gardner requested staff notify the City Council of their appreciation for allowing them to attend the League of California Cities Conference and see that they receive a copy of their reports. C. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of February 18, 1997. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on April 8, 1997, at 7:00 p.m.. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:03 P.M. on March 25, 1997. PC3-25-97 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: April 8, 1997 CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit 96-032 APPLICANT: Kay and Fred Wolff REQUEST: Approval to use an existing detached guest room as a one bed and breakfast unit in conjunction with single family residence. LOCATION: 77-227 Calle Ensenada ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined this Conditional Use Permit is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 of the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) ZONING: RC - Cove Residential District BACKGROUND: SITE DESCRIPTION The site is a single family lot in the Cove area of La Quinta (Attachment 1). The lot is on the south side of Calle Ensenada between Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Madero. The Bear Creek Storm Channel runs adjacent to the west side of the site, with residences to the north and east. The lot to the south is vacant. The site has approximately 190 feet of frontage on Calle Ensenada and 71 feet of frontage on Avenida Madero. A small piece of land was added to the west end of the site in 1996 when a portion of Avenida Montezuma was vacated due to construction of the storm channel. The site is developed with a pueblo style residence with approximately 1920 square feet of floor area and an attached two car garage facing Avenida Madero. The detached guest room, that is proposed to be used for the bed and breakfast inn, contains approximately 300 square feet and consists of a bedroom, closet, and bath. The rear yard contains a swimming pool and spa that is completely walled off. The site is landscaped with native and drought resistant planting. pccup96032 PROPOSAL The applicants propose to use the detached guest room for a bed and breakfast inn with parking provided on the driveway of the residence. Access to the unit, which is located to the west of the main residence, will be through the back yard. The traditional breakfast will be provided as part of the overnight stay. Guests are expected four to six times a month, with the average stay of one to two nights. PUBLIC NOTICE This case was advertised in the Desert Sun on March 17, 1997. All property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the project were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. To date, no comments have been received regarding this project. All correspondence received after this writing will be given to the Planning Commission at the meeting. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE: Issue 1 - General Plan/Zoning Code Consistency This project site is designated Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwellings per acre) by the General Plan. The Zoning Code designates it as RC (Cove Residential District) with a minimum lot size requirement of 7200 square feet, which this lot exceeds. Bed and Breakfast Inns are permitted in the RC zone district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Code provides specific development standards for bed and breakfast inns (Attachment 2). The proposed use complies with the standards as follows: 1. The unit will not contain cooking facilities. 2. The parking required is 1.1 spaces plus 2 spaces for the residential unit. The driveway which holds two cars will be used for guest parking and a two car garage exists. 3. No physical changes are proposed to provide the bed and breakfast inn. The unit will be 300 square feet, exceeding the required 100 square feet and not exceeding 25% of the main residence. 4. No other bed and breakfast uses exist within 300 feet of the site. 5. Signs, if used, will not exceed two square feet. REQUIRED FINDINGS_ The findings necessary to approve this Conditional Use Permit specific to a bed and breakfast use are as follows: pccup96032 The property is physically suitable for use as a bed and breakfast facility in that the proposed one unit will be in an existing detached guest unit and no further construction or modifications will be necessary. 2. The use of the property as a bed and breakfast facility will not cause an undue burden on adjacent and nearby property owners in that the small size (one unit) of the inn will ensure that impacts (e.g. traffic, parking, and noise) will be minimum. General findings for approval are as follows: 1. Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Code: This project site is designated Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwellings per acre) by the General Plan. The Zoning Code designates it as RC (Cove Residential District) with a minimum lot size requirement of 7200 square feet, which this lot exceeds. Bed and Breakfast Inns are permitted in the RC zone district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Compliance with CEQA: The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined this Conditional Use Permit to be categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 of the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Surrounding Uses: The one unit bed and breakfast facility will be compatible with surrounding uses in that it will have minimal impacts since only one vehicle with two persons will visit the site at any time.. The use will be similar to having non-paying guests visiting. Therefore, the use will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare or injurious or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. CONCLUSION: The findings necessary to approve this Conditional Use Permit can be made. The one unit facility will have negligible impacts on the surrounding properties. (RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 97-_, approving Conditional Use Permit 96-032, to allow a one unit bed and breakfast facility, subject to findings and Conditions of Approval as attached. pccup96032 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Bed and Breakfast Regulations 3. Plans and Exhibits (large copies for Planning Commission only) Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager pccup96032 RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BED AND BREAKFAST INN CONSISTING OF ONE UNIT CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-032 APPLICANTS: KAY AND FRED WOLFF WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8th day of April, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Kay and Fred Wolff for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a bed and breakfast inn consisting of one unit in the RC zone located at 77-227 Calle Ensenada, more particularly described as: A.P.N. 773-243-004 WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the Community Development Department has determined this Conditional Use Permit request is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 of the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: A. The property is physically suitable for use as a bed and breakfast facility in that the proposed one unit will be in an existing detached guest unit and no further construction or modifications will be necessary. B. The use of the property as a bed and breakfast facility will not cause an undue burden on adjacent and nearby property owners in that the small size (one unit) of the inn will ensure that impacts (e.g. traffic, parking, and noise) will be minimum. C. This project site is designated Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwellings per acre) by the General Plan. The Zoning Code designates the site as RC (Cove Residential District) with a minimum lot size requirement of 7200 square feet, which this lot exceeds. Bed and Breakfast Inns are permitted in the RC zone district with approval perescup96032 Resolution 97- of a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. D. The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined this Conditional Use Permit is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 of the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. E. The one unit bed and breakfast inn will be compatible with surrounding uses in that it will have minimal impacts since only one vehicle with two persons will visit the site at any time. The use will be similar to having non-paying guests visiting. Therefore, the use will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. WHEREAS, in the review of this Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 96-032 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 8th day of April, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: perescup96032 Resolution 97- JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California perescup96032 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-032 KAY AND FRED WOLFF APRIL 8, 1997 GENERAL CONDITIONS The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Conditional Use Permit 96-032, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be used within two years of the date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the establishing of the bed and breakfast inn. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080D. 3. Vehicles belonging to the patrons shall be parked in the driveway or garage of the main residence. 4. The use shall comply with all applicable requirements of Municipal Code Section 9.60.280 (Bed and Breakfast Regulations). FIRE MARSHAL 5. Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but no less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. pcconcup96032 ATTAOT •- v - c - V w 6-4 $r to C to @ ® /4 t `s O ® ON C L a \is - I CALLS ' • — ENSEHADA \O/ O ,/ �e N i +L. s CASE MAP NORTH CASE No. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-032 SCALE: KAY AND FRED WOLFF NTS ATTACHMENT I 9.60: SUPPLEMENTAL RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS isily bonus, or (b) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. However, nothing this-svction shall be construed to require the City to approve a proposal to convert irtments to dominiums. 2. quivalent Financial Yale. For purposes of this Section "other incentives of equivalent financial value" shall not be�c Zstrued to require the City to provide cash transfer payments r other monetary compensation bqt may include the reduction or waiver of requirements hich the City might otherwise appp as conditions of conversion approval under the rocedures of Section 9.60.260 of this Code:, 3. onditions of Approval. The City may place such reasonable conditions on the granting of a nsity bonus or other incentives of equivalent financial value as it finds appropriate 4. 1 eligiblity. An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus oT other incentives under this S ction if the apartments proposed for conversion constitute a house development for which a lensity bonus or other incentives were provided under Paragraphs B. diind,C. of this Section. 5. P ocedures. Procedures for review of condominium conversions with affordable nits shall be -e n nrM n fiection-9.60.260 as well as Paragrap o is e ' r-- 4 9.60.280 Bed and Breakfast Regulations A. Purpose. The City Council finds that bed and breakfast facilities constitute small commercial lodging facilities in residential districts. This requires special regulations that are not normally covered by standards for motels and hotels. B. Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions shall apply: 1. "Bed and Breakfast" means a residential dwelling occupied by a resident, person, or family, containing individual living quarters occupied for a transient basis for compensation and in which a breakfast may be provided to guests. The breakfast provided shall not constitute a restaurant operation and may not be provided to persons other than guests of the Inn. 2. "Transient" means boarding or lodging shall be limited to a maximum of fourteen nights per visit. C. Limits on Occupancy. 1. The bed and breakfast shall be conducted only by a person owning the dwelling and residing therein as their principle place of residence. The use permit shall be voided upon the sale or transfer of the property ownership. 60-30 9.60: SUPPLEMENTAL RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS 2. The bed and breakfast shall accommodate a maximum of eight guests in four rooms. D. Where Permitted. 1. Bed and breakfast are permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit only in residential zoning districts. E. Development Standards. 1. Individual units shall not contain cooking facilities. 2. Parking shall be provided on -site, in accordance with Chapter 9.150: Parking. 3. No change in the outside structure is permitted and any change inside must be convertible to the original residential use. A minimum of 100 square feet is required for each sleeping room and not more than 25% of the structure can be used for rental. 4. Landscaping may be required to screen parking areas from the view of adjacent properties and from public/private streets. 5. Locating another bed and breakfast use within 300-feet is prohibited. 6. Signs shall not exceed two square feet attached to the house. F. Required Finding. In addition to the requirements for findings of fact as established by California law or other provisions of this Code, the approval of a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast shall require the following additional findings: 1. The property is physically suitable for use as a bed and breakfast facility; 2. The use of the property as a bed and breakfast will not cause an undue burden on adjacent and nearby property owners. G. Transient Occupancy Tax. Bed and breakfast facilities shall be subject to all applicable provisions of Chapter 3.24 of the Municipal Code. A Purpose. The City Cpdncil finds that timeshare facilities constitute a commercial hotel use. Du to the mixed method ooperation, hybrid ownership, the potential generation of large numbers of peo le and vehicles, the potential impact on the tourism -related facilities in the City, special dev opment criter' are warranted. Also, this Section is intended to establish criteria by which time hare facilit: will function as hotels/motels. Any conversion of an existing facility to timeshare use ill be re4uired to meet the same standards as new facilities. 60-31 . 1 I dopu i aVVb F I t ao�c� fix � AT PORTION O 061-0 li room) AT y s ty ,a4 �l y % v - `� �� � ta, r � Ilk - Aft _ R 1t i71 . s e 75 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 8, 1997 CASE NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-033 AND PARCEL MERGER 97- 318 REQUESTS: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED SECONDARY (GRANNY) UNIT AND CARPORT STRUCTURE ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND MERGER OF TWO PARCELS (2.5 LOTS) INTO ONE PARCEL LOCATION: 49-080 EISENHOWER DRIVE FRONTAGE ROAD (LA QUINTA GOLF ESTATES) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: MR. THOMAS N. DODD (TRUSTEE OF THE THOMAS N. DODD TRUST) REP: WISE MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION CO. (MR. E. G. WISE) ARCHITECT: MR. WILLIAM E. SEXTON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTIONS 15303 (CLASS 3) AND 15305 (CLASS 5) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT BECAUSE THE NEW UNIT IS ACCESSORY TO THE MAIN DWELLING AND LOT LINES ARE BEING ADJUSTED. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC.) AND RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) BACKGROUND: The site is located approximately 261 feet south of Coachella Drive in the La Quinta Golf Estates on the Eisenhower Drive frontage street, a private two-lane street that runs parallel to Eisenhower Drive. The La Quinta Golf Estates development was approved by the County of Riverside in the late 1950's for 155 single family lots (Tract Unit No. 1). Portions STPCCUP33-13, RESOPC033-13, CONDCUP033-13 1 of this private custom home development are located on the existing La Quinta Country Club golf course (See Attachments 1 and 2). The streets within the Tract are improved. The existing one story house is 3,528 square feet in size and centered on the 107-foot wide by 110-foot deep lot (Lot 111) with a three -car garage and circular driveway. The house is approximately 10 years old. The house is flat roofed with large stucco fascias with the center of the house having a pyramid -shaped tile roof. Mr. Dodd purchased this property in 1990. The houses in this development are larger than 2,000 square feet as required by the CC and R's for this Tract. Many of the lots abutting this site are developed with single family houses. Proiect Request Mr. Dodd has requested approval of a detached secondary unit to be built on the adjacent property recently acquired to the north of his house (i.e., Lot 110 and portions of Lot 109). The new unit proposed is approximately 1,058 square feet and placed 20-feet from the street property line and includes two bedrooms, living room, bathrooms and kitchen. The new unit is one story (13-feet) in height with stucco exterior surfaces. A carport structure is attached with access to the Eisenhower Drive frontage road. A large -covered patio overhangs the front porch (24' wide by 10' deep). Privacy walls will be built to enclose the project (i.e., 6' high masonry block walls). The common wall between the existing house and the new unit will be removed. The secondary unit is being built for the owner's relatives who are more than 62 years of age (Attachment 3). In addition to development of the new secondary unit, the applicant is requesting the merger of 2.5 lots into one lot under Parcel Merger 97-318. The new lot measures approximately 252-feet wide (frontage) by 110-feet deep or 0.6-acres. Public A-gency Review/Public Notice The development request was sent to all appropriate public agencies for review and comment. All written correspondence received is on file in the Community Development Department. The development request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 17, 1997. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance under Section 9.200.110 (minimum 20 day notice). To date, no comments have been received. The Architectural Committee for the La Quinta Golf Estates has reviewed the plans and determined that the new improvements meet their governing documents, etc. Their letter of February 3, 1997, is on file in the Community Development Department. STPCCUP33-13, RESOPC033-1.3, CONDCUP033-13 2 Environmental Assessment Pursuant to Sections 15303 (Class 3(a)) and 15305 (Class 5(a)) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is categorically exempt from further environmental review because the new residence is an accessary unit to the main dwelling and property lines are being adjusted. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 13) the following overview of the project is provided: Issue 1 - General Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Ordinance Consistency The City's General Plan designates the site as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre) which allows single family housing (e.g., attached or detached). The proposed single family development is consistent with the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance sets forth development standards for second residential units. This project, when the parcels are merged, will comply with the RL District requirements and those defined under Chapter 9.60. The attached Resolution identifies the required Findings needed to approve the request as outlined under Section 9.210.020 (CUP) of the Zoning Ordinance. The parcel merger request is consistent with City requirements because the newly created parcel will not conflict with the location of the existing home nor deprive access to adjoining properties. Additionally, no new off -site infrastructure improvements are necessary for development of the property. The recommended Conditions will ensure that all on -site work is consistent with City standards. The new Grant Deed with exhibits shall be recorded with the County of Riverside to be considered final. Issue 2 - Compatibility Review With regards to architectural compatibility, the new unit is required to be compatible with the main dwelling and the "surrounding neighborhood in terms of landscaping, scale, height, bulk, lot coverage and exterior appearance" based on Section 9.60.090 of the Zoning Code. The applicant's plans are compatible with the existing house and neighboring houses for the following reasons: 1. The RL Zoning Code standards are being met with the placement of the house on the lot. Also, many of the property owners in this development have detached living quarters for guests or servant quarters, but most do not have kitchens. The new unit will not be highly visible from the street because it is placed behind a six- foot high masonry wall which matches the existing homes walls. The new unit is not greater than 1,200 square feet as required. STPCCUP33-13, RESOPC033-1.3, CONDCUP033-13 3 2. The flat roofed unit is similar in design to the existing house. The architectural style of the second unit is typical for desert type dwellings with its low profile design elements. 3. The house is oriented to take advantage of the common open space area between each dwelling unit (i.e., Lot 110) with the living room and bedrooms facing this area. Fencing of the yard areas is also proposed for privacy. Privacy fencing of six -feet is used within the project for security (or privacy) and to enclose the existing pool and spa in the backyard of the primary residence. 4. Parking for this project complies with Chapter 9.60 in that the main house has a three -car garage and the second unit will have a two -car carport which exceeds the minimum number of parking spaces required for this type of proposal (e.g., a two - car garage for the main unit plus one enclosed or open parking space). The carport is slanted at a 45-degree angle to the street to reduce its visibility. A wall on the west side of the carport structure is also proposed to eliminate the interior view of the parking area to south bound traffic. Issue 3 - Health and Safety Concerns All necessary infrastructure improvements for this project are either installed or will be constructed as required by the attached Conditions. No health and safety concerns are known or will be created by the approval of this second dwelling unit or merger of parcels as described. Staff Comments The houses in this gated development are large and follow traditional site plan characteristics with houses placed 20-feet from the street and backyards geared for recreation purposes. The houses in this development generally have front- or side -loaded garages. Carports are not typical to this development. To reduce the inside view of the carport structure from the Eisenhower Drive frontage road, staff recommends a landscaping hedge be installed along the south side of the concrete driveway (Condition 9). The carport structure will not be readily visible from Eisenhower Drive because of the existing 6' high slumpstone masonry screen wall along the perimeter of the Tract. CONCLUSION: The property owner's request conforms to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in areas such as use, height, setbacks, lot coverage, architecture and other pertinent requirements. The construction proposed by the Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Merger applications, as Conditioned, are consistent with the existing houses in this gated development. STPCCUP33-13, RESOPC033-13, CONDCUP033-13 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-_, approving Conditional Use Permit 97-033 permitting construction of a new detached secondary unit for persons 62 years of age or older with carport structure, subject to Findings and Conditions. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- , approving Parcel Merger 97-318 permitting the consolidation of two parcels into one lot, subject to Findings and Conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Assessor's Parcel Map Exhibit 3. Site Plan (Reduced) 4. Large Exhibits - Commission Only Prepared by: Greg"T sd°ell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning, Manager STPCCUP33-13, RESOPC033-13, CONDCUP333-13 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-033 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR PERSONS OF 62 YEARS OR OLDER OR OF ANY AGE IF THEY HAVE DISABILITIES CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-033 APPLICANT: MR. THOMAS N. DODD WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the a day of April, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Mr. Thomas N. Dodd to built a detached second residential unit for two senior citizens who are related to the owner at 49-080 Eisenhower Drive on 0.6-acres, more particularly described as: Lots 110 and 111 and portions of Lot 109 (La Quinta Golf Estates No. 1); APN: 631-341-008 and 023 WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15303 (Class 3(a)) which permits secondary residential units in conjunction with the main dwelling; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval for said Conditional Use Permit as follows: A. The proposed house is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. The property is designated Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) by the General Plan and RL by the Zoning Ordinance. Detached single family houses serving the main dwelling unit are consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided Conditions are met. The one-story house is designed for persons of more than 62 years of age and will meet the minimum City requirements and be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code (Chapters 9.30-9.60) at the time building permits are acquired. The second residential unit is placed 20-feet from the front property line. This setback distance from the street conforms with RL Zone District requirements and RP.SOPC033-13, STRPPC033-13 the other adjacent houses. Many of the property owners in this development have detached living quarters for guests or servant quarters. The new unit will not be visible from the street because it is placed behind a six-foot high masonry wall which matches the existing home. The new unit is not greater than 1,200 square feet as required. Parking for this project complies with Chapter 9.60 because the main house has a three -car garage and the second unit will have a two -car carport which exceeds the minimum number of parking spaces required for this type of proposal (e.g., a two - car garage for the main unit plus one enclosed or open parking space). B. The new second unit is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed request to build a detached house is consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303(a) which permit accessory units to be built to serve the main dwelling unit. Therefore, no mitigation fees and environmental studies were required of the applicant. C. The architectural design of the new unit is consistent with the main house and other projects in the vicinity. The architectural style of the second unit is similar in design to the primary dwelling it serves. Therefore, Conditions are recommended to ensure the house is built to current Code standards when constructed. D. The site design of the secondary unit is compatible with surrounding areas and includes prevalent site features. The house is oriented to take advantage of the common open space area between each dwelling unit (i.e., Lot 110). This large area, approximately 12,000 sq. ft., will be landscaped. The new unit's living room and bedrooms are oriented to take advantage of this area. Fencing of the yard areas is also proposed for privacy. Privacy fencing of six -feet is used within the project for security (or privacy) and to enclose the existing pool and spa in the backyard of the main dwelling. No special Conditions are required. E. The site landscaping will complement the proposed buildings and create a unifying influence for the community. The new unit will have front yard landscaping which will include trees, shrubs and groundcover with on -site irrigation. The landscaping improvements will be similar to adjacent main dwelling unit, and be approved by the Community Development RESOPC033-13, STRPPC033-13 2 Department prior to installation. The carport is situated at a 45-degree angle to the street to reduce its visibility. A wall on the west side of the carport structure is also proposed to eliminate the interior view of the parking area to south bound traffic. A landscaping hedge shall be installed along the south side of the concrete driveway to reduce the inside view of the carport structure from the street. WHEREAS, in the review of this Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Conditional Use Permit 97-033 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 8' day of April, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California STPCCUP33-13, RESOPC033-13, CONAPL -7 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-033 MR. THOMAS N. DODD APRIL 8, 1997 CONDITIONS: The Conditional Use Permit shall be used by April 8, 1999, otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The development of this site shall conform with the exhibits contained in the files with the Community Development Department unless amended by Conditions contained herein. Prior to the issuance of a BuildinPermit, ermit, the applicant shall comply with the following Conditions: 3. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met during building permit plan check approval. 4. The final construction drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Building and Safety Department using all current local and State building code requirements in effect. 5. The applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: (1) Coachella Valley Water District, (2) Imperial Irrigation District, and (3) Desert Sands Unified School District. 6. The property owner shall sign and execute a covenant and/or agreement restricting the use of the new living quarters to persons 62 years or age or older or those with disabilities pursuant to Section 9.60.090 (Second Residential Units) of the Zoning Ordinance. The signed agreement shall be recorded with the County of Riverside and it shall run with the property title. A copy of the recorded document shall be on file with the Community Development Department. The second residential unit may be rented to persons as noted above but not sold separately from the main dwelling unit. 7. Pedestrian gates leading into the side and back yards shall be wrought iron or tubular metal. Pedestrian gates shall not exceed 48 inch widths unless located in a sideyard of 12'-0" wide or larger (Section 9.160.030 (D2)). CONDCUP033-13/RESOPC.033-13 8. The proposed landscape/irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval after being approved by the Coachella Valley Water District, Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner and La Quinta Golf Estates Homeowners Association. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all landscaping in a healthy and viable condition. 9. Front yard landscaping shall include lawn (or groundcover) and a minimum of 40 shrubs (i.e., 5-gallon or larger) planted along the west side of the 6' high privacy wall and carport structure, and along the south side of the concrete driveway (e.g., 3' o.c.). The height of the landscape hedge along the south side of the driveway shall not exceed 36-inches to ensure site visibility when backing out of the driveway onto the private street. Lawn areas for front yards shall be either Hybrid Bermuda (Summer) or Hybrid Bermuda/Rye (Winter) depending upon the season when it is installed. Landscape improvements shall be installed before final occupancy of the house. 10. The concrete driveways shall include expansion joints and a broom finish (or better) texture. 11. The six-foot high decorative masonry wall along the frontage of the property shall be constructed to match the existing privacy walls constructed around the perimeter of the main residence (i.e., masonry with stucco texture). 12. Plaster surrounds shall be added to all windows using 2" by 4" lumber (or appropriate substitute material) for construction purposes. The second unit shall be painted to match the existing main residence. CONDCUP33-13 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITE( OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MERGER 97-318 TO ALLOW THE CONSOLIDATION OF 2.5 LOTS INTO ONE PARCEL CASE NO.: PARCEL MERGER 97-318 APPLICANT: MR. THOMAS N. DODD WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8"' day of April, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Mr. Thomas N. Dodd to consolidate 2.5 lots into one parcel to build a detached secondary residential unit for two senior citizens at 49-080 Eisenhower Drive on 0.6-acres, more particularly described as: Lots 110 and 111 and portions of Lot 109 (La Quinta Golf Estates No. 1); APN: 631-341-008 and 023 WHEREAS, said Parcel Merger has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15305, Class 5(A), which permits minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcels for properties with average slopes of less than 20 percent; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Findings to justify approval of said Parcel Merger, as fol0ows: A. The merger complies with the standards specified in Section 13.36.030 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The merger of the south -half of Lot 109 with Lot 110 in 1995 should have been approved by the City of La Quinta. Therefore, this parcel merger request will rectify this problem and the newly created lot will comply with existing Subdivision Ordinance requirements. B. The parcel will be consistent with the zoning of the property. The site is fully improved with infrastructure improvements. The property is designated Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) by the General Plan and RL by the Zoning Ordinance. The new lot is over a half acre in size and therefore exceeds the minimum lot size requirements of the RL District. The RFSOPM318-13, CONDPM318-13 Planning Commission Resolution 97- location of the existing house will not be adversely affected by the creation of the new lot. C. The parcel will not conflict with the location of existing structures on the property. The placement of the existing house on the newly created parcel will be in compliance with the existing RL Zoning District standards. No inconsistencies are found. D. The parcel will not be deprived of adequate access as a result of the merger. The newly created parcel will have direct access to the Eisenhower Drive frontage road, a dedicated private street in the Golf Estates development. E. Access to adjoining properties will not be restricted as a result of the merger. All adjacent properties have access to existing private streets within this gated development. Therefore, access through this property is not required. F. No new lot lines are created by the merger. The owner is consolidating lots into one parcel to build a detached second residential unit. The number of lots created will be less than exists presently. WHEREAS, in the review of this Parcel Merger, the Planning Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Parcel Merger 97-318 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 81 day of April, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: RESOPh4318-13, CONDPW 18-13 Planning Commission Resolution 97- NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California STPCCUP33-13, USOPC033-13, CONAPL -7 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PARCEL MERGER 97-318 MR. THOMAS N. DODD APRIL 8, 1997 CONDITIONS: Prior to building permit issuance for the resulting lot, the applicant shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 13.36 of the Subdivision Ordinance which includes having the final Grant Deed and Exhibits recorded at the Riverside County Recorder's Office. CONDPM318-13/RESOPM318-13 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATION MAP LA QUINTA RESORT & CLUB o m 0 p m0C3 o ® om m '33Um e\@ om m o p m B 'ao m ® e C3 Case: CUP 97-033 (Dodd) 25-'0-' --:ATTACHMENT 2 �_ 34 T. C. A. Y 020- 0003 � 32 O 9 6p C\ �4 Y9-a/ 0 C 04 6 � 107 o%�ior r I rrA 020 -003 ° f�'er. /23 O m ion °� Y9--�o y— 2.aAC 9 'QiF, 08 /�Y/24 yo o << /22 0 b° b° /32 125 /2/ o O' //0 boo y'�P�,� 126 ,v O I120Ilk- °" ro /// g Yy-aa�w /30 IN 60 /27 Or 37 W `l Q-d Ba Y '`.�� �-W. O b `t. . . Q a7s' Q a`y Y * ` c YQ uo //9 = �., w d 0. /29 o� g //2 /28 A I e YQ 3 //8 FI •�`'o a ti R: 20 6-98- La OuiMo Go/f I I a Y 57-/3 Estates na / I //4 //7 V. New a$4 Ae. t D< /e i9 I l W -3/s r 34/-20 ° I I a. sc'sa+s w M. Bg 1016•W. u si I$ q4 - 39y y9 3a'• 116 115 Data: G. L O. i /6 C 4 0 rreG ee.e9 T �ftJ 82. 3/ W •r 8 o AVENIDA FERNANDO cos c 245.oO _ APR. 1967 a q h q I= 4 !: a dONPH�tIIM^I 'y,n0�p0 a-1 70 •Awe"wQ zm a wa * e eve` v w c to z ATTAC,,mENT 3 A suaoT House FOR wawrmuta� � PLAN —r5 N. PWP - ' �■�.. ■� J'SITE -.LA- GUTNTA, CAUFORIGA ,..�. LL""" ~ � .........r +3 , „�,N � ns 9sn DATE: CASE NOS.: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 8, 1997 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-602 REQUESTS: (1) APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 17-ACRES INTO 69 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON AMENITY LOTS, AND (2) APPROVAL OF PROTOTYPE HOUSES WHICH RANGE IN SIZE FROM APPROXIMATELY 2,203 TO OVER 3,000 SQUARE FEET (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW) LOCATION: GENERALLY 560-FEET SOUTH OF PGA BOULEVARD ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF CEDAR CREST, SOUTH OF RIVIERA ALONG THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF MEDINAH, SOUTH OF MERION ALONG THE WEST SIDES OF INTERLACHEN AND COLONIAL (ATTACHMENT 1) APPLICANT: MC COMIC CONSOLIDATED, INCORPORATED (R. GEOFFREY MC COMIC, PROJECT MANAGER) PROPERTY OWNER: SEOKTOP/MC COMIC, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THESE APPLICATIONS ARE FOR A SITE THAT IS PART OF THE PGA WEST RESORT, AND HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 65457(A) OF PLANNING AND ZONING LAW BECAUSE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR THE "PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN" AND CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 1, 1984. THE EIR DOCUMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED BY THE COUNCIL IN 1988. THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. STPC41000NT-13 1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ZONING/ SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND SPECIFIC PLAN RESIDENTIAL PER SP 83-002 (AMENDMENT #3) BACKGROUND: Written Request On April 2, 1997, staff received a letter from Mr. Mc Comic requesting a two -week continuation of his development applications so that additional architectural materials can be submitted to the Community Development Department (Attachment 2). RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopted Minute Motion 97- , continuing the public hearing for Tentative Tract Map 28410 and Site Development Permit 97-602 to April 22, 1997. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Letter from Mr. Mc Comic by: 01 t II, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager STPC41000NT-13 2 PGA WEST RESORT LOCATION MAP 52NO AVENUE 54TH AVENUE ATTACHMENT 1 � 20 59 Tj+ Mr. 1 WC1Nfl YAWAP NOT TO SCALE AIRPORT BL VO. CASES: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28410 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-602 O 2 aa?-31-1997 :5:43 '1CCOMIC C9N3CLIDRT2D, INC p.02 •-_•.�... �: %-unsoilaate`t, in e, April 1, 1997 Greg Trousdell City of La Quints 78495 Cailc Tampico La Q:inta, Ca. Dear Greg: ATTACHMENT 2 , " 1997 U F� LiY JrNIING CSFA T'`.ENT I apologize for the delay in getting the material that you requested. Due to the delay, I am indeed going to need an extra 14 days. I would prefer that the commission and staff have the proper time to review the material. I will get the material to you by the end of the week, I hope this is not a problem. Sincerely, , 7 Ge?-cComic Project Manager 750 B Street, Suite 3140, San )Diego, CA 92101 +i► Phone: 619-557-9191 Fax: 919.64R.6tos4 TCTRL ?.a2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 8, 1997 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-590 - MODIFICATION REQUEST: APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS FOR PARCEL 1 OF TPM 28422, RELATING TO THE PUBLIC FUELING FACILITY FOR LAPIS ENERGY LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DUNE PALMS ROAD AND HIGHWAY 111 APPLICANT: LAPIS ENERGY ORGANIZATION / MR. JOHN GABBARD PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS APPLICANT DEVELOPER: SAME AS APPLICANT ENGINEER: V/S ASSOCIATES (MR. ROBERT C. VATCHER) ARCHITECT: MR. LEWIS BISHOP • On February 4, 1997, the La Quinta City Council approved Site Development Permit 96-590, one of four applications filed by the applicant for the referenced site. This approval was granted based on conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission; no changes were made at the Council level. Condition 80 (Attachment 1) of the Site Development Permit approval requires changes to the landscape areas of Parcels 1 and 2 in order to better define the on -site vehicular circulation between the two parcels. This condition allows the applicant to work with the Community Development Department to revise the circulation and landscape area layout. In addition, Condition 5 (Attachment 2) of the Specific Plan approval permits minor modifications to be approved without amendment to the puptrev.lap Specific Plan. As a result of some of these changes, additional modifications beyond the scope of this condition have been proposed by the applicant. Condition 84 (Attachment 3) of the Site Development Permit approval does allow certain other modifications specifically related to Parcel 1; the condition reads as follows: "84. Relocation/abandonment of the CNG island associated with Parcel 1 (convenience mart/service station) in order to relocate CNG facilities to that parcel's main pump islands shall not require amendment of this permit or the approvals granted under Specific Plan 96-028 or Conditional Use Permit 96- 029. Relocation or other modification to fueling facilities shall be subject to review as required by the Fire Marshal, and by the Community Development Department for method of addressing the abandoned space through the minor use permit or equivalent process in effect at the time." The applicant proposes the following modifications: 1. Relocate CNG pumps to main pump island and delete CNG canopy as shown on the approved site layout for Parcel 1; 2. Rotate the main pump island and canopy 90 degrees so that vehicles would enter east/west rather than north/south; 3. Move 800 square -foot equipment building to a location 10 feet from the east property line of the site, across from the main canopy. It was determined that items 2 and 3 could not be approved on a staff level based on the conditions of approval, and therefore it was determined that these modifications may result in significant project changes. As a result, those items are being referred back to the Commission for a decision, under Section 9.200.090. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES• Issue #1 - Layout Redesign The revised layout, as shown on Attachment 4, was created based on Condition 80 of the Site Development Permit approval, which allows staff to approve changes related to on -site landscape and paved areas for the purpose of improving the circulation pattern. Staff has worked with the applicant on this revision and it addresses the. previous concerns associated with the originally approved layout, shown on Attachment 5. The applicant has also proposed that the main fueling area canopy be rotated 90 degrees, and that the equipment building be relocated along the easterly property line. The applicant has indicated that they are re -positioning the main canopy 1) for better visibility of the pump islands from the mini -mart cashier paptrev.lap location, and 2) better access for fuel delivery to the underground storage tanks located south of the main canopy. This also serves to maintain an architectural balance between the canopy, equipment building, and mini -mart building because these roof pitch lines now face along the same orientation. Attachments 6 and 7 are the approved elevations for the referenced buildings. Attachment 8 is a color rendering of the site as approved, and is included to provide a reference for these changes. With the incorporation of the CNG pumps into the main canopy, the secondary CNG canopy is unnecessary, so the equipment building has been relocated to provide additional landscaped area at the interior of the site. This also allows better visibility within the site for vehicular traffic by placing this structure near the perimeter of the property. Staff does not have any concerns in regard to these changes. They do not affect the concept, intent or provisions of the project as originally approved. The main canopy change relates only to how it is oriented on its approved location. The proposed relocation of the equipment building places it parallel to the approved auto retail buildings, along the east property line and set back 10 feet. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Submitted by: tbr'istine di lorio, Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Approval Condition 5 of Specific Plan 96-028 2. Approval Condition 80 of Site Development Permit 96-590 3. Approval Condition 84 of Site Development Permit 96-590 4. Revised Layout for Parcels 1 and 2 5. Original Approved Layout for Parcels 1 and 2 6. Mini -mart and fueling canopy elevations as approved 7. Equipment building elevations as approved 8. Overview rendering of site area puptrev.lap ATTACHMENT 1 SP 96-028 CONDITION 500 square feet and it's required parking. Parcel 3 may not include counts for RV stalls. Total number of spaces required shall be 88; the document table shall contain all correct footage and include all correct number totals. C. Section 2.5.4 - This section shall discuss the actual distance from the Dune Palms Road/Highway 111 intersection to the Highway 111 access drive, as well as identify potential for permitting shared access with the easterly property, either via the Lapis access or another mutually agreeable alternative. Eliminate the discussion of the second Dune Palms access point in regard to full turn signalization; revise as right-in/right- out only. D. Section 2.7.2 - Add California Pepper tree species to the plant palette. E. Discussion on Page 9 of the 40 foot landscape reduction along Highway 111 shall be deleted. No reduction in the 50 foot landscape setback along Highway 111 shall be permitted which is not consistent with the provisions of the General Plan or this Specific Plan. F. The Specific Plan shall reference that deviations from the Zoning Code include the allowance of tandem parking for the auto retail use, location of parking spaces on or within three feet of any property line, potential reduction or elimination of requirement for 5% minimum interior landscaping for Parcel 3, and allowance for a reduction in parking requirements on Parcel 3. 5' Minor changes, as determined by the Community Development Director to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan, may be approved. Examples include modifications to landscaping materials and/or design, parking and circulation arrangements not involving reductions in required standards beyond those identified in the Specific Plan. Such changes may be approved on a staff -level basis and shall not constitute a requirement to amend the Specific Plan. Consideration for any modifications shall be requested In writing to the Director and submitted with appropriate graphic and/or textual documentation in order to make a determination on the request. 6. All aspects of this project (plan preparation, all construction phases, operations, etc.) shall be subject to and comply with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program and Negative Declaration (EA 96-328), as certified by the La Quinta City Council. 7. All applicable conditions of approval for SDP 96-590 shall be incorporated into the revised text for Specific Plan 96-028 in the appropriate sections. The revised Specific Plan document shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for compliance review at the time of initial building permit submittal. ATTACHMENT 2 SDP 96-590 CONDITION 81 City Council Resolution 97- 78. A comprehensive sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to establishment of any permanent signs for the project. Provisions of the sign program shall be in compliance with applicable sections of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code. Temporary signs may be established as deemed appropriate, pursuant to said Chapter, prior to approval of a sign program. 79. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened and installed using compatible architectural materials and treatments, in a manner so as not to be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. Method and design of screening must be approved by the Community Development Department prior to any issuance of building permits related to structures requiring such screening. (80.) The applicant shall redesign the on -site landscaping in the parking areas for Parcels 1 and 2 to create a better sense of traffic flow and accommodate pedestrian circulation, and to eliminate or reduce oversized and undefined paved areas. The applicant shall work with the Community Development Department to achieve such redesign, consistent with Section 9.150.080.D of the Zoning Code. 81. Establishment or conversion of any use authorized under this approval shall not occur unless the appropriate applications, as deemed required by the Community Development Department, have been filed for review and approval. 82. Applicant/Developer shall submit design details for the access gates proposed for the self -storage warehouse use at the time of submittal for a building permit. Clearances shall be obtained from the Riverside County Fire Department and Public Works Department. 83. The following architectural revisions shall be made, subject to verification and approval of the Community Development Department, prior to obtaining a construction permit for any related use: • Wainscots proposed for all building areas shall be split face block. • Additional architectural embellishment shall be provided along the north building elevation of the rmini-mart and the rear storage and retail wall areas along the east property line and along the access easement. • The pitched roof treatment shown for the storage unit buildings on Parcel 3 shall be applied to the southwest corner storage building section, and extended to the west end of the northern storage building. coalapis. sdp ATTACHMENT 3 SDP 96-590 CONDITION City Council Resolution 97- • Elevation sheet A-10 shall show the height of the manager/office building at 23 feet. Site plan sheet A-9 shall reflect the elimination of a portion of the northeast storage building area, consistent with sheet A-1. All similar inconsistencies shall be resolved, in writing, prior to any CDD staff review for building permit issuances. • All trellises proposed shall be constructed in steel, painted to match the trim colors as approved for the overall project. • The retail building at the south boundary of Parcel 2 shall be relocated 10 feet to the east in order to provide additional landscaped area on the west side of said building and facilitate pedestrian hardscape improvements associated with Parcel 2. 84. Relocation/abandonment of the CNG island associated with Parcel 1 (convenience mart/service station) in order to relocate CNG facilities to that parcel's main pump islands shall not require amendment of this permit or the approvals granted under Specific Plan 96-028 or Conditional Use Permit 96-029. Relocation or other modification to fueling facilities shall be subject to review as required by the Fire Marshal, and by the Community Development Department for method of addressing the abandoned space through the minor use permit or equivalent process in effect at the time. coalapis. sdp . ATTACHMENT 4 REVISE® LAYOUT HIGHWAY 111 FRONTAGE ATTACHMENT 5 EXISTING APPROVED LAYOU F ATTACHMENT 6 a 3 a v V4 — r r r is L 0 m U- w_ I Z 0 _ Q w w v Z CD Ix v I ATTACHMENT 8 M� W Memorandum To: Tom Genovese, City Manager CC: Jerry Herman, Community Development Director Jacques Ables, Planning Commission Chairman From: Robert Tyler, Planning Commissioner Date: March 21, 1997 Subject: Synopsis, Planners Institute, League of California Cities As you know, I was one of several La Quinta representatives to the League of California Cities Planners Institute that was held at the Monterey Conference Center on March 12 - 14, 1997. I attended the following sessions: Wednesday, March 12: Opening Session: Keynote Address, Mr. Peter Douglas, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission, San Francisco. Afternoon Sessions: "Wiry Retailers Locate Where They Do?" "What's My Role? Council, Staff & Planning Commission Relations" Reception Thursday, March 13: Breakfast Session: "Land Use Authority and School Fees" Morning Session: "Mobility in the New Millennium" Lunch Session: Richard Rodriguez, "Reflections on California's Future" Afternoon Session: "Planning & Zoning for the Wireless Invasion" Afternoon Session: "Housing Element and Affordable Housing Reforms" MICHAEL R. NAVE STEVEN R. MEYERS ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK KENNETH A. WILSON DAVID W.SKINNER STEVENT. MATTAS CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP WENDY A. ROBERTS RICK W. JARVIS LARISSA M. SETO DEBBIE F. LATHAM WAYNE K SNODGRASS ARNE B. SANDBERG BENJAMIN P. FAY DANIEL A. MULLER OF COUNSEL ANDREA 1. SALTZMAN MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION GATEWAY PLAZA 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 TELEPHONE: (510) 351-4300 FACSIMILE: (510) 351-4481 SANTA ROSA OFFICE 556 FIFTH STREET. SUITE 230 SANTA ROSA, CA 96401 TELEPHONE: 17071 545-8009 FACSIMILE: (7071 546-6617 .. l �- March 14, 1997 RE: Planner's Institute in Monterey - March 13, 1997 Per your request, attached is a copy of the paper I presented at the League's Planners Institute on "Conflict of Interest Laws: An Overview". Thank you for your interest in this topic. It was a pleasure addressing you and your fellow commissioners. MFR:dsp Attachment J..\WpD\ATI NAM\BUSDVP.MFRWDDPAPER-W61 MICHAEL R.:NAVE STEVEN R. MEYERS ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK KENNETH A. WILSON DAVID W.SKINNER STEVENT. MATTAS CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP WENDYA. ROBERTS RICK W. JARVIS LARISSA M SETO DEBBIE F. LATHAM WAYNE K. SNODGRASS ARNE B. SANDBERG BENJAMIN P. FAY DANIELA. MULLER OF COUNSEL ANDREA 1. SALTZMAN MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION GATEWAY PLAZA 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 TELEPHONE: (510) 351-4300 FACSIMILE: (510) 351-4481 SANTA ROSA OFFICE 555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 TELEPHONE: (7C7) 545-8009 FACSIMILE: (707) 545-6617 Planners Institute League of California Cities March IZ - 14, 1997 CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS: AN OVERVIEW Prepared by Michael F. Rodriquez Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver &. Wilson 777 Davis Street, Suite 300 San Leandro, CA 94577 CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS: AN OVERVIEW l . INTRODUCTION. Serving as a public official can be a truly rewarding experience. The opportunity to speak and act on behalf of your fellow citizens can be at turns, challenging, frustrating, exciting, and ultimately, gratifying. One of the greatest unsung challenges every public official faces is the obligation to perform his or her duties free from undue influences. In California, this responsibility includes the duty to refrain from participating in the decision -making process in circumstances in which your ability to represent the public is compromised, or has the potential to be compromised, by your personal interests. The intent of today's presentation is to provide you with a brief overview of relevant laws and regulations concerning conflicts of interest. The area of conflicts is exceedingly complex, and it would be difficult to provide you with the details of the law in a single paper or presentation. As an alternative, I have attempted to provide you ,,vith highlights of the conflict laws that may pertain to your position as a planning commissioner so as to assist you in early identification of potential conflicts. I encourage you to contact your agency's legal council and/or the Fair Political Practices Commission for detailed advice on specific conflict issues. 2. PURPOSE Of CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS. As an initial point, there should be no argument that public officials have a responsibility to perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from a variety of influences that might cause them to be unduly biased. In an attempt to insure the integrity of the decision -making process, a body of law has been developed in California to prohibit public officials from making decisions in which they have some financial interest. Generally speaking, such laws require disqualification from decision -making under specific circumstances and disclosure of certain private financial interests. 3. THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT. The Political Reform Act ("PRA!'), enacted by initiative measure in 1974, is the most comprehensive of the bodies of law devoted to conflict issues. Oversight and enforcement of the PRA is vested in the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The FPPC also provides advice and opinions to officials concerning potential conflicts of interest arising under the PRA. Advice can be obtained from the FPPC via telephone or by way of written request for an FPPC advice letter. However, be aware that the provision of written advice can take several weeks or months. 4. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST UNDER THE PRA. The heart of the PRA is found in Government Code Section 87100. Section 87100 prohibits any public official from making, participating in, or attempting to influence a governmental decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision could have a material effect on the official, the official's immediate family, or on specific economic interests of the official. How can a conflict of interest covered by the PRA be identified? As a preliminary matter, there are five basic questions you can ask yourself to determine if you have a conflict of interest. If your answer to all five questions is ves, there is strong likelihood a conflict exists. 1. Are you making, participating in making, or using your official position to influence a governmental decision? 2. Do you have an economic interest? In other words, will the decision you are about to participate in have an effect on matters such as; your personal expenses, income, assets or liabilities, or those of your immediate family (spouse and dependent children); -a business entity in which you have an investment of $1,000 or more, or for which you serve as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or other management position;, -real property in which you have an interest of $1,000 or more;, -a person or business entity from which you have received $250 or more in income or gifts during the past 12 months, -the investments and real property owned by your spouse or dependent child, or by any business entity or trust in which you or any member of your immediate family have a 10 percent interest or greater. 2 3. Will the decision £oreseeably affect an economic interest identified in Question 2? 4. Will the effect on you or your economic interest be material? This is perhaps the most complex and difficult part of the conflict analysis. The FPPC has established a series of regulations which outline specific circumstances and monetary thresholds for determining when the effects of a decision are material. (The regulations are set forth in the California Code of Regulations, commencing with Title 2, Section 18702.1.) Generally speaking, materiality can be based on either direct or indirect involvement of an economic interest in the decision -making process. Examples of direct involvement include an official being required to rezone property he or she owns, or an official being required to take action on a matter initiated by the official's employer. Even if there is no direct involvement, there still may be an indirect involvement of an economic interest which requires disqualification. For example, an official may be faced with a situation in which he or she is asked to rezone a parcel of property in which he or she does not have a direct interest, but which is in close enough proximity to the official's property to have a reasonably foreseeable economic impact on the official's property interest. Determining whether a given effect is material can be very difficult, and often requires more than a passing knowledge of FPPC regulations. In performing the five step analysis set forth in this paper, as well other available documents concerning conflicts, it is often best to err on the side of caution in making your initial conflict determination. Professional assistance can be sought thereafter. 5. Is the effect on my economic interest distinguishable from the effect on the general public? When a conflict of interest exists, the PRA requires the public official to disqualify him or herself from participating in any manner in the matter relating to the conflict. Additionally, the involved conflict must be announced and put on record during the course of an open meeting. Although not required by law, it is best C to step down from the dias during the agency's discussion of a matter for which you have a conflict. Remaining in your seat with fellow -officials is not only awkward, since for all intents and purposes you will be ignored for the duration of the discussion of the matter for which you have a conflict, but also might create the impression that by mere physical presence, you are attempting to influence the commission's decision -making. (You might also unintentionally send signals to fellow officials, such as by grimacing or nodding your head, that could be perceived as attempting to influence a decision.) The PRA provides administrative, civil and criminal penalties for violation of its provisions. Administrative penalties include a $5,000 fine per violation, orders to file specific reports, and orders requiring the recipient of such an order to cease and desist from taking some form of action. The District Attorney or any person residing in an official's jurisdiction may bring civil action. In the event a given action would not have been taken but for the conflict of interest, a court is empowered to void the action. A civil prosecutor may also seek civil monetary damages and request attorneys fees. Finally, the PRA also provides for criminal misdemeanor sanctions to be imposed for willful violations of the PRA. 5. THE SECTION 1090 PROHIBITION -CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN PUBLIC CONTRACTS. One of the more significant types of conflict issues arises in the context of public official agency contracts for goods, services, and projects and services which involve the expenditure of public funds. Often referred to as the prohibition against "self -dealing," Government Code Section 1090 et seq. provides that public officials may not have a financial interest in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or made by any body or board of which they are a member. A financial interest can be either direct, such as when the official is the party contracting with the agency, or indirect, such as when the official has a financial relationship with the contracting party or will receive some benefit from execution of the contract. Section 1090 conflicts are particularly troublesome because, unlike conflicts under Government Code Section 87100, they cannot be addressed by the disqualification of the conflicted public official. The purpose of the 1090 prohibition is to not only void contracts which are obtained through fraud or dishonest conduct, but to also eliminate the possibility that any personal influence might bear on an official's decision. Thus, there is a conclusive presumption that any contract approved by a public board or agency involved the participation of all board or agency members, including those who have disqualified themselves for reasons of 0 conflict. As a practical matter, this means that in most situations where a 1090 conflict arises, the conflicted official and the board or agency on which he or she is a member have only two choices: 1) the agency or board must refrain from executing the contract for as long as the member with the conflict retains his or her appointment, or, 2) the member must resign his or her position. The penalties for a 1090 violation are particularly serious. A contract made in violation of the 1090 prohibition is void and unenforceable. Payments made by the public entity to the contracting party must be returned, although the involved public agency is not required to return any benefits it received as a result of the voided contract. Moreover, the official who violated the 1090 prohibition must provide the agency with any benefits he or she received as a result of the contract, with interest. Finally, if it is determined that an official willfully violated Section 1090, he or she is subject to a fine of up to $1000 or imprisonment, and may also be permanently disqualified from holding public office in the state. There are a number of exceptions to the 1090 prohibition. Thus for example, a local agency may enter into a contract where a member's financial interest is deemed "remote." Section 1091 provides a shopping list of remote interest exceptions. By way of example, Section 1091 provides that an individual who is both a public official and an officer/employee of a nonprofit corporation has only a remote interest in the contracts, purchases and sales of that corporation. In such circumstances, it is clear that the involved official has a financial interest in the nonprofit corporation, but that because of the corporation's nonprofit status, the influence of said interest is significantly mitigated. Once a remote interest has been identified, the official must disclose the financial interest to his or her relevant board or agency and must refrain from participating in all aspects of the contract decision -making process. The board or agency may then act upon the contract without counting the vote of those officials with remote interests. Non -interests, which are defined as those interests deemed so small or insignificant so as to avoid creating any presumption of financial interest, are also exempted from the 1090 prohibition. The list of non -interests is set forth in Government Code Section 1091.5. 5 6. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. For the most part, planning commissioners needn't be concerned with existing limitations related to campaign contributions since planning commission positions are appointed rather than elected. However, you should be aware of the fact that as a result of the passage of Proposition 208, planning commissioners are restricted from contributing to, soliciting or accepting contributions on behalf of those persons responsible for appointing them to office. Although the law in unclear, it appears that in circumstances in which a commission member is appointed by an entire legislative body, the commission member may not make a contribution to any member of such body. While serving as a planning commissioner, if you determine that you would like to seek an elected position, you should familiarize yourself with relevant laws concerning campaign contributions prior to the time you start to solicit or receive campaign contributions. Legal counsel for your agency should be able to provide you with assistance in obtaining such information. 7. ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE. The PRA requires public officials, including planning commissioners, to file periodic statements disclosing their financial interests. The purpose of this process is to both establish a public record of public official assets and to help remind public officials of economic interests that have the potential to be affected by public agency decisions. Typically, an official is required to disclose interests in real property, investments, sources of income and gifts. A statement of economic disclosure, made on an official "Statement of Economic Interest" form, must be filed when you assume office, annually after assumption of office, and prior to leaving office. The city clerk is usually placed in charge of administration of preparation of relevant disclosure forms, and should be able to provide assistance in this regard. 8. INCOMPATIBILITY OF OFFICE. Case law, and not statute, has established the doctrine of "incompatibility of offices." The concept of incompatibility of office is important to you if you provide or contemplate providing community service as a member of some board or legislative entity other than your current position as a planning commissioner. The doctrine of incompatibility of office concerns a conflict between potentially overlapping duties of two or more offices. To fall within the scope of the doctrine of incompatibility of office, two elements must be present: 1) The official in question must hold two public offices simultaneously; and, 2) There must be some potential conflict or overlap in the functions or responsibilities of the two offices. In evaluating issues to be addressed in determining whether an incompatibility exists, you should look to whether there is any significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices, whether considerations of public policy make it improper for one person to hold both offices, and whether either office exercises a supervisory, auditory, appointive, or removal power over the other. The common law rule is that where a public official is found to have accepted two incompatible public offices, the first office is automatically vacated. Examples of instances in which dual offices have been held to be incompatible include the offices of the city and county planning commission and county planning commissioner and city councilmember. Since the penalty for incompatibility of office is automatic vacation of the existing office at the time the second office is taken, it is wise to consult with your agency attorney prior to the time that you assume your new office. 9. ASSISTANCE. As has been mentioned at several earlier points, when conflict questions arise, you should seek assistance from legal counsel for your public agency or board. Additional assistance can be obtained from: Fair Political Practices Commission 428 J Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Disclosure information- (916) 322-5662 Disqualification requirements- (916) 322-5901 California Attorney General's Office Public Inquiry Unit P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 9244-2550 (800) 952-5225 A number of extremely helpful publications, some of which were used in the preparation of this paper, are available from both the FPPC and the Attorney General's Office. Information concerning conflicts is also available in the League of California Cities' "The Planning Commissioner's Handbook." MFR:dsp Rev: March 14, 1997 J:\WPD\ATTYNFR\BUSDVP.MFR\FPPC.LOC 7 Dennis Cunningham c/o Century Homes 1535 South D Street, Suite 200 San Bernardino, California 92408 (909) 381-6007 (619) 360-7464 Local Bus. Kevin Leonhard Stanford Leonhard Architects 73-350 El Pasco Suite 207 Palm Desert, California 92260 (619) 776-8478 Bus. Michael Mendoza 45-240 Club Drive Indian Wells, Calif. 92210 (619) 564-3238 Res. (619) 345-5648 Bus. Jim Hegge 46-325 Roudel P.O. Box 1365 La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 775-6970 Dennis Wish 54-625 Avenida Bermudas La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 564-0884 Updated: March 17, 1997 Appointed: 2-18-97 Appointed: 2-18-97 Appointed: Appointed: Appointed: 2-18-97 5-03-94 5-03-94 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC FEARING on April 22, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78-495 Call( ampico, on the following item: rEM: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28444 ,PPLICANT: KSL LANI) CORPORATION LOCATION: SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF PGA BOULEVARD, EASTERLY TO MADISON STREET ABUTTING THE TOM WEISKOPF AND JACK NICKLAUS TOURNAMENT GOLF COURSES. BEQUEST: TO SUBDIVIDE 38.36 ACRES INTO 69 RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER COMMON LOTS. XGAL: BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 3 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 24995 AS FILED IN BOOK 165 PAGES 49 THROUGH 5bd AVENUE 53rd AVENUE "-i 541h AVENUE AIRPOR sm. TRACT N0. 28444 5Mh AVENUE 55, RECORD OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; TOGETHER WITH LOTS 1 AND 2 OF TRACT IN 21643 AS FILED IN BOOK 20; PAGES 37 THROUGH 50, OF MAPS, RECORD OF RIVERSIDE COUNT) TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NC 95-208 RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 1996. kn Environmental Impact Report was prepared in conjunction with the overall "PGA West Specific Plar ind certified by the City Council on May 1, 1984. A subsequent Environmental Assessment prepared an idopted as part of Amendment #1 to the PGA West Specific Plan and certified on September 20, 19& Che Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment remain adequate to address a environmental concerns as there are no significant changes in circumstances of the proposed project fro] ;he original approvals. Therefore, no additional environmental review is deemed necessary. kny person may submit written comments on this case to the Community Development Department pri( ;o the Hearing and/or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project at the time of tl :searing. If you challenge the decision of this case in court, you may be limited to raising only those issu( ;hat you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to tl community Development Department at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. The proposed file(s) may 1 viewed by the public Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at the Community Developmei Department, La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. [n the City's efforts to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act ( 1990, the Community Development Department requires that any person in need of any type of speci equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must infor the Community Development Department a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- PUBLISH ONCE ON APRIL 3, 1997 City of La Quinta Director's Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta Community Development Director will hold DIRECTOR'S HEARING on April 17, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the La Quinta City Hall North Conference Room, 78. 495 Calle Tampico, on the following item: ITEM: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28489 APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORPORATION LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HERMITAGE, 900-FEET EAST OF INTERLACHEN ABUTTING THE JACK NICKLAUS TOURNAMENT GOLF COURSE IN PGA WEST REQUEST: TO SUBDIVIDE 1.13 ACRES INTO FOUR RESIDENTIAL PARCELS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN 11,961 SQUARE FEET. LEGAL: PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN BY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 96-235. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28489 > LLLLLL J u r �+ -- .------- - - - ni•..ss Zn -- eiE ua^:rs . Avenue 58 \ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared in conjunction with the overall "PGA West Specific Plan" ani certified by the City Council on May 1, 1984. A subsequent Environmental Assessment prepared and adopted a part of Amendment #1 to the PGA West Specific Plan and certified on September 20, 1988. The EnvironmentE Impact Report and Environmental Assessment remain adequate to address all environmental concerns as there ar no significant changes in circumstances of the proposed project from the original approvals. Therefore, no additionz environmental review is deemed necessary. Any person may submit written comments on this case to the Community Development Department prior to th Hearing and/or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project at the time of the Hearing. If yo challenge the decision of this case in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone els raised either at the Director's Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Developmer Department at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. The proposed file(s) may be viewed by the public Monday throug Friday 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development Department, La Quinta Civic Center, 78-495 Call Tampico, La Quinta, California. In the City's efforts to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, th Community Development Department requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistanc or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the Community Developmer Department a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. PUBLISH ON APRIL 3, 1997 hnpd.013