Loading...
1997 05 27 PC\ J.; �v Yn •.nip PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California May 27, 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 97-031 Beginning Minute Motion 97-007 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 May 13, 1997 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Item .................. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28489 Appellant ............ COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (DR. COLLEEN GAYNES, SUPERINTENDENT) Location ............. On the north side of Hermitage, approximately 900-feet east of Interlachen and 800 feet west of Riviera abutting the Jack Nicklaus private golf course Request .............. Appeal of the acting Community Development Director's approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28489 to allow the subdivision of 1.1-acres into four single family residential lots greater than 11,961 square feet in size. Action ................ Minute Motion 97- , Resolution 97- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Item .................. CONTINUED - HIGHWAY 111 LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES Applicant ... ...... City of La Quinta Location ............. Highway 111 from the easterly City limits to the westerly limits Request .............. Recommend approval of landscaping, entry signs, bus stops and building design guidelines Action ............... Minute Motion 97- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Report of the City Council meeting of May 20, 1997. IX. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California May 13, 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 Tyler to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to excuse Commissioners Gardner, Newkirk, and Woodard. 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: Confirmed III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of April 22, 1997. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Seaton abstaining due to being absent for the last half of the meeting. B. Department Report: None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CONTINUED - TENTATIVE TRACT 28410 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-602; a request of McComic Consolidated, Inc., to subdivide 17 acres into 69 single family and other common lots in PGA West resort and club, and compatibility review and approval of three house plans. PC5-13-97 Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1997 Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and 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. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. 3. Mr. Barry McComic, president of McComic Consolidated, stated he had been meeting with the PGA West Homeowners' Association (HOA) to resolve their concerns and reiterated those concerns. As a result of those discussions, he was proposing to designate two lots (Lots 1 and 55) as open space and would construct pools at these locations. Lot 55 is the island lot that previously had the proposed two houses. The houses have now been deleted from the plans. The other issue raised by the HOA is the access at the north end of Cedar Crest. He had met with staff concerning the access and this has been resolved by the added condition requiring gated access at this location. The HOA, in a letter received at this meeting, has raised another concern regarding the house setbacks and have asked that the frontyard setbacks not be less than 20-feet. Mr. McComic agreed with this request. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if Lot 55 was open space. Mr. McComic stated this was true as well as the lot at the end of Cedar Crest. Commissioner Butler questioned the 20-foot setback and why the HOA would prefer to have the houses all in a row rather than varying. Mr. McComic clarified that they would like the setback staggered starting at the 20-foot setback. 5. Chairman Abels asked if Mr. McComic had seen the letter received by the HOA at this meeting. Mr. McComic stated he had not seen the letter, but in speaking with the HOA he understood the only issue remaining was their request for an additional pool. It was still his contention that the two additional pools was sufficient. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the number of lots to be constructed as there appeared to be a discrepancy between the HOA letter and the staff report. Mr. McComic clarified that the HOA had one less house as they were requesting the third pool. PC5-13-97 Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1997 7. Commissioner Seaton asked if the security issue had been resolved. Mr. McComic stated it was settled to the best of their ability. He believed the HOA would work with him on the proposed plan. He will be in constant contact with the HOA to work out any problems that may occur. 8. Commissioner Seaton asked about the golf cart access. Mr. McComic stated it had been determined that it was not an issue. 9. Mr. James Saul, president of the PGA West HOA Associations, stated he concurred with the statements that had been made by Mr. McComic regarding the issues that had been raised as stated in their letter. In regards to the issue of the setbacks, he has no objections to the method proposed by Mr. McComic at this meeting. The only Issue remaining is their request for a pool on Medinah. It is the understanding of the HOA that due to commitments made by the previous developer, there should be a pool on the east side of Cedar Crest. It is their belief that the proposed pool should be moved to Medinah. The original Sunrise plan was for five pools which computes to one pool for every 23 homes. Mr. McComic is reducing this to proposing one for every 19 homes. As they had made several concessions regarding the concerns that had been resolved, they did not want to relinquish on the pool issue. 10. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. He then read a letter that had been received from Commissioner Newkirk regarding the project. His concerns were: a. Condition #45 resolves the issue of the emergency access into the cul- de-sac at the north end of Cedar Crest. b. The request for the homes on Colonial, the island, should be denied. C. The issue of the pool is not an issue for the Commission. d. The golf cart issue should also not be addressed by the Commission. 11. Chairman Abels then read a letter from Commissioner Woodard's stating his comments. His concerns were: a. The swimming pools are not an issue for the Commission. b. The homes proposed for the island is acceptable, but should be relocated. PC5-13-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1997 C. The location of the model homes is acceptable. d. The lot plotting should be brought back to the Commission along with the elevations, color boards, plans and amenity package. e. The golf course access should be addressed. 12. Commissioner Seaton stated she had no questions. 13. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant if the elevations that were before the Commission were the same as what had been submitted to the HOA. Mr. McComic stated they were and Mr. Saul agreed. 14. Commissioner Tyler asked why there were conditions for street improvements when the improvements are already in place; Conditions 11-18 for example. Condition #45 should be modified to specify that it is a locked gate at the emergency access on Cedar Crest. 16. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio clarified the changes to the conditions for the tentative tract map: Condition 45, would have the words "locked gate" added. Conditions #47 "Lots 1 and 55 shall be re -designated as lettered lots to be used as open space prior to final map approval." Condition #48 shall be modified to read "the minimum front yard setback shall be 20-feet with the exception of 15-feet for the side entry garages which may be a minimum of 15 feet." These changes will be added to the tract map conditions as well. 19. Commissioner Butler clarified that there were now only 67 single family lots and not 69. 20. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 029 recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 28410, subject to conditions and findings as recommended and modified. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Gardner, Newkirk, and Woodard. ABSTAIN: None. PC5-13-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1997 21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/ recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Site Development Permit 97-602 by Planning Commission Resolution 96-030, subject to the findings and conditions. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Gardner, Newkirk, and Woodard. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. STREET VACATION 97-034; a request of the City for a determination of the La Quinta General Plan consistency finding with the proposed vacation of street right- of-way. 1. Senior Engineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Tyler asked what the time table was for completion of the other street vacations in the Cove. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated no time table had been determined to date. 3. Commissioner Butler asked why the lower portion was not included in this vacation. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the applicant wanted to use the vacated site and did not want to wait for staff to process the vacation. The plans for the vacation are fairly expensive. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 97-006 making the determination of consistency with the General Plan for the proposed vacation of street right-of-way. Unanimously approved. B. HIGHWAY 111 GUIDELINES; a request of the City for review and approval of landscaping, entry signs, bus stops, and building design guidelines. 1. 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. PC5-13-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1997 2. Commissioner Tyler asked if it was imperative to approve the Guidelines at this meeting as he believed it important to have the entire Commission present for discussion. Staff stated it could be continued. 3. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Seaton to continue Highway I I I Guidelines to the next meeting of the Commission on May 27, 1997. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS. A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of May 6, 1997. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on May 27, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. on May 13, 1997. PC5-13-97 6 PH #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 27, 1997 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28489 REQUEST: APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28489 TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF 1.1-ACRES INTO FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS GREATER THAN 11,961 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE LOCATION: ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HERMITAGE, APPROXIMATELY 900- FEET EAST OF INTERLACHEN AND 800-FEET WEST OF RIVIERA ABUTTING THE JACK NICKLAUS PRIVATE GOLF COURSE IN PGA WEST APPELLANT: APPELLANT'S LEGAL COUNSEL: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (DR. COLLEEN GAYNES, SUPERINTENDENT) BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES AND GIANNONE (MR. ARTO J. NUUTINEN, ATTORNEY) KSL LAND CORPORATION REPRESENTATIVE: MR. S. CHEVIS HOSEA, VICE PRESIDENT OF LAND AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS: M.D.S. CONSULTING (MR. EDWARD J. LENTH, P.E.) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THIS PARCEL MAP APPLICATION IS PART OF PGA WEST, AND HAS 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 STPRTPCPM28489-14, CONAPVL28489-12 1 COUNCIL ON MAY 1, 1984. A SUBSEQUENT EIR WAS PREPARED AND ADOPTED AS PART OF AMENDMENT #1 IN 1988 (SEPTEMBER 20, 1988). MINOR MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PLAN SINCE 1988 WHICH HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC.) ZONING/ SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)/SPECIFIC PLAN RESIDENTIAL (SPR) PER SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002 (AMENDMENT #3) BACKGROUND: Appellant's Request On April 28, 1997, the Community Development Department received an appeal from the Coachella Valley School District of the Community Development Director's approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28489 on April 17, 1997. A letter from the District's legal counsel summarizes the reasons for their appeal (Attachments 1 & 2). The letter from Mr. Arto J. Nuutinen also refers to appealing the Planning Commission action on Tentative Tract Map 28444, a map application by KSL Land Corporation, which was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on April 22, 1997. That appeal is not necessary because Tentative Tract Map 28444 was reviewed by the City Council on May 20, 1997. PGA West Resort History The PGA West Resort contains numerous tentative tract maps which have been approved since the 1984 approval of Specific Plan 83-002. Some of the tracts have been completely built out while others have not. In 1996, a third amendment to SP 83-002 was approved with KSL Land Corporation actively participating in the preparation of a new specific plan (Attachment 3). The reason for the update was to resolve and/or delete many of the obsolete policies or graphics in the Plan that were are not consistent with KSL development plans. Site Background /Tract History STPRTPCPM28489-14, CONAPVL28489-12 2 The vacant site is within a portion of Tract Map 28118, a 35-lot residential development approved by the City Council on February 21, 1995, under Resolution 95-10 (Attachment 4). Map recordation occurred on August 29, 1995. The existing single family lots back up onto the Jack Nicklaus private golf course and KSL has recently constructed houses to the west of the site. In 1996, City staff processed a request by KSL to adjust various property lines of Tract Map 28118 under Lot Line Adjustment 96-235 (Attachment 5). The area under review, which had previously been Lots 13-15 plus a portion of Lot 16 under Tentative Tract Map 28118, became one lot (Parcel 4) under LLA 96-235. The Community Development Department approved the request on December 6, 1996, with recordation occurring on December 11, 1996. Project Request Tentative Parcel Map 28489 was submitted to the Community Development Department on February 27, 1997. This map proposes to create four single family lots between 11,962 square feet and 12,572 square feet which average 80-feet in width by 153-feet in length (Attachment 6). The developer anticipates building detached, single family houses on these lots. Public Notice The appellant's appeal of Tentative Parcel Map 28489 was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 11, 1997. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by Title 13 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. To insure that the property owners within PGA West are aware of this request, the developer prepared mailing labels of all PGA West property owners to insure that they too received the public hearing notice which exceeds the City's notification requirements. Environmental Assessment An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the PGA West Specific Plan in 1984 (SP 83-002). The City Council certified this document on May 1, 1984. Subsequent amendments have been permitted and certified by the Commission and Council since 1984, with the last amendment occurring in 1996. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: STPRTPCPM28489-14, CONAPVL28489-12 3 Based on the provisions of the General Plan, SP 83-002, Zoning Code and the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 13) the following overview of the project is provided: Issue 1 - General Plan and PGA West Specific Plan (SP 83-002, Amendment #3) Consistency The City's General Plan designates the site as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre) which allows single family housing. The Specific Plan is consistent with the existing General Plan and its internal elements because only 5,000 homes on 1,665 acres (3.0 du/ac) are allowed in the PGA West development along with other commercial resort amenities. The proposed single family development is consistent with the City's General Plan and the PGA West Specific Plan, as designed, because detached single family houses are permitted in the SPR District of SP 83-002 (Chapter 3). The adopted Specific Plan for this community outlines its long term development pattern for this mixed -use project. Its text includes a land use map and narrative describing all land uses in the area. The proposed Parcel Map is in a residential district area of the Plan (i.e., SPR District) which permits lots of not less than 6,500 square feet for detached residential housing projects. This map proposes lots of greater than 11,961 square feet which is almost twice the size required under SP 83-002. Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements Hermitage, a 37 foot wide private street, is an existing street serving these residential lots. This street connects to Riviera to the east and Interlachen to the west. The site has been graded for development of residential houses under Tract Map 28118; therefore, no major infrastructure improvements are necessary for development of the property. The minimum lot sizes allowed for this area are 6,500 square feet with lot frontage of at least 50-feet. This map complies with these minimum standards. The recommended Conditions will ensure that all on -site work is consistent with City standards. Issue 3 - Environmental Consideration An EIR was prepared for the PGA West Resort in the early 1980's. The City Council certified the EIR and approved this master planned development request in May of 1984. The plan allowed 5,000 single family homes, golf courses, a resort hotel(s) and other related resort facilities (i.e., a commercial site at Avenue 54 and PGA West Boulevard). Subsequent amendments permitted 350 additional hotel rooms in 1988 (Amendment 1) and other minor changes in 1989 and 1996 (Amendments 2 and 3) that were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project is exempt from further environmental consideration because no significant changes are proposed. Issue 4 - Health and Safety Concerns STPRTPCPM28489-14, CONAPV-.28489-12 All necessary infrastructure improvements necessary to ensure health and safety issues of the existing and future residents for this project area are either installed or will be constructed as required by the attached Conditions. This includes water, sewer, streets, and other necessary improvements. Issue 5 - Coachella Valley School District Appeal Developers are currently required by State law and SP 83-002 (Amendment 3) to pay school mitigation fees to the appropriate school district prior to obtaining building permits. Currently, the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) charges developers $1.84 per square foot of living area based on their passage of Resolution 96-37 in 1996, unless the developer has entered into other contractual arrangements with the District for fee payment. Mr. Arto J. Nuutinen, attorney for the CVUSD, has submitted a letter requesting that the City impose a prior school fee mitigation condition of Specific Plan 83-002 which was deleted by the City Council in 1996, under Amendment 3 to SP 83-002 (Attachment 2). Based on this deletion, the City Council has no discretion to consider adding a requirement other than the State mandated mitigation fee. A letter from Mr. Larry E. Lichliter, Executive Vice President for KSL Recreation Corporation, has been received responding to the District's request (Attachment 7). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-_, confirming the Community Development Director's approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28489 on April 17, 1997, subject to Findings and Conditions; or, Attachments: 1. Appeal Application 2. Letter from Bowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles and Giannone 3. PGA West Land Use Map - Reduced 4. Tract Map 28118 - Reduced 5. LLA 96-235 - Reduced 6. TPM 28489 - Reduced 7. Letter from Larry Lichliter, Executive V.P. for KSL Recreation Corporation 8. Large Map Exhibit - Commission Only 5TRPTPCPM28489-14/CONAPVL28489-12 5 Prepared by: Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager STRPTPCPM28489-14/CONAPVL28489-12 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28489 TO SUBDIVIDE 1.1-ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS IN THE PGA WEST RESORT (SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #3) ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HERMITAGE, 900-FEET EAST OF INTERLACHEN ABUTTING THE JACK NICKLAUS PRIVATE GOLF COURSE CASE NO.: TPM 28489 APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 271h day of May, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on an appeal of the Acting Community Development Director's approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28489 and consider the request of KSL Land Corporation to approve four lots on a 1.1-acre site in the PGA West Resort on the north side of Hermitage, approximately 900-feet east of Interlachen and 800-feet west of Riviera abutting the Jack Nicklaus Private golf course, more particularly described as: Parcel 4 as shown by Lot Line Adjustment 96-235 recorded October 12, 1996 (Instrument No. 467912), Official Records of Riverside, State of California WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Unified School District, did on the 2e day of April, 1997, appeal the Acting Community Development Director's approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28489 to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 13.12.130 of the Subdivision Ordinance for reasons described in their correspondence on file with the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 17th day of April, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and approve the request of KSL Land Corporation to subdivide four lots on a 1.1-acre site in the PGA West Resort on the north side of Hermitage, approximately 900-feet east of Interlachen and 800-feet west of Riviera abutting the Jack Nicklaus Private golf course; and, WHEREAS, said tentative map 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 Director has determined that the original Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 83-002 (PGA West Specific Plan) approved by the City Council in 1984, and as amended, is still valid and binding on this development request. Therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted; and, RESOPC28489-14, CONDAPVPC28489-12 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Parcel Map 28489 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 Tentative Parcel Map 28489: A. The proposed parcel map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The project is in a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the General Plan. Therefore, the density requirement of the Land Use Element (Chapter 2) shall be met. The Parcel Map, as designed, is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of Specific Plan 83-002 (Amendment #3) which permits 5,000 residential units in PGA West, a master planned golf resort. The site is zoned Low Density Residential (RL District) and designated Specific Plan Residentiai (SPR) under SP 83-002 (Amendment #3) which permits single family developments (i.e., attached or detached housing units). All plans for future single family homes shall be consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan and Zoning Code in effect at the time building permits are acquired. The development of the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area. The developer is required to pay school mitigation fees to the Coachella Valley Unified School District prior to obtaining building permits. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The density and design standards for the Parcel Map will comply with the Specific Plan 83-002 and the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Chapter 2). All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards of the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on -site streets are private and will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. C. The design of the subdivision, or the proposed improvements, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subject site has been graded for residential development in conformance with the provisions of Tract Map 28118. D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. RESOPC28489-14/COND2848944-14/STRPTPCPM 28489-14 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Parcel Map 28489 Health and safety concerns were addressed in 1984 and 1988, during consideration and approval of the Master Planned PGA West Resort. Mitigation measures were imposed to reduce noise, traffic and other environmental concerns under Specific Plan 83-002 (Amendment #3). The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements. Dust control measures shall be required during any further on -site construction work as required by Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed private streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements. The project as designed and conditioned complies with all City requirements and Specific Plan 83-002 (Amendment #3). WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Parcel Map, 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 reconfirm the conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 83-002 (as amended) since its original approval in 1984; 3. That it does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map 28489 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 27th day of May, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: RESOPC28489-14/COND2848944-14/STRPTPCPM 28489-14 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Parcel Map 28489 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC28489-14/COND2848944-14/STRPTPCPM 28489-14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28489 - KSL LAND CORPORATION MAY 27, 1997 CONDITIONS: GENERAL 1. Upon final approval of the project by the City, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Tentative Parcel Map No. 28489 shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§ 66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Title 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) and Charter unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. The map shall expire two years after approval by the Planning Commission unless extended pursuant to Section 13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance. PROPERTY RIGHTS 3. All easements, rights of way and other property rights necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or a waiver of parcel map. 4. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of an access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 5. Improvement plans for construction or abandonment of utility laterals, including trench construction details, shall be submitted for City review and approval prior to issuance of a permit for the work. CONDAPRVLPM28489-12 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Parcel Map 28489 May 27, 1997 6. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 7. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or enter into a secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to agendization of a final map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Title 13, LQMC. 8. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the Public Works Director. GRADING 9. Graded or disturbed undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 10. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document CONDAPRVLPM28489-12 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Parcel Map 28489 May 27, 1997 shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. (.QUALITY ASSURANCE 12. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 13. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized. FIRE DEPARTMENT 14. Schedule Afire protection approved Super fire hydrant (6" X 4" X 2.5" X 2.5") will be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330-feet apart in any direction with any portion of any frontage more than 165-feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow will be 1000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi. 15. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer will furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "/ certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 16. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. CONDAPRVLPM28489-12 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Tentative Parcel Map 28489 May 27, 1997 MISCELLANEOUS 17. Prior to building permit issuance, school mitigation fees shall be paid by the developer. 18. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. 19. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 20. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. 21. All applicable Conditions of Tract Map 28118 and Specific Plan 83-002 shall be met. CONDAPRVLPM28489-12 ATTACHMENTS /24/1997 e8:-:!j 6197777155 CITY OF LA QUINTA rAut uz ATTACHMENT I 4 4 " n495 CALLE TAMpICo — LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92263 AX `619) �� rr7-71,tr APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Appellant' s Name COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date April 25, 1997 Mailing Address 87-225 Church Street P.O. Box 847 Thermal CA 92274 RE: Case NO. Tentative Parcel Map #28489 Type of Appeal: Conditional Use Permit Variance Change of Zone Public Use Permit 'Surface Mining i Reclamation Permit Phone: (619 ) 399-5137 Outdoor Advertising :=Consistency with General Plan _Environmental Assessment Setback Adjustments Temporary Use Permit Plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition which is being protested. See attached correspondence dated April 25 1997. Use additional sheets if necessary. Signatur Arto J. N tinen Bowie, Ar eson, kadi, Wiles & Giannone MAJUNa ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - tin cd� e 8 Ja0253 FORM.003/CS ATTACHMENT 2 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW LEXANDER BOWIE' 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE (800) 423.6054 )AN C. ARNESON NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 FAX (714) 851-2014 ILLIAM J. KADI (714) 831-1300 'ENDY H. WILES° RESPOND TO NEWPORT REACH ATRICIA B. GIANNONE REP. OUR FILE OBERT E. ANSLOW 3403 TENTH STREET, SUITE 715 RTO J. NUUTINEN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 ANIEL J. PAYNE (909) 222.2750 3033 (ARLON SIMON MBELLA ALASTI EBORAH R. G. CESARIO April 25, 1997 YSA M. SALTZMAN N. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VIA MESSENGER Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Appeal of Findings or Conditions - April 17, 1997 Planning Director Approval - Tentative Parcel Map #28489 - KSL / April 22, 1997 Planning Commission Approval - Tentative Tract Map #28444 - KSL Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter is forwarded on behalf of our client, the Coachella Valley Unified School District ["District"]. Pursuant to the procedure' adopted by the City of La Quinta ["City"], the District hereby appeals the decision of the City's Planning Director on April 17, 1997, by which the application of KSL Land Corporation ["KSL"] for approval of Tentative Parcel Map # 28489 ["TPM 28489"] for the PGA West Specific Plan 83-002 [the "Project"], was approved during a hearing before the Planning Director. The District further appeals the April 22, 1997 approval by the City Planning Commission of KSL's application for Tentative Tract Map # 28444 for the Project ["TTM 28444"]. The appeals of TPM 28489 and TTM 28444, respectively, are each based upon the following reasons and supporting evidence: 'Title 13, City of La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance No. 13.12.130. In this regard please find enclosed two checks, each for $175.00, according to the City of La Quinta fee schedule, which are paid under protest according to the authority of Government Code Section 6103, on the basis that the Appellant, the Coachella Valley Unified School District, is a public school district and a public agency for purposes of the exemption provided in that statute. 13AKW&G/AJN/37127 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 25, 1997 Page 2 1. During the Planning Director hearing on April 17, 1997, the Planning Director stated that the approval of TPM 28489 was inclusive of the condition of approval originally imposed on the Project relative to mitigation of the District's school facilities ["School Facilities"] impacts from implementation of the Project, specifically, Condition 39 of the Conditions to Approval of Specific Plan 83-002 [hereinafter, "Condition 39"]. Condition 39 provides that: "[Applicants] shall pay a per -unit school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands and Coachella Valley Unified School Districts in accordance with the school mitigation agreements as approved by the La Quinta City Council and in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits." Representatives of the District were present at this hearing, and relied upon the information provided by the Planning Director, Ms. Christine Di Iorio. The Planning Director's statements on April 17, 1997, however, were not consistent with statements attributed to her a letter dated March 26, 1997 from the Planning Director to our firm, in which it is state that Condition 39 "is no longer a condition as it was amended in August of 1996." Nevertheless, at the April 17, 1997 hearing, the City's Planning Director specifically stated that it was her understanding and intention that Condition 39 was not rescinded, but would be made applicable to TPM 28489 and any other map entitlement relative to the Project. By contrast, however, shortly prior to the April 22, 1997 hearing before the City's Planning Commission relative to TTM 28444, the City again took the position that Condition 39 was rescinded by way of an amendment in August of 1996 by way of a telephone conversation between City Attorney Dawn Honeywell and Alexander Bowie of this firm. Therefore, the City's positions relative to the applicability of Condition 39 to the Project are demonstrably inconsistent, and obstruct the ability of the public and other responsible public service providers to follow the planning requirements of the City relative to residential development; 2. At present, the District has not entered into any School Facilities mitigation agreement ["Mitigation Agreement"] with the Applicant or any other party in connection with TPM 28489 or TTM 28444. TPM 28489 and TTM 28444 therefore cannot legally be approved by the City, pursuant to the unequivocal language of Condition 39 requiring a Mitigation Agreement. The City has been advised of this by correspondence from our firm dated March 21, 1997, which correspondence and all other testimony and BAKW&G/AJN/37127 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 25, 1997 Page 3 correspondence forwarded on behalf of the District is herein incorporated by this reference; 3. The record of proceedings, including, but not limited to, City Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-025 [regarding Amendment No. 3 to the Project], City Resolution Nos. 89-70 [approving Amendment No. 2 to the Project] and 96-67 [approving Amendment No. 3 to the Project], along with the City's August 6, 1996 Staff Report for the proposed approval of Amendment No. 3 to the Project [collectively, the "KSL Resolutions", or "Record"], is silent as to any specific school mitigation discussion. By contrast, the Record contains statements in the pertinent resolutions and staff reports that carry forward all of the previous conditions of Specific Plan 83-002. By not expressly amending the applicable condition of approval for the Project dealing with School Facilities, the language of the KSL Resolutions by their own terms carried forward all prior specific plan requirements, including Condition 39; 4. The District must make its facilities planning decisions in light of the conditions of approval imposed by the City on residential development. In this regard the District is acting in reliance upon the City's imposition of Condition No. 39, for purposes of its facilities planning to serve the students from the Project. However, the District was never given any notice of any purported proposal to amend the Project by way of deletion of Condition 39; 5. The City has not provided for any alternative School Facilities mitigation, if Condition 39 is to have been deleted. The purported general condition of approval [No. 3], providing that the "Applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions [including the District]", which the applicant shall obtain "[p]rior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit." The District has already informed the City on several occasions that it will require an executed Mitigation Agreement with the Developer, pursuant to Condition 39, and the interjection of this Condition at best lends itself to several competing interpretations [including an interpretation that an executed Mitigation Agreement is the District's requirement], and at worst merely calls on the applicant to comply with the Statutory School Fees Legislation, which is not a Project -specific mitigation measure as required by CEQA; 6. During the April 22, 1997 public testimony relative to TTM 28444, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell advanced the proposition that Condition 39 was imposed prior to the enactment of the Statutory School Fees Legislation [Gov. Code Sections 53080 et seq. BAKW&G/AJN/37127 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 25, 1997 Page 4 and 65995 et seq.], purportedly because such a condition was "meaningful at the time the Project was approved", but that superseding enactment of the Statutory School Fees Legislation eliminated the necessity for Condition 39, notwithstanding that nothing in the Record discloses any such self-executing termination of Condition 39 on the basis of subsequently enacted legislation. In response to this statement, testimony offered on behalf of the District noted the necessity for the City's advisory and legislative bodies to offer an explanation for elimination of such a mitigation measure, especially since the staff report for TTM 28444 justified no additional environmental review on the basis that "an environmental impact report was prepared for the `PGA West Specific Plan ' and Certified by the City Council on May 1, 1984 [and a] subsequent EIR was prepared and adopted as part of Amendment No. I in 1988." The City Attorney then advised that the findings and text of the August 1996 amendment represented the intent of the City Council to rescind Condition 39, which is not supported by the text of the pertinent KSL Resolutions. It defies logic how the City can on one hand rely on a 1984 EIR, amended in 1988, which included Condition 39, to justify no further environmental analysis, and then suggest that an interpretation of the text of the Record in 1996 purportedly eliminated or rescinded Condition 39, for purposes of an action taken in April of 1997. It is telling that the City did not indicate in the staff report for TTM 28444 that the sequence of events in approving the environmental impact report for the PGA West Specific Plan included a deletion of a condition, which was in effect at the time the EIR certified, occurring in 1996. The City cannot claim that the conditions of approval and mitigation measures dating back to 1984 and 1988 allow it not to undertake another environmental analysis, but simultaneously argue that an action in 1996 rescinded one of the environmental mitigation measures, and not include such purported 1996 modification of the 1984 EIR in the relevant staff report. The City's actions amount to nothing more than a post hoc rationalization favoring the proposition that the City apparently desires to eliminate the developer applicants' responsibility to mitigate the adverse school facilities impacts of the Project to a level of insignificance. 8. The premise that Condition 39 was deleted because it was the intention of the City Council to do so by approval of Amendment No. 3 to the Project in August of 1996 is flawed, because City Council Resolution 96-67 [approving Amendment No. 3 to the Project] contains no language expressly supporting such proposition. The law applicable to municipal ordinances requires an ordinance of a city to be construed in accordance with legislative intention disclosed by its terms, which intention cannot be shown by any extraneous evidence, even if the testimony or opinion of an individual member or 13AKW&G/AJN/37127 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 25, 1997 Page 5 members of City Council contradicts the express terms of the ordinance. [See, e.g. Re Application of Volpi, 53 Cal.App. 229,199 P. 1090.1 Furthermore, the statements made on behalf of the City by the City Attorney at the April 22, 1997 hearing do not withstand scrutiny: For example, on one hand the City Attorney suggested that language in City Council Resolution 96-67 supports rescission of Condition 39. However, when taken to task on this statement on the basis that such resolution in actuality contains no such specific justification, the response was to the effect that the City does not have to justify its actions to the public if they are consistent with the City's own internal policies. This statement invites another level of inquiry, in that I] where is the City policy that Statutory School Fees are sufficient in the absence of a Mitigation Agreement, 2] why is such policy not consistently applied, 3] how can the City claim to have a policy regarding school mitigation limited solely to statutory school fees, if the County of Riverside's policies [e.g. County of Riverside Resolution No. 94- 183] applicable to adjacent unincorporated areas are in contravention of such policy, and 4] how is a purported policy favoring Statutory School Fees compatible with the proposition [stated by the City Attorney on April 22, 1997] claiming that the intent of the City is merely to allow the applicants to work out a solution with the District without further involvement by the City?; 9. There is nothing in the Record to support the notion that the City made any environmental analysis in compliance with CEQA to consider that the deletion of Condition 39, which was enacted to mitigate identified school facilities impacts to the School District, would result in unmitigated environmental impacts in the absence of any alternatives to mitigate such impacts. 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15062 requires the City to determine whether or not a project, for which an earlier environmental analysis was performed, requires additional environmental review, and provide notice of such determination to the public. It is without question that the deletion of a previously adopted mitigation measure such as Condition 39 constitutes such a change; 10. The KSL Resolutions, to the extent they are given an application not supported by their own terms, are void or voidable as to any purported repeal of Condition 39 from their inception [i.e. "void ab initio "]. See e.g. Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544. We have reviewed the Record relative to the Project, including its amendments, and observe that there is nothing in the Record which unequivocally informs the public of the City's BAKW&G/AJN/37127 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 25, 1997 Page 6 purported action to rescind Condition 39. Accordingly, the District hereby protests and appeals any approvals in connection with TTM 28444 and TPM 28489 that are not proceeded by and/or made contingent upon the Applicant meeting its obligation to fully mitigate the impacts of its development within the Project on the School Facilities of the District and enter into a Mitigation Agreement with the District. Any statement by City staff to the contrary is not supported by law. Therefore, any approval by the City Council, City Planning Commission, or City Planning Director of the Project or any related map approvals, including, but not limited to TPM 28489, TTM 28444, and TTM on the basis of an undisclosed, post -hoc rationalization of an intent to repeal Condition 39 without any consideration of an alternative mitigation measure to mitigate the significant adverse School Facilities Impacts from the Project in substantial compliance with state law requirements including CEQA is an abuse of discretion. Please be advised that Government Code Section 6103 states in pertinent part, "Neither the state nor any county, city, district, or other political subdivision... shall pay or deposit any fee for the filing of any document or paper, for the performance of any official service..." Therefore, this appeal by the District is exempt from any fee which might otherwise be applicable under the City's appeal policy and fee schedule, notwithstanding the enclosure of the fees to process the joint appeals set forth herein, which are paid under protest. Very truly yours, BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WI US cc: Dr. Colleen Gaynes Ms. Elsa Esqueda Mr. Alexander Bowie Ms. Dawn Honeywell BAKW&U/AJN/37127 Orl► V W owr& Qamrr V wSmam r. Sun or nLaoBrY TEN'i..TIYE TRACT NO. Z8118 BRIM. A a.ralRRlor Reora LM It. to Yr n "a mam" or Lra. 11. le. Re V rx1 Ra. —. ASMR. m roof tea Ir 1 C.A .r rva.mv er IACL.Im..P R.. i m rrr *"XN of Me L.uArr !taro NOATf or MlATmI. ATIfr V TJLV.aR4 roaMrar R!!r A M .a a IrB Rr r 1 Y rBLTlOA tr. r.IAJm . r.oR aura ru See JANUARY t995 . ■ a « a r WATSON t CHRISTIANSEN ENGINEERIVG OENER/DEVZLOPER ENGINEER as arGaArroa COBP"4 'AMR a CrWSrZUI W A—REPma Y-Y. Pu an. u R.mra •••••••••• WY PO Bea on u aNRT4 C.HP AAM SAM (tnl a.e-ref (uI) Tr.-ont MUTINS nrat cacmu amn urn ,ratio• Arra ca - rucrT r rta u.TBa,r ATTACHMENT 4 rcB..a anrBAr. area. r.,w .av,a sr .oraar LAND Usa sms?m L.AD mf: WY Cot/LTf/lotlr► NO..... {YIB 03a: C.LP C.oaar/Bramn"u lYBraraoo 4R. Se.: — Y.B.B/..AmaIII.L/TYAr► ZONING Bnrmrc Seem•-t rYMtra Koff tr — MADVABma aarm.r 1-rp-a ` ASSZSSOR'S PARCEL NO. S ftl-n.-VL YA .ra era. 011 Ar-1o►ML .r.. Il4 Yr • I AREA CALCULATIONS TIL BMOC ` SOAR ALSO A. LOT M • smsr LOl7 L.A AC. ro R .T turrrrAtoaae • On Remove M.Y Re. TR an" {I// LOT tl M BOa/La01 1 ', � a Tor �iesaor► ATa al \. Vk tI Flo— .#rrLacn I n ..n M ?l�f nr m U t N� N 1 i I 1� 5Eth AVENUE .VOTES: PRIVATE STREET SECTION SHEET 2 OF 6 EXHIBIT B LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 96-235 LOTS 13 THROUGH 35, INCLUSIVE TRACT NO. 28118, M.B. ?54/99-104 ATTACHMENT 5 - — — — - EXISTING LOT UNE TO BE ADJUSTED EXISTING LOT UNE TO BE REMN —�- TRACT BOUNDARY rRAr (� ��, J. 81 16 .�•.■� NEW LOT UNE 1 r) �J)�, /I /�1 �1-' � 1 �, 14 — ouo LOT No. 3J 0 J 0 � 4. —NEW PARCEL NO. ;CALE 1" =80' 39 Gp�' pQ`• y�. �1 4'� N89'13'40'E N89'13'40"E N89' 13'4T E 324.06' 79.23' 79.24' 1\} z co ;5Zt; 6 j 1� wVt 13 �� 14 iti 15 ;y -f--� 18 = r \ o f 16 0` 17 j v} oo r u, co N8741'09 E 132.64' 2 : 5 ; + _--- — W - + 1 + 1 4 , cd I � 1 �l HERMITAGE i rr N+o t\+� r-Zr• N'o+o th O+� Mlu tn10Q z�v ro z, O CURVE DATA A R L T 1 0624'45' 981.50' 109.85' 54.98' 2 04'41'30" 1018.50' 83.40' 41.72' 3 0700'53" 981.50' 34.51' 17.26' 4 00' 38' 1 Cr 1018.50' 11.31 ' 5.65' 5 0,755'30" 981.50' 67.24' 33.63' 6 00'20' 1 Cr 981.50' 5.76' 2.88' 7 04'25'5C" 1018.50' 78.76' 39.40' LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 96-235 C1 Y OF LA QUINTA K\jM40122\UAi3-35 c ATTACHMENT 6 3 � a �'1 =i ovo 8% U cz a�� 4! > ? I 11 >A �v �V I I 4 , 9 \ 7M RECREATION CORPORATION ATTACHMENT 7 April 2, 1997 Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner City of La Quinta Department of Community Development P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 a.RR C. 41 1-'S7 J - Re: Coachella Valley Unified School District ("CVUSD") mitigation agreement regarding Specific Plan 83-002 Dear Greg: This letter is in response to the letter you received from the CVUSD dated March 21, 1997, a copy of which was forwarded to me. KSL is the successor in interest to certain real property which lies within the CVUSD, and is the beneficiary of certain entitlements and agreements related to the PGA West development, including, but not limited to, Specific Plan 83-002 and the Agreement for Financing Public School Facilities within the CVUSD dated December 29, 1986 (the "CVUSD Agreement, „ a copy of which is enclosed for your reference). It is our understanding that Tentative Tract Map 28444 and Tentative Parcel Map 28429 (the "Maps") are located within the boundaries defined in Specific Plan 83-002 and are therefore, mitigated by the CVUSD Agreement. It is also our understanding that the CVUSD Agreement was entered into to satisfy Condition 39 (as referenced in the CVUSD's March 21 letter). The CVUSD Agreement specifically provides for a per -unit fee (as opposed to the "per square foot" fee the CVUSD is attempting to charge); the fee was determined and set by the CVUSD; the fee is reflected in a school mitigation agreement, i.e. the CVUSD Agreement; and the CVUSD Agreement is still in full force and effect. Therefore, the CVUSD is only permitted to charge school fees of $628.00 per residential unit. Further, KSL believes that the CVUSD Agreement clearly defines the residential lots impacted by mitigation as being within Specific Plan 83-002. It our contention the CVUSD has erred in its determination that the above referenced Maps have not been mitigated through an agreement and we respectfully submit that the City of La Quinta must proceed with the review and approvals of the pending Maps. Sincerely, ✓ C e Larry elkichliter Executive Vice President LEL/bl prop. pgaw.cvusd.112 America's Leader In Distinctive Lifestyle and Recreation 56-140 PGA Boulevard • La Quinta, California 92253 • (619) 564-1088 • Fax (619) 564-4880 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW I.EXANDER BOWIE* 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE (800) 423-6054 BAN C. ARNESON NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 FAX (714) 851-2014 TILLIAM J. KADI (714) 951-1300 TENDY H. WILES* RESPOND TO NEVPORT BRACK ATRICIA B. GIANNONE REP. OUR 1W OBERT E. ANSLOW 3403 TENTH STREET, SUITE 715 RTO J. NULTfINEN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 1ANIEL J. PAYNE (909) 222-2750 3033.18 [ARLON SIMON 'ABELLA ALASTI 1EBORAH R. G. CESARIO YSA M. SALTZMAN May 27, 1997 k PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VIA FACSIMILE Honorable Members of the Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Appeal of Findings or Conditions: 1) April 17, 1997 Planning Director Approval - Tentative Parcel Map #28489 - KSL, and 2) April 22, 1997 Planning Commission Approval - Tentative Tract Map #28444 - KSL Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, the Coachella Valley Unified School District ("District"). The District previously appealed the April 17, 1997, decision of the City's Planning Director relating to the application of KSL Land Corporation ("KSL") for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 28489 ("TPM 28489") for the PGA West Specific Plan 83-002 (the "Project" or "Specific Plan"). The decision by the Planning Director was appealed following a hearing before the Planning Director. The District also has appealed the April 22, 1997 approval by the City Planning Commission of KSL's application for Tentative Tract Map No. 28444 for the Project ("TTM 28444"). The hearing on the appeal of TTM 28444 before the City Council was continued from May 20, 1997, to June 2, 1997. At present, the District has not entered into any school facilities mitigation agreement ("Mitigation Agreement") with KSL or any other party in connection with TPM 28489 or TTM 28444. Therefore, the City cannot legally approve any of the previous actions of either the Planning Commission or the Planning Director. This results from the unequivocal language of Condition No. 39 of the Conditions to Approval of Specific Plan 83-002 ("Condition 39") and BAKW&G/DRC/37899 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Members of the Planning Commission May 27, 1997 Page 2 mitigation measure 30 ("Measure 30") contained in the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") of the Specific Plan requiring an applicant to enter into a Mitigation Agreement with the District. The Planning Commission and City have been advised of this by correspondence from our firm dated March 21, 1997 and April 25, 1997, and by testimony before the Planning Commission and the City Council which are all herein incorporated by reference. The City and KSL have asserted that Condition 39 was rescinded by Resolution No. 96- 67 ("Resolution 96-67" or "Amendment 3") to the Specific Plan. Condition 39 provides that: [Applicants] shall pay a per -unit school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands and Coachella Valley Unified School Districts in accordance with the school mitigation agreements as approved by the La Quinta City Council and in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits. The District contends that Condition 39 remains a condition of the amended Specific Plan, and even if Condition 39 was rescinded, TPM 28489 and TTM 28444 cannot be approved for the reasons set forth below. 1. CONDITION 39 IS A CONDITION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. As the records of the City reflect, the Specific Plan has been amended on three (3) occasions. None of the three amendments either rescinded or modified Condition 39. In fact, Condition 39 was carried forward by the only reasonable interpretation of Amendment 3. A. Amendment 1 did not rescind Condition 39. On September 20, 1988, Resolution No. 88-111 ("Resolution 88-111" or "Amendment I") was adopted by the City Council thereby amending the Specific Plan for the first time. Amendment 1 is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A". Amendment 1 by its express terms rescinded and modified some of the conditions to the Specific Plan but did not expressly or impliedly rescind or modify Condition 39. In fact, Exhibit A to Amendment I specifically stated that "[a]ll of the other conditions of approval for the PGA West Specific Plan still apply unless amended above." Amendment 1 is important for two reasons: first, it did not rescind or modify Condition 39, and second, it set a precedence that for a condition to the Specific Plan to be rescinded or modified it must be done by express terms. BAKW&G/DRC/37899 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Members of the Planning Commission May 27, 1997 Page 3 B. Amendment 2 did not rescind Condition 39. The second amendment to the Specific Plan occurred on June 6, 1989, when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-70 ("Amendment 2"). Amendment 2 is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit `B". Amendment 2 merely amended the Specific Plan to add approximately 21.5 acres to the Specific Plan area. It did not rescind or modify any conditions to the Specific Plan. C. Amendment 3 did not rescind Condition 39. The last amendment to the Specific Plan is the controversial Amendment 3 which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "C". The recitals in Amendment 3 state that the "Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment remain adequate to address all environmental concerns as there are no significant changes in circumstances of the proposed project from the original approvals. Therefore, no additional environmental review is deemed necessary." (Emphasis added.) Amendment 3 also stated that this amendment to the Specific Plan was consistent with the General Plan. What is most controversial about Amendment 3 is what this Amendment does not say. It does not expressly or impliedly state that Condition 39 was rescinded or modified. We understand that the basis for the City's claim that Condition 39 was rescinded by Amendment 3 is the language found in the Infrastructure and Utilities Plan Element within the amended Specific Plan, which states as follows: School services for the specific plan area are facilitated by the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District. This language, by no stretch of the imagination, states that Condition 39 was rescinded or modified by Amendment 3. The City Attorney at the May 20, 1997 public hearing stated that Condition 39 applied only if it was "reincorporated into the new version of the amended plan." (Emphasis added.) It is the City's own staff report for the August 6, 1996 meeting relating to Amendment 3 which confirms that Condition 39 was not rescinded by Amendment 3 but in fact was reincorporated in Amendment 3. This staff report is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "D". The staff report further states that the Specific Plan was to be amended as follows: Section 2.5 - Infrastructure and Utilities Plan: "All conditions of City Council Resolution 88- BAKW&G/DRC/37899 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Members of the Planning Commission May 27, 1997 Page 4 I H regarding public services are now included." (Emphasis added.) As stated above, Resolution 88-111 or Amendment 1, which relates to public services kept Condition 39 intact. Therefore, Amendment 3 carried forward Condition 39 to the Specific Plan by express terms. It is also important to note that according to Government Code Section 65455, no tentative map or parcel map may be adopted or amended within an area covered for a specific plan unless it is consistent with the adopted specific plan. [Government Code Section 65455]. Approval of TPM 28489 and TTM 28444 would be inconsistent with Condition 39 of the Specific Plan in that KSL has not entered into a mitigation agreement which requires it to pay a per -unit school fee as determined by the District 2. ASSUMING CONDITION 39 WAS RESCINDED, IT WOULD BE UNLAWFUL AND AN ACT OF MISFEASANCE TO APPROVE TPM 28489 AND TTM 28444. Assuming that Condition 39 was rescinded, which as explained above did not occur, it would be unlawful and an act of misfeasance to approve TPM 28489 and TTM 28444, unless the City specifies that KSL pays a per -unit school fee as determined by the District pursuant to Measure 30. A. If Condition 39 was rescinded, then the Specific Plan was invalidated thereby preventing the approval of TTM 28444 and TPM 28489. (i) TTM 28444 and TPM 28489 are inconsistent with the Specific Plan in that the Specific Plan was invalidated. The basis for approving the Specific Plan is Resolution No. 84-31 ("Resolution 84-31 "). Resolution 84-31 states that: The City finds and determines that each and every condition included in the specific plan is a integral part of the underlying specific plan approval; that each condition was imposed to ensure, among other things, consistency with the general plan and mitigation of environmental consequences; that the City would not have approved said specific plan in the absence of requiring compliance with each and every condition; and that if any condition is invalidated by the action of the Applicant, or not complied with by the Applicant, said specific plan approval, including the design thereof, shall be subject to reconsideration by the City upon written notice to the Applicant. BAKW&G/DRC/37899 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Members of the Planning Commission May 27, 1997 Page 5 Assuming that Condition 39 was rescinded without the express rescission of Resolution 84-31, then by the express terms of Resolution 84-31 the Specific Plan had disappeared in its entirety. If the City assumes that Condition 39 was rescinded then the Specific Plan would be void. Condition 39, as well as the other conditions, in whole and in part, were an integral part of the Specific Plan. Furthermore, as stated above, it is a matter of law that no tentative map or parcel map may be adopted or amended within an area covered for a specific plan unless it is consistent with the adopted specific plan. [Government Code Section 65455]. (ii) The Specific Plan is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, Pursuant to Government Code Section 65454, "[n]o specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan." (Emphasis added.) Assuming the Specific Plan was not invalidated by the purported rescission of Condition 39 by Amendment 3, the Specific Plan is inconsistent with the City's General Plan dated October 6, 1992 ("General Plan") which is a violation of Government Code Section 65454. Goal 7-3 of the General Plan states that "Educational, governmental and community service facilities provided at adequate levels to ensure high quality of life in La Quinta." Policies 7-3.1.3 through 7-3.1.6 of the General Plan provide that the City shall ensure that an adequate number of elementary, middle and high schools are provided with appropriate facilities and personnel to ensure the provision of a quality education of the students of the District at full build -out. The goal and policies are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "E". These policies, therefore, require that school facilities are to be provided concurrent with need (development), or else, appropriate school facilities cannot be provided at the time of full build -out. The "amended" Specific Plan which fails to require that an applicant pay per -unit fees to mitigate the impact on the District's school facilities ("School Facilities"), is inconsistent with the City's General Plan in that adequate School Facilities cannot be provided to the District's students concurrent with need which is the same as full build -out. It has also been suggested by the City Attorney at the hearing on TTM 28444 on May 20, 1997, that statutory school fees ("Statutory School Fees"), which were not in effect at the time of the approval of the original Specific Plan, could be deemed by the City Council as being adequate to address the impact to School Facilities. Such a suggestion is contrary to Chapter 7 entitled "Infrastructure and Public Services Element" of the General Plan which addresses the issue of School Facilities. On page 7-6 of the General Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "F", it is noted that the District has estimated that the Statutory School Fees will only "provide approximately 25 percent of the BAKW&G/DRCJ37899 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Members of the Planning Commission May 27, 1997 Page 6 funding necessary to construct, maintain and improve public education facilities." Clearly, the General Plan evidences that the City Council has determined that Statutory School Fees are not adequate to address the impact of the Specific Plan on the District's School Facilities. B. Assuming Condition 39 was rescinded, Measure 30 to the EIR remains valid and enforceable, Prior to approving the Specific Plan, the City Council, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") adopted Resolution No. 84-28 ("Resolution 84-28'� which approved the EIR for the Specific Plan. The City Council, in approving Resolution 84-28, certified that the EIR was adequate and complete. The EIR included various conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impact of the Project on the School Facilities of the District within the City of La Quinta. The relevant mitigation measure is Measure 30 ("Measure 30") to the EIR. Measure 30 provides that the applicant shall pay a per -unit school fee as determined by the School Districts. This language, though worded differently, is the same as Condition 39, which requires an applicant to pay to the District a per -unit fee as approved by the District and City. It is undisputed, unlike Condition 39, that the EIR for the Specific Plan, which includes Measure 30, remains valid and enforceable. A focused EIR was prepared for Amendment 1 which addressed the traffic generation/circulation issues and a negative declaration was prepared for Amendment 2. Amendment 3 did again approve the EIR for the Specific Plan instead of preparing and certifying a supplemental EIR for the purported rescission of Condition 39 prior to the approval of Amendment 3. There is nothing in the Record to support the notion that the City made any environmental analysis in compliance with CEQA to consider whether the alleged rescission of Condition 39, which was enacted to mitigate identified school facilities impacts to the School District, would result in unmitigated environmental impacts in the absence of any alternatives to mitigate such impacts. The City is required to determine whether or not a project, for which an earlier environmental analysis was performed, requires additional environmental review, and provide notice of such determination to the public. [See, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and Section 15163]. It is without question that the deletion of a previously adopted mitigation measure such as Condition 39 constitutes such a change requiring the City to prepare a supplemental EIR. BAKW&G/DRC/37899 BOVIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Members of the Planning Commission May 27, 1997 Page 7 C. In the past, the City has expressly rescinded or modified a condition to the Specific Plan, The City cannot by intent rescind a condition. As mentioned above, the City set a precedence in terms of rescinding or modifying a condition to the Specific Plan when it adopted Amendment 1. In order for the City to rescind or modify a condition to the Specific Plan by a resolution, it shall set forth in express terms which condition(s), by number, the City Council wants to rescind or modify. For example, in Exhibit A to Amendment 1 which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", Condition No. 25 was rescinded by the following language: "Condition 25 of City Council Resolution 84-31 is hereby rescinded and deleted." (Emphasis added.) There is no similar language with respect to Condition 39 in Amendment 3. The record of proceedings, including, but not limited to, City Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-025 (regarding Amendment No. 3 to the Project), City Resolution Nos. 89-70 (approving Amendment No. 2 to the Project) and 96-67 (approving Amendment No. 3 to the Project), along with the City's August 6, 1996 Staff Report for the proposed approval of Amendment No. 3 to the Project (collectively, the "KSL Resolutions", or "Record"), is silent as to any specific school mitigation discussion. By contrast, the Record contains statements in the pertinent resolutions and staff reports that carry forward all of the previous conditions of the Specific Plan. By not expressly amending the applicable condition of approval for the Project dealing with School Facilities, the language of the KSL Resolutions by their own terms carried forward all prior specific plan requirements, including Condition 39. The premise that Condition 39 was deleted because it was the intention of the City Council to do so by approval of Amendment No. 3 to the Project in August of 1996 is flawed because City Council Resolution 96-67 (approving Amendment No. 3 to the Project) contains no language expressly supporting such proposition. The law applicable to municipal ordinances requires an ordinance of a city to be construed in accordance with legislative intention disclosed by its terms, which intention cannot be shown by any extraneous evidence, even if the testimony or opinion of an individual member or members of City Council contradicts the express terms of the ordinance. [See, e.g. Re Application of Volpi, 53 Ca1.App. 229, 199 P. 1090.] During the April 22, 1997 public testimony relative to TTM 28444, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell advanced the proposition that Condition 39 was imposed prior to the enactment of the Statutory School Fees Legislation [Gov. Code Sections 53080 et seq. and 65995 et seq.], purportedly because such a condition was "meaningful at the time the Project was approved", but that superseding enactment of the Statutory School Fees Legislation eliminated the necessity for BAKW&G/DRC/37899 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Members of the Planning Commission May 27, 1997 Page 8 Condition 39, notwithstanding that nothing in the Record discloses any such self-executing termination of Condition 39 on the basis of subsequently enacted legislation. In response to this proposition, testimony offered on behalf of the District noted the necessity for the City's advisory and legislative bodies to offer an explanation for elimination of such a mitigation measure, especially since the staff report for TTM 28444 justified no additional environmental review on the basis that "an environmental impact report was prepared for the 'PGA West Specific Plan' and Certified by the City Council on May 1, 1984 [and a] subsequent EIR was prepared and adopted as part ofAmendment No. 1 in 1988." The City Attorney then advised that the findings and text of the August 1996 amendment represented the intent of the City Council to rescind Condition 39, which is not supported by the text of the pertinent KSL Resolutions. It defies logic how the City can on one hand rely on a 1984 EIR, amended in 1988, which included Condition 39, to justify no further environmental analysis, and then suggest that an interpretation of the text of the Record in 1996 purportedly eliminated or rescinded Condition 39, for purposes of an action taken in April of 1997. The KSL Resolutions, to the extent they are given an application not supported by their own terms, are void or voidable as to any purported repeal of Condition 39 from their inception i.e. "void ab initio". [See e.g., Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544.] D. The public hearing notice for Amendment 3 statutorily and constitutionally violated the District's due process rights, The District must make its School Facilities planning decisions in light of the conditions of approval imposed by the City on residential development. In this regard the District is acting in reliance upon the City's imposition of Condition No. 39, for purposes of its School Facilities planning to serve the students from the Project. However, the District was never given adequate statutory or constitutional notice of any purported proposal to amend the Project by way of deletion of Condition 39. Government Code Section 65094 requires that a general explanation of the matter to be considered be included in the public notice amending a specific plan. [Government Code Sections 65453, 65355, 65090 and 65094.] The notice ("Notice") published by the City as to Amendment 3 did not refer to any action relating to Condition 39 or any other similar matters as to the Specific Plan. The Notice is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "G". Also, in a matter of this magnitude, reasonable efforts as to actual notice are required. [See, Schroeder v. City of New York (1962) 371 U.S. 208.] Here, the City's Notice provided to BAKW&G/DRC/37899 BOtIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Members of the Planning Commission May 27, 1997 Page 9 the public on July 15, 1996, was vague and fell short of notifying the School District that it was about to lose per -unit mitigation fees. In fact, the Notice was grossly misleading in stating that the request for Amendment 3 was "to approve graphic, text and development standard changes to the PGA West master planned resort specific plan of development." The Notice did state, however, that "there are no significant changes in circumstances of the proposed project from the original approvals." (Emphasis added.) The District contends that it was denied its due process rights. The Supreme Court has held that there is a right to a hearing when a relatively small number of persons are concerned and who are exceptionally affected. [Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. Of Equalization, (1915) 239 U.S. 441]. In Harris v. County of Riverside, (1990) 904 F.2d 497, the court found that Harris was entitled but deprived of constitutional due process when "the County's decision to alter its proposed General Plan Amendment specifically to rezone Harris' land constituted a decision which was distinct from, rather than part of, approval of the General Plan Amendment." Here, the decision to approve changes to the Specific Plan was targeted toward the property within the District's boundaries, and affected a relatively few, but the District was severely affected in that the impact Amendment 3 had on the District was tremendous. There are approximately 2,500 dwelling units (DUs) from the PGA West portion within the District. The purported rescission of Condition 39 would deprive the District of its right to collect mitigation payments in the approximate amount of $18,850,000. This amount is calculated by as follows: 2,500 DUs x 7,5401. Statutory School Fees would only contribute approximately $8,717,000.00 to the District's School Facilities. This amount is calculated as follows 2,500 DUs x $3,486.00 ($1.84 per square foot x the average DU square footage of 1,895). If the City rescinded Condition 39 then the District would lose the difference in the amount of $10,133,000.00. However, this argument should be moot because Mitigation 30 was not rescinded and preserves the District's right to collect per -unit fees from KSL. It is important to understand that subsequent to the enactment of the Statutory School Fee Legislation, a trio of cases held that the Statutory School Fee Legislation did not apply to land use decisions involving legislative projects. [Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201, 252 Cal.Rptr. 825; William S. Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 277 Cal.Rptr. 645; and Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1212, 279 Cal.Rptr. ' This amount is taken from the Coachella Valley Unified School District School Facilities Impact Worksheet. BAKW&G/DRC/37899 ' BoWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Members of the Planning Commission May 27, 1997 Page 10 421.] In Murrieta, the Murrieta Valley Unified School District contended that a Riverside County general plan amendment violated Government Code Section 65300 et seq., because the county failed to incorporate into the general plan amendment terms or conditions to assure that adequate school facilities would be provided. The school district further contended that the county had violated CEQA by failing to adequately address significant adverse impacts on the school district as part of the approval of the comprehensive general plan amendment. [Id., 228 Cal.App.3d at 424.1 The court, in Murrieta, concluded that the school district had stated a cause of action for violation of CEQA, finding that neither Government Code Section 65995 nor Government Code Section 65996 of the School Facilities Legislation preempted the county's authority or prohibited the county from considering and providing feasible land use and development mitigating measures. The court further found that, with regard to legislative projects, the County was not limited to adopting the mitigation measures set forth in the Statutory School Fee Legislation. [Murrieta, 228 Cal.App.3d at 426.] Mira, Hart, and Murrieta all hold that the limitations set forth in the Statutory School Fee Legislation are not applicable to land use decisions involving legislative approvals, such as general plan and specific plan amendments. 3. CONCLUSION We have reviewed the Record relative to the Project, including its amendments, and observe that there is nothing in the Record which unequivocally informs the public of the City's purported action to rescind Condition 39. Accordingly, the District hereby protests and appeals any approvals in connection with TTM 28444 and TPM 28489 that are not proceeded by and/or made contingent upon KSL meeting its obligation to fully mitigate the impacts of its development within the Project on the School Facilities of the District and enter into a Mitigation Agreement with the District. Therefore, any approval by the City Council, City Planning Commission, or City Planning Director of the Project or any related map approvals, including, but not limited to TPM 28489 and TTM 28444 on the basis of an undisclosed, post -hoc rationalization of an intent to repeal Condition 39 without any consideration of an alternative mitigation measure to mitigate the significant adverse School Facilities Impacts from the Project in substantial compliance with state law requirements including CEQA, is a clear abuse of discretion. The District contends that any action by the Planning Commission and/or the City to BAKW&G/DRC/37899 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, VOILES & GIANNONE Members of the Planning Commission May 27, 1997 Page 11 uphold the purported rescission of Condition 39 and ignore Measure 30 is illegal and tantamount to misfeasance. Therefore, the District will continue to exhaust its administrative and legal remedies in order to continue to provide a quality education to the children of La Quinta who attend and depend upon the District's School Facilities. Very truly yours, BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE By: Deborah R.G. Cesario DRC/ cc: Dr. Colleen Gaynes (via fax w/o enclosures and U.S. Mail) Ms. Elsa Esqueda (via fax w/o enclosures and U.S. Mail) Mr. Alexander Bowie Ms. Dawn Honeywell (via fax w/o enclosures and U.S. Mail) Mayor and Members of La Quinta City Council (via fax w/o enclosures and U.S. Mail) BAKW&G/DRC/37899 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 88- 111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS, AND APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #1. PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #1; LANDMARK LAND COMPANY, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Specific Plan No. 83-002, pursuant to Section 65500 et seq. of the California Government Code, and transmitted the same to the City Council in compliance with Section 65502 of said Law; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held at least one Public Hearing on Specific Plan No. 83-002, as required by Section 65503 of the California Government Code; and, WHEREAS, on May 1, 1984, the La Quinta City Council certified the EIR for PGA West Specific Plan No. 83-002 (Council Resolution No. 84-28) as adequate and complete, adopting "Statements of Overriding Considerations", adopted "CEQA Findings and Statements of Facts"; and, WHEREAS, the PGA West Specific Plan No. 83-002 requested and was approved for 400 hotel rooms and 250 apartment/condominiums/hotel rooms, therefore, permitting the Applicant to construct 650 hotel rooms, or up to 250 apartments or condominiums with 400 hotel rooms; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the PGA West Specific Plan No. 83-002 (Council Resolution No. 84-31) on May 15, 1984, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, a Condition of Approval adopted by the City Council limited the height of the hotel complex and related buildings within the Village Core to a maximum height of four stories; and WHEREAS, Landmark Land Company, Inc. has requested an amendment to said Specific Plan to add 350 additional hotel rooms and increase the hotel height from four stories to six stories; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of August, 1988, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing recommending confirmation of the environmental determination and approval of the requested Specific Plan No. 83-002, Amendment #1 to permit 350 additional - 1 - HJ/RESOCC.014 hotel rooms and increasing the hotel height from four to six stories; and, WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 20th day of September, 1988, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to -consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the environmental determination and Specific Plan No. 83-002, Amendment #1; and WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director had prepared a supplemental EIR focused on traffic generation/circulation; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the original Environmental Impact Report and supplemental focused EIR; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said Specific Plan Amendment: 1. Specific Plan No. 83-002, Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that they encourage the provision for hotel and tourist -related uses. 2. The said Amendment increases the number of hotel rooms by 350 and the height by two stories. 3. The development of the amended project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area. 4. The Specific Plan was originally envisioned and considered by the City to function as a major residential, recreational, and resort project oriented around golf and tennis. 5. The Specific Plan approval contained conditions to ensure among other things, consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences. 6. The Specific Plan EIR was certified as adequate and complete. Said certification contained the adoption of "Statements of Overriding Considerations" and "CEQA Findings and Statements of Facts". 7. The supplemental generation/circulation, EIR, focused on traffic identified circulation impacts BJ/RESOCC.014 - 2 - and mitigation measures which will reduce the potentially significant circulation impacts associated with the proposed amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the Specific Plan No. 83-002, Amendment No. 1, for reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions (Exhibit A). PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 20th day of September, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Cox, Pena, Sniff NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mayor Hoyle WILLIAM R. HOYLE, Mayor La Quinta, California ATTgT : 'SXUNDRA L. JUHO ty Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: BARRY BRA4PT, City Attorney City of L Quinta, California 3 - BJ/RESOCC.014 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 88-111 'RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AUGUST 23, 1988 EXHIBIT A 1. Condition No. 23: The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a traffic study one year after the opening of the PGA West Hotel (the intersection/streets identified in the original EIR shall be addresses). The Traffic Study shall include traffic generated from the total PGA West project (i.e. existing residential units, club houses, future residential developments, hotel) and shall contain percentage associated with each impact/improvement. Should the results of the study indicate that traffic signals are warranted, the Applicant/Developer shall pay its share of the signal cost based upon the percentages identified in the Traffic Study. A letter of credit shall be provided, prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, in an amount recommended by the City Engineer to ensure that the traffic study and installation of the traffic signals will be provided. Should the required traffic study indicate that the signal warrants are not met, the Applicant/Developer shall conduct annual warrant studies to determine when the signals are needed. Upon the need for the signals, the Applicant/Developer shall participate in its share of the signal costs as noted above. in addition, when the signal warrants are met at the intersection of Avenue 54 and Jefferson, the Applicant/Developer shall pay for the installation of the signal. The City may establish a reimbursement agreement for this signal. The Applicant/Developer shall pay for an annual 24-hour traffic count program, for each impacted road and intersection with roadway improvements triggered when threshold values are reached. The Applicant/Developer shall pay for its share of the improvement required based upon its project -related traffic generation impact as identified by the percentages in the above mentioned Traffic Study. The implementation of this condition is to be administered by the City Engineer, acting upon his technical discretion. 2. Condition No. 25 of City Council Resolution No. 84-31 is hereby rescinded and deleted. 3. Condition No. 34 of City Council Resolution No. 84-31: Height limitation shall be as specified for the original Specific Plan, except as follows: a. The portion of the area designated for six -story (72 feet) height south of the Airport Boulevard alignment shall be deleted. BJ/CONAPRVL.009 I b. All residential units shall be limited to a maximum of two stories, not to exceed 35 feet. C. The hotel shall be limited to a maximum height of six stories; and the other related buildings, not attached to the hotel, within the village Core shall be limited to two stories. 4. Condition No. 38.i. of City Council Resolution 84-31 is hereby modified to read as follows: The Applicant shall provide an access road, pursuant to the Uniform Fire Code for the hotel. In lieu ofaccess roads on all sides of the hotel building, the Applicant may provide: o Full access on one complete side of the building, which includes provisions for aerial apparatus operations at strategic locations; and, o Installation of a complete "Life Safety Support System" for high-rise occupancies. NOTE: All of the other conditions of approval for the PGA 'West Specific Plan still apply unless amended above. BJ/CONAPRVL.009 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 39-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ,:\'N10UNCING FINDINGS, CONFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, ;aNIENDMENT N0. 2 PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT NO. 2 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Specific Plan No. 83-002, pursuant to Section 65500 et seq. of the California Government Code, and transmitted the same to the City Council in compliance with Section 65502 of said law; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held at least one Public Hearing on Specific Plan No. 83-002, as required by Section 65503 of the California Government Code; and, WHEREAS, on May 1, 1984, the La Quinta City Council certified the EIR for PGA West Specific Plan No. 83-002 (Council Resolution No. 84-28) as adequate and complete, adopted "Statements of Overriding Considerations", and adopted "CEQA Findings and Statements of Facts"; and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved the PGA West Specific Plan No. 83-002 (Council Resolution No. 84-31) on May 15, 1985, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of August, 1988, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment No. 1, a request to increase the hotel by 350 units and recommend City Council approve said amendment; and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved the PGA West Specific Plan No. 83-002, Amendment No. 1 (Council Resolution Nos. 89-110 and 89-111) on September 20, 1988, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, Landmark Land Company, Inc. has requested an amendment to said Specific Plan to add 21.5+ acres to the Specific Plan for the construction of residential units and golf course fairways; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of May, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on said Amendment No. 2 request; and, MR/RESOCC.038 -1' 2. That it does hereby confirm the environmental determination relative to the environmental ' concerns for this amendment and adopts a Negative Declaration; 3. That it does hereby approve the subject Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 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 Council, held on this 6th day of June, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Bosworth, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None JOHN PENA, Akayox City of La Quinta, California ATT T : � A G� SAUNDRA L. J HOIX; ity Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY City of La Quinta, California MR/RESOCC.038 -3- CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 89-70 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT NO. 2 JL'NE 6, 1989 1, That Amendment No. 2 comply with the original and modified conditions for Specific Plan 83-002; and, 2. The overall number (5,000) of residential units approved for PGA West Specific Plan 83-002 shall not be increased by this addition of 21. _ MR/CONAPRVL.059 -1 RESOLUTION 96-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #3. PGA NVEST SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #3 KSL LAND CORPORATION AND CITY OF LA QUENTA WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta, California in participation with KSL Land Corporation did request a 3rd Amendment to said Specific Plan to bring the specific plan into compliance with the General Plan; and, WHEREAS. the City Council did on the 6th day ofAugust, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on said Amendment #3 request; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission ofthe City of La Quinta, California did on the 25th day of June, 1996, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on said Amendment #3 request and did recommend approval under Planning Commission Resolution 96-025; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment #3 complies with the requests of the "Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment remain adequate to address all environmental concerns as there are no significant changes in circumstances of the proposed project from the original approvals. Therefore, no additional environmental review is deemed necessary; and, WHEREAS, on the 1st day,of May, 1984, the La Quinta City Council certified the EIR for PGA West Specific Plan 83-002 (City Council Resolution 84-38) as adequate and complete, adopted "Statements of Overriding Considerations", and adopted "CEQA Findings and Statements of Facts"; and, WHEREAS, on the lst day of May, 1984, the City Council approved the PGA West Specific Plan 83-002 (City Council Resolution 84-31) subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, on the 20th day of September, 1988, the City Council did hold a duly - noticed Public Hearing on the PGA West Specific Plan 32-002, Amendment Al (City Council Resolutions 89-110 and 89-111) to increase the hotel by 350 units and conditionally approve said Amendment: and, WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of May, 1989, the City Council did hold a duty -noticed Public Hearing on the PGA West Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #2 (City Council Resolution 89- 70) to add 21.65 acres for residential use; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and P•resmc.202 Resoluuoc 9"7 arguments. if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the fbUow�g facts and reasons to justify the approval of said Specific Plan Amendment: 1 Consist= with the C=cml M= The Specific Plan update is consistent with the Land Use, Circulation. Open Space, Paris and Recreation, Environmental Conservation, Infrastructure and Public Senses, Environmental Hazards, and Air Quality Elements of the General Plan. The Specific Plan contains a summary of each of the goals and policies applicable in evaluating the document's consistency with the General Plan. Overall, the Specific Plan offers guidelines promoting a balanced and finnctional mix of land uses consistent with the City's General Plan. 2. Public Weff=- The Specific Plan update will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public heahh, safety and general welfare of the community in. that the document " establishes comprehensive guidelines to ensure the character, design, and standards of development are of the highest quality. The Specific Pbuls ultimate goal is to provide a resort community with golf oriented villages defined by four eighteen hole golf courses. The commerckLarea will be the center of commerce providing necessary goods and services to the community. The Resort Village Core is centrally located with adequate design and development standard provisions to ensure limited impact for the surrounding residences. 3. i_snd Use Comnatin bL� The Specific Plan update is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the General Plan. Land Use Policy Diagram shows the surrounding properties to the south, north and east as Low Density Residential. This is compatible with the Specific Plan Residential Land Use designation since it is also designated Low Density Residential The zoning to the west is designated on the General Plan as Open Space. The Specific Plan Land Use ?AM identifies the area adjacent to this open space as golf course which is a compatible Open Space use. 4. R==,aUbWhy. The Specific Plan update is suitable and appropriate for the area in that the community maintains a low density residential character blending compatibly with its environmental setting a*cM to the Santa Rosa motmtain& The small scale commercial area is appropriately located as an entry statement into the community. NOW, of EREIFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of La Quinta. California, determines the foIlowing: 1. That it does hereby confirm the environmental determination for the proposed Amendment; That the City Council approve Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment 03, for reasons set forth in this Resolution. P-resme.202 Resoluno© 9"7 PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quanta City Council. held on this 6th day of August. 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Perkins, Sna Mayor Holt NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Adolph ABSTAIN: None GLENDA L. HOLT, Mayor City of La Quanta, California ATTEST: PHYLLI Y, epu rty Clerk City of La Quanta. California APPROVED AS TO FORM: �" -.Jj � DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quanta, California P-resocc.102 tu'rft�cv COUNCILRDA MEETING DATE: August 6, 1996 ITEM[ TITLE: Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #3, approving an update to the PGA West Specific Plan including graphic, text and development standard changes. Applicant: KSL Land Corporation •1Mrqq• •� AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt City Council Resolution approving the update to the PGA West Specific Plan for consistency with the City's General Plan. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None • .*P1j o • The Specific Plan area is bounded by 54th Avenue on the north, Madison Street on the east, 58th Avenue on the south and the Santa Rosa Mountains on the west (Attachment 1). The General Plan Land Use designations are Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, Community Commercial, and Golf Course Open Space. The Specific Plan Zoning Districts are Low Density Residential (2-4 DU/AC); Specific Plan Residential and Specific Plan Residential-1, Golf Course/Open Space, Tourist Commercial and Community Commercial. The PGA West Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on May 15, 1984, under Resolution 84-31 . The 1,665 acre area initially allowed 5,000 single family residences, a 65 acre resort village (400 hotel rooms, 250 apartments/condominium cottages and support facilities), four 18 hole golf courses and a 20 acre commercial center. The first amendment, approved by the City Council in 1988, under Resolution 88-1 1 1, allowed additional hotel rooms not to exceed 1,000 and the height of the hotel was increased from four to six stories. A Supplemental Focused EIR was processed analyzing the traffic, noise, height, visibility, and aesthetic impacts due to the increase of rooms. cccc.coi A second amendment, approved by City Council in 1989, under Resolution 89-70, added 21.5 acres to the Specific Plan and a Change of Zone 89-041 from Agricultural to Residential, south of 54th Avenue, east of the All -American Canal, and north and west of the existing boundaries of the Specific Plan. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared in conjunction with the original Specific Plan approval and was certified by the City Council on May 1, 1984 under Resolution 84-28. A Supplemental Focused EIR was prepared and certified in conjunction with Amendment # 1 to the Specific Plan, on September 20, 1988, under Resolution 88- 110. The EIR and Supplemental Focused EIR remain adequate to address all environmental concerns as there have been no significant changes in circumstances or the proposed project from the original approvals. Therefore, no additional environmental review is deemed necessary. Q-7711911PENOE0111 The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the update to the Specific Plan at its June 25, 1995 meeting. The Commission requested additional narrative regarding the need to provide a buffer between the commercially designated area and the residential area (Attachment 2). KSL and City staff have worked together in preparation of this updated Specific Plan. The objective is to better address the current design characteristics and standards in response to the current development pattern occurring in PGA West. Most importantly the changes will bring the Specific Plan into conformance with the General Plan. The proposed document (Attachment 2) modifies the existing document as follows: Chapter 1. - Introduction. This section now incorporates the two Specific Plan Amendments within the project setting, history, environmental review and enabling legislation. Chapter 2. - Plans, Programs and Guidelines Provides a current Land Use Map depicting the existing and proposed land uses (Exhibit 4; Specific Plan). C=0.00i 2 Section 2 3 Circulation Plan All outstanding conditions of City Council Resolution 88-1 1 1 relating to Traffic and Circulation are now included. The Circulation Plan (Exhibit 5) is updated. Section 2.5 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan All conditions of City Council Resolution 88-111 regarding publ,� services are now included. Potion 2.6 Community Design Guidelines Provides architectural, site planning and landscaping design direction. Also recommended are building and plant materials for ail residential, recreational and commercial uses. Chapter 3 - Zoning and Development Regulations These are the changes incorporated from Section 3.1 - Specific Plan Residential (SPR) Uses and Standards. This section establishes the permitted land uses and development standards for property designated as Specific Plan Residential (SPR) on the Land Use Plan. Residential and golf supporting maintenance and office uses. The minimum lot size is 6,500 square feet with 50-feet being the minimum lot frontage for units fronting golf fairways. The minimum lot size -of 6,500 square feet with 55-feet minimum lot frontage for interior lots. The rear yard setback, adjacent to a golf course is ten feet, with the approval of the golf course owner. The rear yard setback for private pools is at property line if adjacent to common open space. WIN WIM"I .. - 1 . The minimum lot size is 6,500 square feet with 50-feet being the minimum lot frontage. ..cc3.001 3 The rear yard setback, adjacent to a golf course is ten feet, with the approval of the golf course owner. Community pools are required for every 30 residential units. These are the changes incorporated from Section 3.2 - Specific Plan Residential (SPR) Uses and Standards. This section establishes the permitted land uses and development standards for property designated as Specific Plan Residential-1(SPR-1) on the Land Use Plan. Section 3 2 1 Single Family Detached Develogment Standards for Specific Plan Residential -I (one-story detached dwellinasl The minimum lot size is 6,500 square feet with 50-feet being the minimum lot frontage. The rear yard setback for private pools is at property line if adjacent to common open space. Section 3.3 Community Commercial Uses and Standards Addition of development standards including the Floor Area Ratio, minimum building site, structure height and stories, landscape and building setbacks, with guidelines for buffering of the residences from the commercial site. Section 3.4 Tourist Commercial Uses and Stan r s Addition of development standards for hotels, condominiums and apartments, including the Floor Area Ratio, structure height and stories, frontage and setbacks. The property immediately:surrounding the Specific Plan is designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram as.L-ow Density Residential to the north, east and south. The Santa Rosa -Mountains and Lake Cahuilla Regional Park are to the west. The case was advertised in the Q jal Sun newspaper on July 15, 1996. All property owners within 500-feet of the Specific Plan were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required. No negative comments have been received. All correspondence received before the meeting will be given to the City Council. 4 CCCO.001 Findings can be made to approve the update to the PGA West Specific Plan as follows: General Plan Consistency - The Specific Plan update is consistent with the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Park and Recreation, Environmental Conservation, Infrastructure and Public Services, Environmental Hazards, and Air Quality Elements of the General Plan. The Specific Plan contains a summary of each of the goals and policies applicable in evaluating the document's consistency with the General Plan. Overall, the Specific Plan offers guidelines promoting a balanced and functional mix of land uses consistent with the City's General Plan. Public Welfare- The Specific Plan update will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community in that the document establishes comprehensive guidelines to ensure that the character, design and standards of development are of the highest quality. The Specific Plan's ultimate goal is to provide a resort community with golf oriented villages defined by four eighteen hole golf courses. The commercial area will be the center of commerce providing necessary goods and services to the community. The Resort Village Core is centrally located with adequate design and development standard provisions to ensure limited impact for the surrounding residences. Land Use Compatibility- The Specific Plan update is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram shows the surrounding properties to the south, north and east as Low Density Residential. This is compatible with the Specific Plan Residential Land Use designation since it is also designated Low Density Residential. The zoning to the west is designated on the General Plan as Open Space. The Specific Plan Land Use Map identifies the area adjacent to this open space as golf course which is a compatible Open Space use. Property Suitability- The Specific Plan update is suitable and appropriate for the area in that the community maintains a low density residential character blending compatibly with its environmental setting adjacent to the Santa Rosa mountains. The small scale commercial area is -appropriately located as an entry statement into the community. Alternatives available to the City Council are as follows: 1 . Adopt City Council Resolution approving Amendment #3 updating Specific Plan 83-002; or 2. Deny Amendment #3 updating Specific Plan 83-002; or 3. Request additional information. cccc-'01 5 �... Jerry �4erman ComunAy Deve opment Director Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 1996(Excerpt) and Resolution 96-025 3. Specific Plan, 3rd Amendment --rn 001 6 RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLLTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF L.-k QUnNTA, C.ALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #3. PGA «SST SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #3 Ii SL LAND CORPORATION AND CITY OF LA QUINTA A'HEREAS. the City of La Quinta. California in participation with KSL Land Corporation did request a 3rd Amendment to said Specific Plan to bring the specific plan into compliance nzth the General Plan. and. WHEREAS. the City Council did on the 6th day of August. 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on said Amendment #3 request; and, W"iER.EAS. the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the , 5th day of June. 1996. hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on said Amendment #3 request and did recommend approval under Planning Commission Resolution 96-025; and, WHEREAS. said Specific Plan Amendment #3 complies with the requests of the "Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213. adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment remain adequate to address all en-6ronmental concerns as there are no significant changes in circumstances of the proposed project from the original approvals. Therefore, no additional environmental review is deemed necessary; and. WHEREAS. on the 1 st day of May, 1984, the La Quinta City Council certified the EIR for PGA West Specific Plan 83-002 (City Council Resolution 84-38) as adequate and complete. adopted "Statements of Overriding Considerations", and adopted "CEQA Findings and Statements of Facts"; and. WHEREAS, on the 1 st day of May, 1984, the City Council approved the PGA West Specific Plan 83-002 (City Council Resolution 84-31) subject to conditions; and. WHEREAS, on the 20th day of September, 1988. the City Council did hold a duly - noticed Public Hearing on the PGA West Specific Plan 32-002, Amendment #1 (City Council Resolutions 89-110 and 89-111) to increase the hotel by 350 units and conditionally approve said Amendment: and. WHEREAS. on the 23rd day of May, 1989. the City Council did hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on the PGA West Specific Plan 83-002. Amendment #2 (City Council Resolution 89-70) to add 21.65 acres for residential use: and. P•-esocc._0'_' Resolunon 96-_ AT1ERE.kS. at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and am-uments. if any. of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the followinz facts and reasons to justify the approval of said Specific Plan Amendment: Consistent with the General Plan: The Specific Plan update is consistent with the Land Use. Circulation. Open Space. Park and Recreation, Environmental Conservation, Infrastructure and Public Services. Environmental Hazards, and Air Quality Elements of the General Plan. The Specific Plan contains a summary of each of the goals and policies applicable in evaluating the document's consistency with the General Plan. Overall, the Specific Plan offers guidelines promoting a balanced and functional mix of land uses consistent with the City's General Plan. 2. Public Welfare: The Specific Plan update will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community in that the document establishes comprehensive guidelines to ensure the character, design, and standards of development are of the highest quality. The Specific Plan's ultimate goal is to provide a resort community with golf oriented villages defined by four eighteen hole golf courses. The commercial area will be the center of commerce providing necessary goods and services to the community. The Resort Village Core is centrally located with adequate design and development standard provisions to ensure limited impact for the surrounding residences. Land T Tse Compatibility: The Specific Plan update is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram shows the surrounding properties to the south, north and east as Low Density Residential. This is compatible with the Specific Plan Residential Land Use designation since it is also designated Low Density Residential. The zoning to the west is designated on the General Plan as Open Space. The Specific Plan Land Use Map identifies the area adjacent to this open space as golf course which is a compatible Open Space use. 4. pro== Stdtability: The Specific Plan update is suitable and appropriate for the area in that the community maintains a low density residential character blending compatibly with its environmental setting.4scent to the Santa Rosa mountains. The small scale commercial area is appropriately located as an entry statement into the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of La Quinta. California. determines the following: That it does hereby confirm the environmental determination for the proposed Amendment: fic Plan 83-002, Amendment #3, for reasons set forth That the City Council approve Speci in this Resolution. P•resocc-= Resolution a6- PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 6th day of August. 1996. by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: GLENDA L. HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta. California -ATTEST: S AL'NDRA JUHOLA. City Cleric City of La Quinta. California APPROVED AS TO FOF-%I: DAWN HONEYWELL. City -Attorney Cin of La Quinta; California P-resocc-202 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 LI �y 44th i 1100*100 • 50th AVE v v LA QUINTA • `�F L6 CfTY OF LA QUfNFIt'"' COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE z O N 0 VICINITY MAI INDIO PROJECT SITE PGA NVESr KSL Desert Resorts. Inc. SPECIFIC PLAN EXHIB r ATTACHMENT 2 MINUTES PLANTNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico. La Quinta, CA June 25. 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning C Chairman Abels who asked Cqpg II. ROLL CALL IV 7:00 P.M. z was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Butler to lead the flag salute. A. Chairman Abels reque ed the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler. Gardner. Nei ' k. Tyler, and Chairman Abels. B. Staff present: Co unity Development Director Jerry Herman. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell. Senio Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner tan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. PUBLIC COMMENT: PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment #3; a request of KSL Land Corporation and the City of La Quinta for approval of an update to the PGA West Specific Plan for consistency with the City's General Plan 1. Commissioners Gardner and Anderson asked to be excused due to a possible conflict of interest. Both Commissioners Gardner and Anderson left the dins. Z. 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. 3. There being no questions of staff. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. Mr. Chevis Hosea. representing KSL Land Corporation. stated he had no questions. but KSL was happy to get this item before the Commission as they thought this specific plan was more applicable to what is currently being planned and designed for PGA West. PC6-25 Plannvns Commission Meeting June 25. 1996 4. Commissioner Barrows questioned Page 37 of the Specific Plan asking if the City needed to alter the language to their Conditions of Approval regarding a buffer zone for the residential from the commercial. Mr. Hosea stated that if there was something adequate to use as a buffer zone that would mitigate any impact on the view, they would like to do so. Planning Manger Christine di Iorio stated that as a condition of approval the Specific Plan could be required to be modified to accommodate the buffer zone. Commissioner Barrows stated she was not certain what width should be required, but noted that a three story commercial building being built should require some mitigation measures. 5. Commissioner Tyler questioned Page 11 of the Specific Plan, asking for clarification as to why the chart stated five dwelling units per acre for the density and the text refers to three. Mr. Haag stated that one figure is the net and other refers to the gross residential density. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated this is the way the Specific Plan is currently approved. Commissioner Tyler asked how many golf courses were at PGA West. Mr. Hosea stated there are a total of five with part of one course in a separate Specific Plan. Mr. Haag stated the plan shows four existing and the start and end of the Weiskopf course. How -giver, there are only four complete 18 golf courses within the Specific Plan boundary plan. 6. Commissioner Barrows asked if the proposed hotel would block the viewshed. Mr. Hosea stated that placing the hotel in the middle of the Specific Plan area was the proper design to mitigate this. He further stated this was a trade off; to get the hotel to make sense you would have to have the right density to attract the hoteliers. The land mass is needed to make it work statistically. Sixty-five feet, the height of the hotel, is a pretty limited amount of restricted view. 7. Planning -Manager Christine di Iorio stated that the Resolution approving the .Environmental Assessment should be amended to read: "The EIR and Supplemental Focused EIR remain adequate to address all environmental concerns as there have been no significant changes in the circumstances of the proposed project from the original approvals. 8. There being no further public comment, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Newkirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96-025 recommending to the City Council approval of an Amendment to the PGA West Specific Plan for consistency with the City's General Plan, subject to the amendment to the Environmental Assessment Resolution. 2 PC6-25 Planning Commission Meeting June =5. 1996 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Butler, Newkirk. Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson and Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioners Anderson and Gardner rejoined the meeting. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. PC6-25 itinnnl TT 96-.i 1 I: a \simateriaWstructures of Keith International, Inc. for USA Properties Fund, Inc. for approval ofliminary landscape plans, recreational amenity plans, and other supplementin compliance with the Conditions of Approval under Reso6-023 for the 116 unit Terracina Apartment complex. 1. Commissioer Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. Commissio er Butler left the dins. 2. Planning M er Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff rep a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. ;. Mr. ✓like Ro , Keith International, representing the applicant, stated he was there to answe any questions. 4. Commissioner ardner asked Mr. Rowe about the carports. The drawings shows that the ay the carport is set up that when the car door is opened it will hit the post d he would like to know if they could be designed to avoid this. In addition, by were they not building the carports out of wood instead of metal. Mr. R e stated the metal would have more stability and last longer than wood. a structure was a prefab structure, the same as what was insrailed at the Seaso s project. 5. Chairman Abels asked i e heat would make any difference using the metal versus the wood. Mr Row tated it would not. 6. Commissioner Anderson stated metal provides 100% shade and a wood trellis does not. A wood trellis with ling, would, however, contribute to the overall design of the complex. Co . sioner Gardner stated that due to the changes being made in wood and the tree ents now available, wood can last as long as metal. Mr. Rowe stated this was hoice of the applicants because they had used it before and it worked well. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF IA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AJ%JENDhiENT #3. PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #3 KSL AND CM OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the City in participation with KSL Land Corporation did request a 3rd Amendment to said Specific Plan to bring into compliance with the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 25th day of June, 1996, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on said Amendment 03 request; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment #3 complies with the requests of the "Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside; Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in the City of La Quinta. Ordinance No. 5), in that the Community Development Director had prepared an Environmental Assessment and reviewed the prior EIR for PGA West, including Supplemental, and determined that proposed Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, on May I, 1994, the La Quinta City Council certified the EIR for PGA West Specific Plan $3-002 (Council Resolution 94-39) as adequate and complete, adoptec "Statements of Ovenicrmg Considerations", and adopted "CEQA Findings and Statements of Face" and. WHEREAS, the City Council approved the PGA West Specific PIan 83-002 (Count Resolution 84-31) on May 1, 1984, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 20th day of September 1988hold Resolutie noticed Public Heating on the PGA West Specific Plan 32-002, Amendment #1 (Council 89-110 and 89-111) to increase the hotel by 3 50 units and conditionally approve said Amendmen and. WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 23rd of May, 1989, hold a duly -notice Public Hearing on the PGA West Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #2 (Council Resolution 89-71 to add 21.65 acres for residential use, and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony aj arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said armng Co mm ssinton did fr the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said Specific i P:rwoor-208 PI&mmnct Commission Resolution 96-_ Consistent with the General Plan: The Specific Plan update is consistent with the Land Use, Circulation. Open Space. Paris and Recreation, Environmental Conservation, Infrastructure and Public Services, Environmental Hazards, and Air Quality Elements of the General Plan. The Specific Plan contains a summary of each of the goals and policies applicable in evaluating the document's consistency with the General Plan. Overall, the Specific Plan offers guidelines promoting a balanced and functional mix of land uses consistent with the City's General Plan. 2. Public Welfare: The Specific Plan update will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community in that the document establishes comprehensive guidelines to ensure the character, design and standards of development is of the highest quality. The Specific Plan's ultimate goal is to provide a resort community with golf oriented villages defined by four eighteen hole golf courses. The commercial area will be the center of commerce providing necessary goods and services to the community. The Resort Village Core is centrally located with adequate design and development standard provisions to ensure limited impact for the surrounding residences. 3. Land Use Cote tam ibility: The Specific Plan update is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram shows the surrounding properties to the south, north and east as Low Density Residential. This is compatible with the Specific Plan residential Iand use designation since it is also designated Low Density Residential. The zoning to the west is designated on the General Plan as Open Space. The Specific Plan Land Use Map identifies the area adjacent to this open space as golf course which is a compatible Open Space use. 4. Pral2CM Suitability: The Specific Plan update is suitable and appropriate for the area in that the community maintains a low density residential character blending compatibly with its environmental setting adjacent to the Santa Rosa mountains. The small scale commercial area is appropriately located as an entry statement into the community. NOW, TMU TORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the Cit) of La Quinta, California, determines the following: 1. That it does hereby confirm the environmental determination for the proposed Amendment 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval o Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment 93, for reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quint Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of June, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: Pxesope.208 Planning Commission Resolution 96-_ AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Butler, Newkir, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson and Gardner. AB STAIN: None JA Q�ES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: �MRYIfJWAN, Community Deveiopment Lirector ity of U Quinta, California P:MMPC.208 Policy 7 2.2.6 he pg, shalt/ comnx# M wfth Msa#h Care ' oviders to provide Proudmate, comprehensive heap are faci#ties for MY residents policy 7 2.Z7 he City shad work with Emergency Meal Service 'rovidws to ensure the Provision of emergsnW waport and paramedic servmoee In the Cly. - .;r. „',GOAL;?..-_.3-�.�iJW EducattonaC setvic:ladlltlesdedi`.� �ao ensure htquei M* _.. : � - - low.- Objective 7-&1 The City stall ensure the provision of adequate educational. library and community center facilities in La Quints. Policy 7-3.1.1 Rw Public Services Policy Diagram shall Identify the ovations of educational, library and community center facghties required to most dw demands of the City at hddout The /ocatfons of such AadYlties shag be consistent with the Land Use Polley Diagram in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Polley 7-3.1.2 The City shall coordinate with the Desert Sands Untied School Dlstnd (DSUSD) and Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) to provide high quality education and recreatron fadOM pvidmately located to residential areas containing the largest PrOPartion of students in the City. Policy 7 3.1.3 The City shall ensure that an adequate number of elementary schools are Provided with aPProprlate facilities and Personnel to ensure the Provision of a quality education for all La Quints children at buddout Policy 7-M 1.4 The City she# ensure Chet an adequate number of ,"A" scngofa are proWded with aAwgwwar NOW" and Personnel to ensure the provision of a quality education far all Le t]ufnte taenagws at full bu#dout Polley 7-MI-5 Tire City MW ensue that an adequate nwnber of hk* sdmb are provided with eppnoprbne fadlldssr anal persomuret to ensure the provision of a quRw- aducea rr for aU La Quanta young adift at M bumd" Policy 7-3.1.6 Tire City Me cowdnate with the DSUSD and CVUSff- - in the &sswsmwt of new development to deAed N210- i��tsyy,,knoe t yantpd midgadon an the At+6ift>: OYYf.:2He- facrix" in La QdntR Polley 7-11.7 nW City shell &nW into dsvatpo ant Men deemed R&W0900us to the may. cattle the DSM or CVUSD to assist in the purchase of kW for reasoba purposes, provision of reavedon Aseallo M or ors uft nn*d wnoa tb >narease the NeiO 2A M - 6 41 and Cornnnuuty Park atxage and feaifides Or sariaal students and to provide krpoved park - and a0vides for the public during non -school hours. Policy 7-3.1.8 Tire City shag requm the reservstlM (with it *Ale" Vt to per) of teat property, p MMd 10 the master plan of the WIcable school dIS&W Or the provision of necessary public educational faa Polley 7,%1.9 The CXty she# coordinate and communicate witlr the k" post graduate lasdtudons f e. Copege of the Desert Chapman Coaege and Nati wW Univen W and the DSUSD and CVUSD to locate sgUote dasasa In local district Aadlides to provide proximate educadanat q*wM nitfes for City residents. Polley 7-3.1.10 no Clay shall coordinate with the Rhrerside County Library System to provide adequate spand Aadblies to wore the #terary and educational needs of La Quanta residents. Polley 7-11.11 The City shall ensure that adequate library space and volumes are available to satisy the literary needs of As residents at bufldout Policy 7.,11.12 The City shah 000rd hate with dhe R wstde City/County Lary System to provide Autuna MCM08 In the northem and/or southeastern portions of the BRW ins Chapter 7 -infrastructure and Public Services Element CI1Yof La G General uft aPlas �asr o-sw.. 7-18 fas adopted in August 1987 and provides the impact w structure requirements for the following: • Public Buildings • Public Safety lhAdIngs • Recreational. Facilities • Bridges • Major Thoroughfares • Traffic and Pedestrian Signals lublic Education he public education needs of the City are provided e two public school districts which include the Desert ends Unified School Distrid (DSUSD) and the oacheila Valley Unlbed School District (CVUSD). he Coachella Valley also contains several private :hoofs administered by religious or other private ttiftes that are attended by L8 Quinta school childrem he boundary between the two districts extends south i Jefferson Street, from Avenue 48, and west on venue 58. The existing public schools located in the ty within the OSUSD include John Adams Primary stool, Bermuda Dunes Elementary School, Harry uman intermediate School (temporary) and � Quints Middle School. in addition to these taciahm a.City also maintains an adjacent community center rich Provides child care sermes. No existing public hoofs are administered by the CVUSD in Lea Quints. e majority of the approximately 2,1 so existng public pool students reside in the Cove and the northern rtion of the City. sad on location of existing schools and the provision Proposed schools to be located in the City, LA inta appears to be adequately served even though -ne facilities are not proximate to the neighborhoods ere many of the students reside. an effort to augment the State School Construction )gram to fund new facilities, renovate existing ilities, and add more comprehensive curricula and mialized programs, the state passed Assembly Bill )0 (AB 1600) in January, 1989. The legislation vides the requirements and procedures for ablishing, increasing and imposing development s. At the time of adoption of AS 16W, the honied development fees were set at a rate not to eed $1.50 per square foot of assessable residential ice and $0.25 per square foot of chargeable, ered and enclosed commercial or industrial space. suant to Suction G®5 (b) of the California rernment Code these fees are to be increased, to ist for inflation. by the State Allocation Board every years beginning in 1990. The two school districts estimate that these fees will only provide AMP- cxirrhately 25 pervert of the funding neceemy to facilities.ies. oonstnmaintain and improve public edLumdon Public Library The City is served by a public library located to the Village which is administered by the Riverside County Llbrary System. The existing fadifty corms approximately 2.085 square feet and Inckadw aPPrOkmatehi 18,000 volumes. The County uUm an unadopted standard of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to serve the City. Based cn this standard, the City is WMW* under -served in space. but contains a surplus of volumes. However, a new 9,000 square foot WIRY is planned as a Component of the municlpat Cony The addidw l 1180My wile provide adequate library space to gas* the literary needs of the community web Into the future. SUMMARY OF KEY PLANNING ISSUES The following key infrastructure and public service Issues are addressed in the polkbes of the Infrastructure and Public Services ©ement. • A potable water distribution system should be extended to all existing and future residents of the • Utility "noushould be conserved utilizing a variety of feasible strategies. • A oornPret>eNod ve wastewater collection and treatment system for all development in the City should be Installed. The use of individual private septic systems In the City should be phased out. • The City should be protected from the impacts caused by the 100-year flood Increased vehicular accessibility on major streets and bridges Should be provided during severe storm events. • Curbs and gutter should be provided on roads to collect and convey storm and nuisance water to appropriate stormwater drainage facilities. • The undergrounding of utilities within roadway rights -of -way or existing easements should be required for new development, as well as redevelopment projects in the City. • The potential to utilize creative financing techniques In the provision of utility facilities and services, for economic development purposes should be evaluated. V, Inc. Chapter 7 - Infrastructure and Public Services Element City of La Quinta °°"v'."vr 7-6 General Plan arorema; i am over the and not a party to or ,-entitled Matter. I am 4 printer of the DESERT IPANY, a newspaper of ited and published in s. county of Riverside, fas been adjudged a kculation by the ounty of Riverside, it the date of March 191236; that the ieued is a printed copy than nonpareil), has regular and entire r and not in any he following dates, to ar penalty of perjury a and correct. ..alifornia this I Sth PROOF OR PU N0.�9 aR OUN '� No"a 0i1 Rill NtAiuNo NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quints City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING, Mall CChhaa bUST oors. W1"0. 9s Cant Tampico. 7-00 PM; In the an ne tolCloi ty In q itt: ITE/1rt M: SPECIFIC PLAN 63-002. Arttendnilent sS APPLICANTS: KSL RECREATION CORPORA- TION AND CITE/ OF LA OUINTA LOCATION: ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 34 NORTH OF AVENUE 58 AND ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF MADISON STREET REQUEST: TO APPROVE GRAPHIC. TEXT AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CHANGES TO THE PGA WEST MASTER PLANNED RESORT SPE- CIFIC PLAN OF OEVELOPMENT. LEGAL: ALL PROPERTIES CONTAINED IN THE PGA WEST RESORT An Environmental Impact Repon was prepared in conjunction with the overall "PGA West Specific Plan" and cartitted by the City Council on May 1. 19A1. A subsequent Environmental Assessment pre- pares and adopted as part of Amendment s I to the PGA West Specific Plan and certified on Septem- ber 20, 1"111. The Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment remain adequate to address all environmental concerns as that* are no significant changes in circumstances of the propoeresed project front the original approvals.. Thfore, no additional environmental review Is deemed necessary. Any person may submit written comments on this case to the Community Oeveicament Department prior to the Hearing andlor may appear and be eerd In support of or opposition to the protect at the time of the Hearing. If you challenge the deci- sion of this case in court, you may as ilmlted to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Community O*- veiooment Oepartment at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. The proposed filets) may be viewed by the public Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. until 5.00 p.m. at the Community Dovelooment Oepert- , merit. La Quints Civic Center, 711.1915 Calla Tarnpl- co. La Quints, California. In the City-s efforts to comply with the require- ments of Title 11 of the Americans With 01saoliitias Act of I990, the AdministratloniCommunity Oevel- ooment Oepartment reouires that any person in need Of any type of special equiament, assistance Or accommodation(&) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must '"form the City Clera- BL�i�� Communit Oeveiopment Department a mini- mum of 72 ymour& prior to the scneou►ed meetlnq. Published: JULY Is, 19% BI #1 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: MAY 27, 1997 SUBJECT: HIGHWAY 111 LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINE At your meeting of May 13, 1997, the Commission continued the above -noted item to its meeting of May 27, 1997, to allow all members of the Commission to be in attendance. This matter is before you for review and comment. HIGHWAY III LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES City of La Quinta ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS Intent The Highway 111 corridor is the central window into the City of La Quinta. Developments within this corridor must be sensitive to the natural background vistas, consisting of three horizontal elements: desert, mountains, and sky. Developments which contribute to making La Quinta a unique City by reflecting its physical character and adding to it in appropriate ways, are to be encouraged. Conversely, developments which result in a random series of unrelated, shallow depth, impulse -buyer oriented, sign -intensive commercial uses, with numerous driveways onto Highway l 11, are to be avoided. Objectiv Although these guidelines are by no means intended to stifle creativity, it is the City's hope that they will serve as useful tools for those design professionals who are engaged in site -specific designs for this important portion of La Quinta. The City recognizes that traditional building designs may be more difficult to accomplish due to the differences in scale and mass between historical and contemporary structures. Many contemporary buildings, by the nature of their uses, incorporate larger spaces than those associated with older buildings. Buildings which are of contemporary design but which "gratuitously" provide a tiled parapet, arched entry, or similar feature as an afterthought, just to create a veneer of a more traditional style, are discouraged. Projects which are designed to comply with these guidelines are actively encouraged. However, creative and sensitive projects which comply with the purpose and intent of these guidelines but which do not conform to the detailed aspects will still be given careful consideration by the City. Guidelines 1. No particular architectural style or building materials are specified herein. However, high quality architectural designs and building material selections are encouraged. 2. Within an individual development project, a unifying theme shall be established. This theme will then establish the tone for architectural style, building materials, landscaping materials, paving materials, and other design factors and features to be utilized throughout the project. In general, "standard" design of franchises and other multiple -location businesses shall not be allowed, unless they are determined to be consistent with the overall theme of a project. 3. Structures and all supporting design elements, including landscaping, shall exhibit designs, heights, bulk, mass, shapes, places, textures, and materials which are compatible with the desert setting, and do not obscure or distract from the mountain and sky vistas. To promote individuality among structures, expressive shapes, notched entryways, building off -sets and overhangs are encouraged. 4. Buildings should have architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest, at the scale of the pedestrian, and which reduce massive aesthetic effects. Architectural features should be integral parts of the building fabric, and not be superficially applied trim, graphics, or paints. Architectural designs should incorporate an appropriate variety of qualities, including compatibility with adjoining buildings, intimacy of space, layering of views, accent landscaping, richness of materials, and appropriateness of roof lines. 6. Facades and exterior walls should be articulated to reduce the massive scale and the uniform, impersonal appearance of large retail buildings, and to provide visual interest that is consistent with the City's identity, character, and scale. The intent is to encourage a more human scale. 7. Buildings should offer attractive pedestrian -scale features, spaces, and amenities. Entrances and parking lots should be configured to be both functional and inviting, with walking conveniently tied to logical destinations. 8. Pedestrian and vehicle circulation should be designed to provide safe and convenient access between the adjacent street and the parking area, and between the parking area and the building entrances. 9. Entryway design elements and variations should give orientation and aesthetically pleasing character to the building. 10. All building facades that are visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets should contribute to the pleasing scale and features of those buildings, and shall encourage community integration by featuring characteristics similar to the facade. 11. Loading areas and outdoor storage/display areas exert visual and noise impacts on surrounding neighbors. Such areas, when visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets, should be screened, recessed, or enclosed. 12. Light standards within parking lights, and exterior lights on buildings shall be of the low profile variety, compatible with the architectural design of the building. All lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's "Dark Sky" ordinance. 13. Signs along Highway 111 shall be oriented to automobile traffic, and shall emphasize the name and theme of the building complex. They shall not be a directory listing of the facility/tenant names. 14. Variations in roof lines should be used to add interest to and reduce the massive scale of large buildings. 15. Those developments which abut the Whitewater Wash should be designed so that their appearance is pleasing and acceptable when viewed from the residential properties situated on the opposite side of the Wash. This may require that internal service areas be provided, or that buildings be oriented so that their service side does not face the Wash. 16. "Strip Developments", which are generally arranged in a linear fashion along the adjacent street for maximum visibility from the street, are discouraged. The impression formed while traveling along a strip development is that it is "never ending", and the destination - bound consumer cannot locate what he/she is seeking because of the clutter.