Loading...
1989 06 27 PCA G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION -- CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California June 27, 1989 - 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution No. 89-027' HEARINGS 1. Item ............ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-021 SPECIFIC PLAN 88-012 TENTATIVE TRACT 23995 CHANGE OF ZONE 88-035 Applicant ....... A.G. Spanos Location ........ Area between Washington Street, Miles Avenue, Adams Street, and the Coachella Valley Water District Wash, La Quinta, excluding the small triangular area just north of the Wash and just south of the east/west Avenue 46 alignment (Westward Ho Drive) Request ......... o A General Plan Amendment application proposing changing the land use designation from Medium and High Density Residential to Medium and High Density Residential (altered configuration) and General Commercial o Specific Plan proposing a mixed -use development consisting of 7.6 acres Tourist Commercial, three Multi -Family Residential parcels consisting of 736 units, and a 300-lot single- family subdivision o Tentative Tract application proposing to subdivide the property as described above in the Specific Plan o Change of Zone from R-1 and R-2-8000 to C-P, R-3, and R-1 Action .......... Resolution No. 89- 2. Item ............ PLOT PLAN 89-413, PGA WEST HOTEL Applicant ....... LANDMARK LAND COMPANY Location ........ SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF PGA BOULEVARD, LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENUE 54, WEST OF MADISON STREET, AND NORTH OF AVENUE 58 Request ......... CONSTRUCTION OF PGA WEST RESORT HOTEL AND RELATED ANCILLARY HOTEL USES Action .......... Minute Motion Item ......, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 89-008; CHANGE OF ZONE 89-043 (HILL�,LDE ��JNSERVAIION ' EDT' uNCE) Applicant ....... CITY OF L,A QUINTA Location ........ ALL HILLSIDE AREAS ABOVE THE TOE-OF-tir,C)PF OF THE Q4Nr 'A ROSA MOUNTAINS Request ..... ••. TO AMEND TITLE 9 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO PLANNING AND ZONING, ADDING CHAPTER 9.145, HILLSIDE CONSERVATION ZONE, AND TO RE -ZONE THOSE PROPERTIES WHICH MEET THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO HC FROM VARIOUS RESNDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS. Action .......... Resolution No. 89- 4. Item ............ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-024 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 89-123 Applicant ....... CITY OF LA QUINTA Location CITY-WIDE Request ......... AMEND THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN, REVISING THE HOUSING ELEMENT Action .......... Resolution'No. 89- PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission under Public Comment and scheduled Agenda items should use the form provided. Please complete one form for each item you intend to address and submit the form to the Planning Director prior to the beginning of the meeting. Your name will be called at the appropriate time. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each person shall be limited. CONSENT CALENDAR Minute of Planning Commission Meetings BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ........... Sign Application 89-088 Applicant ....... Chester Dorn Location ........ Existing building at the southwest corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas, previously La Quinta Builders Supply. Request ......... Placement of cne wall -mounted sign. Action Minute Motion OTHER -- None ADJOURNMENT ITEMS FOR JUNE 26, 1989, 3:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION "DISCUSSION ONLY" 1. Draft "Dark Sky" Ordinance 2. Draft Transfer of Development Rights Chapter 3. Hillside Conservation Ordinance 4. Draft Housing Element Update 51, All Agenda items. 6. Identification of future Commission Agenda items. ITEMS IDENTIFIED FOR FUTURE AGENDAS a. Park Land Locations b. Minute Format/Content C. Downtcwn Parking District d. Street Address IIIL,nMinativn e. Fencing Requi.r,>ments PH-1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JUNE 27, 1989 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 13, 1989) APPLICANT: A.G. SPANOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. 014NER : TTP , LTD . / TFP , LTD. PROJECT: RESUBMITTALS FOR: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 88-021 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 88-035 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-012 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23995 LOCATION: 132.5 ACRE AREA BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET, MILES AVENUE, ADAMS STREET, AND THE WHITEWATER CHANNEL (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-099 WAS PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MAY OCCUR DUE TO THE PROPOSAL. THREE ISSUES; TRAFFIC, LAND USE ABSORPTION/MARKETING, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS; WERE STUDIED IN GREATER DEPTH. THE OUTCOME OF THESE STUDIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: A) THE TRAFFIC STUDY SHOWED THAT MITIGATION MEASURES COULD BE APPLIED IF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING COMMERCIAL, WAS IMPLEMENTED. B) THE MARKETING STUDY SHOWED THAT THE LOCATION OF A GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE AS PROPOSED BY THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT BE VIABLE FROM A NEAR -TERM LAND USE INVENTORY PERSPECTIVE. DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETITIVE PROPERTIES AND INCREASED DEMAND AFTER THE YEAR 2000 WILL, HOWEVER, CREATE COMMERCIAL DEMAND TO SUPPORT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE. C) THAT A MITIGATION MEASURE NECESSITATING FURTHER EVALUATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED. C:M/STAFFRPT.082 -1- (PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENTS 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 FOR EXTRACTS FROM THE ABOVE STUDIES.) MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE ABOVE, WHEN MADE A PART OF THE PROJECT, WILL REDUCE THE IMPACTS TO AN INSIGNIFICANT LEVEL AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL, THEREFORE, BE PREPARED. 1. BACKGROUND The above four applications have been resubmitted and brought before the Planning Commission on May 9, 1989. At this Hearing, the Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone and chose to continue the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map. The above applications were scheduled for the City Council meeting on May 16, 1989. The Applicant requested a continuance of this City Council Public Hearing. On May 25, 1989, the Applicant resubmitted all four applications showing a change in location for the commercial site. These applications were scheduled for a hearing before the Planning Commission on June 13, 1989. The applicant requested a continuance for this hearing until June 27, 1989. Several members of the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society spoke during the public hearing portion of the item and indicated concern regarding the archaeological conditions of approval for the Tract map. Condition No. 4 has been amended to address their concerns. 2. APPLICATIONS RESUBMITTED 2.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 88-021. A General Plan Amendment has been made for this property, changing the land use from Medium and High Density Residential to Medium and High Density Residential (altered configuration) and General Commercial. (See Attachment No. 7) a. General Commercial: The La Quinta General Plan states: "General Commercial is a generalized category for the broadest range of use activities. It includes general merchandise above and beyond that found in local neighborhood centers. The latter provide primarily food and food services." C:M/STAFFRPT.082 -2- A 7.6 gross acre General Commercial site is proposed, located on Miles Avenue approximately 1,500 feet east of the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. In previous applications, this commercial site was located on the corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. x,. High Density Residential: This project proposes 49 gross acres of High Density Residential. General Plan Amendment No. 88-021 shows the High Density area located in the central portion of the site, surrounding the proposed General Commercial development, and bordered on the east and including part of the proposed Medium Density land use. Please note that an inconsistency emerges when comparing the GPA and changed zone area requested by the Applicant for the multi -family residential area and that shown on the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract. Approximately 10 acres (+38 lots) of the single-family residential area lies within the area allocated for High Density Residential in the proposed General Plan Amendment and proposed Change of Zone. In a letter received by Staff on June 21, 1989, the applicant has stated they will reduce the total unit count from 750 to 736. This reduces the density from 16.3 units per acre (indicated in June 13, 1989, Staff Report) to 15.19 units per acre, which is within the General Plan High Density Residential stndard of 12 to 16 units per acre. Please note the area figure used to calculate the above density was 48.46 net acres. An amount of 0.54 acres, representing right-of-way to be dedicated, was subtracted from the proposed total high density area of 49 acres. The La Quinta General Plan requires the total acerage to calculate density to exclude the right-of-way dedicated for streets identified in the General Plan Circulation Plan (Washington Street, Miles Avenue, and Adams Street). CNf/STAFFRPT.082 -3- C. Medium Density Residential Area: The Medium Density Residential element is located on the eastern side of the subject property between the proposed High Density area, Miles Avenue, Adams Street, a vacant property, and the Whitewater Wash. This area encompasses 68.90 acres, at a density of +four units per acre. The La Quinta General Plan identifies Medium Density as having 4 to 8 dwellings per acre. 2.2 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 88-035. An application has been made requesting a change of zone from R-2-8000 and R-1 to C-P and R-3 (with a 68.90-acre portion of the property remaining in R-1). (See Attachment No. 8) a.. C-P (General Commercial). The C-P zoning district provides for a large variety of commercial uses including retail and service activities, hotels, motels, gasoline service stations, automobile repair shops, mobile home and trailer sales, rental and storage, and outdoor advertising structures. The Applicant proposes a C-P zone on a 7.6 gross acre parcel located on Miles Avenue approximately 1,500 feet east of the corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. Existing zoning is R-1, single-family residential. b. R-3 (General Residential). The present R-3 zone text permits multiple -family dwellings, apartment houses, and a number of other nonresidential uses. The proposed R-3 zone would occupy some 49 gross acres. This area is located in the central portion of the proposed project, surrounding the proposed C-P zone, bordered by Miles Avenue, the proposed R-1 zone, the Whitewater Flood Control Channel, and Washington Street. Currently this area is zoned R-1 and R-2-8000, i.e., multiple -family dwellings with 8,000 square feet of gross lot area for each unit. CM/STAFFRPT.082 -4- 2.3 SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICATION NO. 88-012. A Specific Plan has been made proposing a mixed -use development for this property. This plan consists of 7.53 net acres Tourist Commercial, three multi -family residential parcels consisting of a total of 736 (amended) units, and a 300--lot single-family subdivision. (See Attachment No. 9) The table below compares the land use areas given for the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Specific Plan, and Tentative Tract as provided by J.F. Davidson on June 16, 1989. ----------- ---------- GENERAL PLAN/ SPECIFIC PLAN/ CHANGE OF ZONE TENTATIVE TRACT GROSS ACREAGE NET ACREAGE GE14ERAL COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY/MULTI-FAMILY LOW DENSITY/SINGLE-FAMILY RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION 7.60 7.53 49.00(+10 ac 38.30 single-family) 67.25 78.02* 0 1.65 CV14D EASEMENT. 7.00 7.00 --•----------...--- -•-- TOTAL 132.50 132.50 ----------------------------- * Includes 10 acreas from High Density/Multi-family gross acreage. (The Specfic Plan net areas excluded the right-of-way area dedicated for streets identified in the La Quinta General Plan Circulation Plan.) a. General Commercial. The General Commercial area comprises those building pad areas described below: --------------- 13UILDING RETAIL OFFICE (SQ FT) (SQ FT) -�__.______ 25,360 4,400 B 15,700 6,500 C 11,200 None CM./STAFFRPT.082 -5- The proposed buildings are arranged with the retail components facing towards a central parking area and the office sector located at the southern entrance to the commercial area. Parking is provided between and around the building areas, primarily in the central area of the site. Access points into the commercial area is off Miles Avenue and at two points off the major access road into the whole project. b. Multi -Family Residential Area. The Multi - Family Residential area (38.3 net acres) is illustrated on the Specific Plan. (See Attachment No. 9) Three phases have been provided as shown below: # Units Net Acres ----------------------------------------- North Phase 220 ? 12.45 South Phase 256 ? 13.05 East Phase 274 ? 12.80 Total 736 38.3 (changed from 750) A road linking Miles Avenue to Washington Street provides access into all three phases. The access point off Miles Avenue lines up approximately with the westerly access point for TT 23268. Three different types of units have been shown, both single- and two-story. The units are grouped in complexes of eight to sixteen units, surrounded by open space and parking areas. Each phase has a centrally -located recreational element. The parking areas are laid out in a linear -type arrangement partly covered with carports. It is noted that all "open space" areas in each multi -family phase will be totally landscaped with turf, shrubs, and trees, and irrigated with automatic sprinkler systems. CM/STAFFRPT.082 -6- C. Single -Family Residential Area. This area, 78.02 net acres, consists of 300 lots, 230 of which are 7,200 square feet in size and 70 of which are 8,000 square feet in size. The layout shows one access point off Miles Avenue, approximately matching up with the proposed easterly access point for TT 23268. Two access points are provided off Adams Street, the northerly access approximately lining up with the proposed access for TT 23519. The internal road network consists of minor loops and cul-de-sacs feeding off a collector system of major looped roads. All stormwater will be channeled into the adjoining Whitewater Stormwater Channel so no retention basins are necessary for this single-family subdivision as is the case for the multi -family component and tourist commercial area. It is intended by the Applicant that all front yards, in addition to the street side yard of corner lots, shall be fully landscaped prior to final inspection. 2.4 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23995. Tentative Tract application, proposing to subdivide the property essentially as described above in the Specific Plan, has also been submitted. (See Attachment No. 10) 3. EVALUATION 3.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. (See Attachment 7) 7.6 AC GENERAL COMMERCIAL/49 AC HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/68.90 AC MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL a. General Commercial. The inclusion of General Commercial land use in the proposed project is questioned. The following comments are generally those given for not supporting the commercial land use in the prior report: CM/STAFFRPT.082 -7- i. The La Quinta General Plan currently allocates +325 acres exclusively for commercial land uses and +375 acres with the potential of having commercial land uses along Highway ill. Market studies have shown that, under normal conditions, only 200 acres of this land will be utilized before the year 2020. ii. Existing General Plan Land Use Designation. The General Plan discussion of commercial land uses emphasizes the commercial development of the Highway 111 Corridor, Jefferson Street Corridor, and the Village, plus, resort development at the La Quinta Hotel and PGA West. No provision has been made for commercial development along Miles Avenue north of the Whitewater Wash. In fact, the Whitewater Wash provides a natural barrier between proposed commercial development to the south and residential development to the north. The approval of this development could set a precedent for other strip commercial development along major streets located north of the Whitewater Channel. If commercial development is permitted along Miles Avenue (in a mode at variance with the strategy in the General Plan), that would call for a complete re-examination of the policy for economic development/commercial strategy in the General Plan. The policies regarding the location of commercial property alongside low and medium density residential would also have to be re-evaluated. CM,/STAFFRPT.082 -8- iii. Highway 111 Study. If a neighborhood shopping area is created on Miles Avenue, it would be a substitute for similar development which could be focused along Highway 111. In essence, if this commercial land use is allowed to go forward, the strategy for fostering development along Highway 111 would be weakened. iv. Location of the Proposed Commercial Area. An analysis of locations of competing existing and proposed neighborhood shopping facilities compared to the proposed site shows that the latter falls within a one -mile radius of Plaza La Quinta, within a one -mile radius of two proposed centers along Highway 111, and within a two-mile radius of an existing center at Avenue 42 and Washington (please see Attachment 5). The close location of other commercial centers reduces the viability of the commercial segment of the proposed project. V. Miles Avenue essentially serves the existing and future residential uses in the area. It is not intended to facilitate traffic for a commercial development. In fact, the location of a commercial area on Miles Avenue will encourage extraneous traffic to use that street and the surrounding road network. Staff, therefore, still recommends that commercial land use area be excluded from this project. b. High Density Residential. The total density proposed for the High Density area is 15.19 du/ac, as was previously discussed. This complies with the General Plan requirement for High Density Residential development, 12 to 16 dwellings per acre. CM/STAFFRPT.082 -9- C. Medium Density Residential Area. The proposed single-family residential area at a density of approximately four units per acre is acceptable. 3.2 CHANGE OF ZONE. (See Attachment 8) 7.6 AC C-P / 49 AC R-3 / 68.90 AC R-1 a. General Commercial Zoning (C-P). C-P zoning is a basic commercial zoning. In comparison to C-P-S zoning (more commonly used in the La Quinta area), C-P zoning allows a wider range of uses including hotels, motels, automobile repair garages, mobile home sales and storage, trailer sales and rental of house trailers, and outdoor advertising devices. If this zoning is approved by the Planning Commission, conditions strictly regulating the permitted uses in this commercial area should be attached to the Specific Plan for this project. b. Residential 3 Zoning (R-3). R-3 zoning allows for other uses besides multi -family dwellings, including hotels, motels, and offices. The R-2A zone would accommodate the multi -family land use envisaged, but does not permit any non-residential uses, including hotels and motels. Additionally, the R-2A zone limits building heights to two (2) stories with a maximum of 35 feet which is compatible with Planning Commission action previously taken on the original proposal on May 9, 1989. Staff, therefore, recommends zone R-2A for the multi -family area and not R-3 zoning. 3.3 SPECIFIC PLAN. (See Attachment 9) a. Access. Conditions, as outlined below, regarding access to this project should be attached to Specific Plan No. 88-012. C:M/STAFFRPT.082 -10- i. The following access points will be right-in/right-out only: o The access off Washington Street; o The northern access into the single-family residential area. ii. In the following cases, access points in this project should line up with access points identified by approved tentative tracts located opposite this project: o The most northerly access point on Adams Street; o The easterly access point onto Miles Avenue; o The multi-family/commercial access point onto Miles Avenue; iii. The right-of-way for the access road linking Washington Street and Miles Avenue needs to be 72 feet wide. b. General Commercial Area. If this land use is approved, a number of conditions regarding the design and type of tenants should be attached to Specific Plan 88-012 conveying the following principles: i. Specify the types of tenants to be found in the commercial area, i.e., grocery, drug, small personal services and shops, Circle K- and 7-11-type tenants. ii. Specify a two-story building height limit on 30 percent of the commercial building area. C. Multi -Family Residential Area. If this land use is approved, the following conditions should be attached to Specific Plan 88-012: i. A certain percentage of the parking spaces provided should be covered. CM/STAFFRPT.082 -11- ii. A suitable buffer should be created between the Multi -Family Residential and the Single -Family Residential areas. iii. Parking areas for the multi- family units should be located alongside the commercial area. This will help provide a barrier between the two land uses. iv. Buildings in the multi -family area should be set back 50 feet from the multi -family/ single-family residential area boundary. If two story dwellings are located alongside this boundary, they must be oriented away from the single-family residential area. V. The residential element of the La Quinta General Plan is in the process of being amended. This amendment will require that all residential areas over a density of eight units per acre have at least five percent affordable housing. If more than five percent is provided, density bonuses can be granted. vi. The :multi -family area will have a building height restriction of two stories. vii. Only emergency access will be provided directly off Miles Avenue. 3.4 TENTATIVE TRACT 23995. (See Attachment 10). If approved, standard tentative tract conditions should be attached to TT 23995. The following issues, however, require further clarification. a. Stormwater Retention. This project is located alongside the CVWD stormwater channel. Since stormwater from the site can flow directly into the stormwater channel, no stormwater retention basins are required on -site. Drainage easements, however, will need to be shown on the Tentative Tract Map. A condition reflecting the above should be attached to the Tentative Tract Map approval. CM/STAFFRPT.082 -12- b. Maintenance of Common Areas. A condition has been attached to this Tentative Tract Map ensuring maintenance of common areas, in particular the required landscaped setbacks along the major roads. This condition requires the assessing of individual lot owners, either by establishing a homeowners' association or a landscape maintenance district. C. Parkland Dedications. Chapter 13.24, Article II, of the La Quinta Municipal Code, enacted pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section 66477, sets forth requirements for parkland dedications. (See Attachment No. 11) i. Multi -Family Residential Area. State law requires parkland space to be provided for multi -family units and allows this to be in the form of a "private open space within the development which is usable for active recreation uses." Based on the La Quinta Municipal Code, the amount of 6.57 acres of "open space", as defined above, should be required in the Multi -Family Residential area. ii. Single -Family Residential Area. The La Quinta Municipal Code requires 2.63 acres of parkland to be dedicated or assessed to secure an in -lieu fee. In this instance, an area of 1.5 to 2 acres of parkland is requested in the northern half of the subdivision. A fee can then be paid in lieu of the balance of parkland not provided. Tentative Tract Map 23995 shows a park 1.22 acres in size, located in the northern half of the Single -Family Residential area. The Applicant is requested to enlarge the park to 1.5 to 2 acres to comply with the park dedication requirement. d. Traffic Signals. The following percentage of bonds for proposed traffic signals will be required: i. Twenty-five percent at the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Avenue; CM/STAFFRPT.082 -13- ii. Fifty percent at the General Commercial/Multi-Family area access point onto Miles Avenue; iii. Twenty-five percent at the intersection of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. e. Sunline Bus Turnout. Policy 7.5.20 of the La Quinta General Plan requires provision by new developments for bus turnouts where appropriate (See Attachment 12). Sunline Transit has requested reservation of a bus turnout area along Washington Street. A condition has been incorporated in order to allow for this provision. f. Archaeological Study. The Archaeological Research Unit at University Of California conducted a preliminary study on the property under discussion to establish the possibility of any archaeological remains existing on the site. (See Attachment 6) It was established that the presence of surface artifacts suggest the existence of possible subsurface deposits in several small areas located along the banks of the Whitewater River. The study recommends: "That a program of subsurface testing be conducted to obtain additional information to enable a better understanding of the nature and significance of the undisturbed areas containing surface artifacts. It may well prove that the subsurface remains present are not significant. Alternatively, it may be that the artifact -bearing deposits at depth can provide additional information on the prehistory of the area." A condition has been attached to the approval of this Specific Plan reflecting the above. Please also see Attachment 13, a letter from the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. g. Height Restrictions. Only single -story multi -family units will be allowed within 150 feet of Washington Street and Miles Avenue right-of-way. In the single-family residential area, at least 75 percent of the dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue must be one story. CIK/STAFFRPT.082 -14- h. The applicant in Attachment No. 14 identified concern with the low water crossing and bridge construction. Comments have been requested from the Public Works Department, however, at this time the comments have not been received. 4. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 4.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. CalTrans has provided the following comment on the project under consideration: "The traffic generated by this development, when added to the cumulative effect of other existing and proposed development in this area, will have a significant impact on State Route 111 and the Interstate 10/Washington Street Overcrossing. Presently, CalTrans has no funds available to widen State Route 111 or the Interstate 10/Washington Street Overcrossing. However, the recently completed SCAG/RTC/CVAG Regional Transportation Study recommends widening State Route 111 to six lanes. The funding source that was identified in this report for highway improvements was a combination of sales tax and developer fees. This funding mechanism is not currently in place, therefore, it might be beneficial to establish an interim funding account for development occurring during the transition period." Funding of such improvements is a policy question not yet addressed by the City. 4.2 DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. The Desert Sands Unified School District makes the following comment on this project: "The schools servicing this area are already overcrowded. A project with this type density increase could have a significant impact on the schools, depending upon unit types and how quickly the project would be developed." CM/STAFFRPT.082 -15- "State law states we can only charge $1.56 per square foot on residential projects, this amount would not be sufficient to mitigate impacts if moderate to low income apartments and/or moderate to low income single-family dwelling units were developed. This type of housing historically has a higher student generation factor than higher end apartments, condos, or single-family units." "For your information, we will also be needing a new elementary school site and a new high school site in this area within the next five to seven years (the elementary school site may be needed sooner if the area develops at a fast pace)." 4.3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. The City Engineering and Public Works Department has provided a number of standard comments/ conditions for this project. Special note should be made, however, of the comments requesting the Developer of this project to contribute towards construction of a low water crossing by Adams of the Whitewater Channel, and widening of the Washington Bridge. 5. SUMMAR.Y AND FINDINGS 5.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. Two alternative courses of action have been proposed. o Recommend approval to the City Council the General Plan Amendment submitted by the Applicant. o Deny the above application due to (1) the inclusion of the commercial and use in the project area, and (2) the High Density Residential area exceeding the density allowed. Resolutions are attached for both Alternatives. 5.2 CHANGE OF ZONE. The following alternatives have been proposed. o Recommend approval to the City Council the Change of Zone application submitted by the Applicant, substituting an R-2-A zoning in place of the R-3 zoning. CIK/STAFFRPT.082 -16- o Deny the above because of the inclusion of the commercial element. Resolutions are attached for both Alternatives. 5.3 SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT. Conditions have been attached for SP 89-012 and TT 23995. Alternatively, if GPA 88-021 and CZ 88-035 are denied, SP 88-012 and TT 23995 need to be continued for redesign and resubmittal based on existing zoning or they should also be denied. RECOMMENDATION: General Plan Amendment 88-021: OR By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- 1 recommend to the City Council concurrence with the environmental analysis and approval of GPA 88-021.. By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommend 'to the City Council denial of GPA 88-021.. Change of Zone 88-035: By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 recommend to the City Council concurrence with the environmental analysis and approval of CZ 88-035. O]Z By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommend to the City Council denial of CZ 88-035i. Specific Plan 88-012: MW By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- , recommend to the City Council concurrence with the environmental analysis and approval of Specific Plan 88-012, subject to the attached conditions. By Minute Motion, request a continuance and resubmittal of SP 88-••012. CM/STAFFRPT.082 -17- Tentative Tract 23995: OR By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- , recommend to the City Council concurrence with the environmental analysis and approval of Tentative Tract 23995, subject to the attached conditions. By Minute Motion, request a continuance and resubmittal of TT 23995. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Extract from J.F. Davidson traffic Impact Study 3. Extract from Market Consultant Draft Report 4. Letter/Report from Agajanian and Associates regarding the commercial development potential for the Spanos site 5. Plan showing existing and proposed neighborhood shopping center, 6. Archaeological report 7. General Plan Amendment 88-021 8. Change: of Zone 88-035 9. Specific Plan 88-012 10. Tentative Tract 23995 11. Parkland Dedication Ordinance 1:2. Bus Turnout Policy 1:3. Letter from Coachella Valley Archaeological Society ill. Letter, from Spanos Construction Inc. received June 21, 1989 CM/STAFFRPT.082 -18- RIVERSIDECOUNTY ax LA QUINTA MILES AVENUE III IilUliilIHIIIIIIIII11C r ATTACHMENT No. 1 FR .q/ aT�RM t/tptttp/p i'iW,it ,Tpi/itin� /ii,. XiZ��iLluR:tii CASE No. CPA 88--021 CZ 88-035 SP 88-012 TT 23995 11111111111U11U111111' IlSUI11111t11111"gyp ORTH SCALE : NTS EXTRACT FROM J.F. DAVIDSON 'TRAFFIC REPORT ATTACHMENT No. Introduction This traffic impact study was commissioned to determine the Specific :impact which may be created from a proposed neighborhood retail center. A study conducted by BSZ Consultants, Inc. was completed in December of 1988 which addressed this site in addition to a major residential component. Since the completion of the BSI study, questions have been raised concerning the appropriateness of the proposed commercial component. Therefore, this study will address in greater detail, the associated traffic from the commercial site. The study will generate, distribute, and analyze the traffic which may be expected at the completion of this project. The traffic generated will be adjusted to reflect internal and pass -by traffic. These adjustments, which will be described in the trip generation section, were not considered in the BSI study due to the limited magnitude of the retail relative to the overall project. The proposed modifications to the initial BSI study were discussed with Mr. Jerry Crabill of BSI who concurred with the need to evaluate the proposed retail use in greater detail. Included in the discussion with BSI were the adjustments to generated traffic based on pass -by and in?ernal trips. In most cases, both the AM and PM peak hours should be addressed for necessary mitigation measures; however, this study will address only the PM peak due the size of the proposed center. Retail centers of this size do not typically experience morning peaks. With impacts identified, mitigation measures will be recommended in order to assure acceptable traffic operations during the evening peak. FiLoject Desc•rtion The proposed project is part of a larger site which is primarily residential, including 750 multi -family units and 303 single-family units. The protect to be addressed by this study is a neighborhood commercial establishment consisting of 60 to 70 thousand square feet on a 7.60 acre site., A pz,-oposed access road would be provided connecting Washington Street south of the site to Miles Avenue east of the site. This proposed road will divide the multi -family component. Access to and from the proposed road at Washington Street would be restricted to right turns only. Full access would be: provided at the intersection of Miles Avenue and the proposed road. 1 From this table, it is illustrated that the proposed conunercial site will not require any off -site improvements other than a storage lane to be used for U-turns on Miles Avenue at the proposed project road. Intersections were analyzed with necessary mitigation measures for background, background plus residential project, and background plus total project traffic. Total project traffic accounts for both the residential and commercial traffic of the A. G. Spanos project. Exhibit 10 illustrates the! PM peak required geometrics for the background traffic as well as the specific site required mitigation measures. The commercial site has the greatest impact at the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. The increase in the ICU value with the commercial traffic is .05 which may be considered minimal. The level -of -service remains unchanged. Other off -site intersections experience no more than a .01 increase in the ICU value. Therefore, the off -site impact of the neighborhood commercial land use is negligible. Furthermore, the establishment of neighborhood commercial centers would help maintain acceptable traffic operations along Highway 111 byproviding the convenience type retail centers within the neighborhoods which they are intended to serve thereby minimizing the otherwise necessary trips to and from the commercial property adjacent to Highway 111. Recoi-nmendations 1. Signalize the proposed road at its intersection with Miles Avenue. 2. Provide a 50' storage bay to be used for U-turns on Miles Avenue at the proposed road. 3. Construct the proposed road as a three lane section. The middle lane would operate as a continuous left -turn lane serving the multi -family and the commercial sites. Conclusions With the above recommendations which address the commercial site and those recommendations developed by BSI Consultants, traffic operations during the PM peak should be maintained at acceptable levels -of -service. This study has generated, distributed, and analyzed the traffic associated with a proposed neighborhood center at the corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. The analyses indicate that this proposed establishment would have a negligible impact to the existing and future intersections 16 adjacent to the site. This negligible impact is due to the neighborhood nature of the commercial site. These establishments depend much on pass -by traffic and traffic attracted from the surrounding residential land uses. Intersections more than a couple of miles from the site should not experience any significant impact from this proposed connnercial use. 18 ATTACHMENT No. 3 EXCERPT FROM MARKET CONSULTANTS ®RAFT REPORT Washington Street Corridor The Washington subarea is projected to absorb from 122,000 SF to 310,000 of commercial development by the year 2020. This development is expected to serve principally community and tourist market segments. In the near -term, the subarea is expected to serve the growing residential areas to the north and west with neighborhood and community commercial uses. In the long-term, this subarea is expected to serve both tourists and regional commercial market segments as the corridor becomes a high traffic roadway link to the I-10. As described more fully in a 12/5/88 memorandum regarding this subarea's potential for commercial development, this subarea can best serve the proximate residential areas in the near -term. Tourist and regional commercial uses can be expected only after Highway 111 sites become less available. Consequently, restricting the use of the 7 acre site to tourist uses only would preclude the property from developing with neighborhood and community commercial uses in the near -term. Increasing the tourist use restriction to the entire subarea would have the same net effect of precluding commercial development in the near term. Prompting near -term tourist related commercial uses in the subarea would likely produce low end developments and not directly compete with other higher end tourist uses in other subareas. These limitations of the subarea are due to some degree upon its 164 acre size. With a larger size, extending to the west and north, the subarea has the potential to compete more effectively for regional commercial uses in the Highway 111 subarea. The development of this larger Washington subarea would not be likely to induce greater amounts of commercial uses in La Quinta. Consequently, development at the enlarged subarea would be attracted from the Highway 111 subarea, thereby slowing projected development in the Highway 111 subarea. Findings This study has examined the historic trends of commercial development in the Coachella Valley and projected development growth for the Valley. Projections of commercial absorption for the City of La Quinta and its four subareas were then derived from the Valley -wide commercial development projections. The key findings from this study can be summarized as follows: The Washington Street Corridor subarea is projected to absorb between 122,000 SF and 309,000 SF of commercial development by the year 2020. Initially, this projected development will serve the neighborhood and community market segments with retail center uses. After the year 2000 this projected development will serve the tourist and regional market segments with retail center and hotel uses. 3 - BJ/DOCTB.015 1990-1995 1996-2000 2001-2010 2011-2020 199( NO. WA.SHINGTON 21,000 28,900 68,000 98,000 21 Neighborhood 21,000 9,900 0 29,000 3 Community 0 19,000 24,000 29,000 7 Regional 0 0 19,000 19,000 3 Tourist 0 0 25,000 50,000 7 TOTAL, 311,900 415,900 1,143,800 1,559,700 3,43: Neighborhood 62,400 49,900 80,000 109,200 30' Community 136,300 153,900 285,900 405,500 981 Regional 9,400 20,800 423,300 655,100 1,10E Tourist 103,800 191,300 354,600 389,900 1,035 7- BJ/DOCTB.015 ATTACHMENT No. 4 AGAJANI_A_N_&__ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS December 5, 1988 Mr. Murrel Crump Planning Director City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Subject: Commercial Development Potential for Spanos Site Dear Mr. Crump, The purpose of this letter report is to present our preliminary findings on the commercial development market potential for the seven acre Spanos site located on the SEC of Miles Avenue and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta, California. The site is currently applying for consideration of a General Plan amendment to change the land use from R-2 Multifamily Residential to Tourist Commercial. The findings presented in this report are based upon a larger commercial market evaluation now underway to prepare an integrated forecast of commercial development for La Quinta as a whole and for four commercial subareas within La Quinnta. Due to the need for an evaluation of the Spanos site prior to the completion of this larger study the information and findings used in this letter report are to be considered preliminary in nature. However, the larger study is sufficiently far along in the analysis to provide fairly sound estimates of commercial demand both for the Coachella Valley and La Quinta. The report presenting this larger study will contain the detailed methodology used, the market information, and the basis for estimating long term commercial demand. This letter report is presented in three sections. The first section briefly descnbes the Spanos site along with an evaluation of the development opportunities and constraints for the site. Section two presents an overview of the larger study and the preliminary estimates of commercial demand for La Quirita. The final section presents our findings regarding the commercial development potential for the Spanos site. In summary, this report found that the subject site is not able to effectively compete for the limited amount of commercial demand in the near term future without extraordinary concessions of price or development of marginally commercial uses. Development of competitive properties and increased demand after the year 2000 will, however, create commercial demand to support commercial development at the site. The greatest and earliest 666 Baker Street, Suite 369 - Costa Mesa, California 92626 - (714) 557 - 7276 demand for the subject site will probably be neighborhood level commercial uses. A. SITE IDE.SCRIMOld The subject site is a seven acre parcel located at the south east corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street. The site is currently undeveloped, as are the properties surrounding the site. The site is situated just north of the Whitewater wash with principal frontage on Washington Street, an arterial roadway linking La Quinta with Interstate 10 to the north. As such, the roa&ay can be expected to serve as an important traffic corridor as the City develops. The flood control channel creates a strong visual separation between the north side where the site is located and the south side where other commercially zoned properties fronting on Highway 111 are located. The areas surrounding the site are largely planned for residential uses and are now largely undeveloped. Some residential development is occurring in Riverside County areas to the north of the site and in the City of Indian Wells to the west of the site. Thus, the site is competitively situated to serve both the arterial traffic travelling between La Quinta and the I-10 and the local residential neighborhoods planned to develop near the site. The commercial development potential for the site will be largely influenced by the overall growth in commercial demand in La Quinta and the site's competitive position M relation to other sites within La Quinta. It is necessary to first estimate the type, amount and rate of commercial demand growth for La Quinta before evaluating the site's competitive position. Preliminary estimates of commercial development demand have been prepared for La Quinta as part of the larger study described above. The study has reviewed the historical growth of commercial demand for four types of commercial activity. These commercial types reflect particular market areas including neighborhood, community, regional and tourist. Descriptions of these commercial types are presented on Table 1. The estimates of commercial demand for La Quinta are based upon an evaluation of the City's competitive position in the Coachella Valley. Our analysis indicates that La Quinta is one of the fastest growing communities within the Coachella Valley. As indicated on 'fable 2, the population growth in the City has doubled since 1980 at a growth rate of 10.7% annually. This rapid growth is second only to Cathedral City in the Coachella Valley. Commercial development in the Coachella Valley has been exceeding the residential growth since the tourist industry generates commercial demand above and beyond that needed by the residential population. Since 1980 commercial development has grown at a rate of 13.0% annually, or an average of 823,000 SF per year. During the relatively slow economic period of 2 AGAJANIAN & ASSOCIAT 1980-1984 commercial demand grew at 11.3% annually or an average of 529,000 SF per year. During the strong growth period of 1984-1988 commercial development grew at a rate of 14.7% annually or an average of 1,160,000 SF per year. There is currently 10,554,000 SF of commercial development in Coachella Valley with 6,585,000 SF added since 1980. La Quinta has absorbed 2.6% of the Valley's commercial development since 1980. This share is expected to increase sharply as the path of development continues to head south along the Highway 111 corridor toward La Quinta. Accordingly, commercial absorbtion in I.,a Quinta is expected to increase from the 1980-1988 avera*e of 21,000 SF per year to 34,900 SF per year in the 1990-2000 period. This rate will further increase to 65,800 SF and 115,200 SF per year in the 2000-2010 and 2010-2020 periods respectively. These estimates reflect the most likely level of commercial demand for La Quinta. Under slow economic conditions we estimate annual absorbtion to be 21,500 SF, 42,300 SF, and 74,100 SF for each succeeding decade while under rapid economic growth we estimate the absorbtion rates to be 47,400 SF, 89,300 SF and 156,300 SF respectively. Commercial demand within La Quinta for neighborhood, community, regional and tourist uses will be limited by the total commercial demand for the City. The likely location of these commercial types in each of the four commercial subareas within the City will be largely dependent upon the site characteristics of each subarea and their competitive positions. Commercial acreage within La Quinta is plentiful for all types of commercial development. The Village Core, North Washington Street, and Jefferson Street subareas can provide for neighborhood and community commercial uses. The Highway III corridor subarea can provide for regional and community commercial uses. Tourist commercial uses are expected to locate within the Highway II I subarea for aocess and visibility and the Jefferson Street (PGA West) subarea for a destination hotel and associated tourist facilities. About 350,000 SF of commercial development are forecast for La Quinta between the years 1990 and 2000. This amount of development is equivalent to 6 neighborhood centers, 4 community centers, one-half of a regional shopping center, or a hotel with 875 rooms. These estimates can be doubled for the following decade and doubled again for the 2010 to 2020 decade. It is clear from these estimates that commercial development within La Quinta will largely occur after the year 2000. The subject site has possibilities for all types of commercial development. The site can support neighborhood commercial uses to service the residential areas in close proximity to the site. This level of commercial development would be competitive at the site. The period of absorbtion would depend Iargely upon the timing of the planned residential neighborhoods nearby. The subject site also has possibility to support community level commercial uses due to it's 3 AGMANIAN & ASSOCIATI frontage on Washington Street.. This level of commercial activity is less likely at the site due to the smaller size of the site and the availability of competitive sites located along the Highway 111 corridor. The high visibility, easy access and large parcel sizes along Highway 111 make the corridor a far more desirable location for community level commercial uses than the subject site. The subject site is too small and not well located to effectively compete for any regional level commercial uses. Tourist commercial uses can be supported at this site. However, these tourist uses, such as hotels, motels, restaurants, attractions, amusements, specialty retail and transportation services, are: far mare likely to seek locations along Highway Ill unless they are associated with a destination hotel. Thus, the subject site has a far greater chance to support tourist commercial uses only after the Highway 111 corridor has been largely built out. From this evaluation we may make the following findings regarding commercial market potential for the subject site: 1. The site is in a weak competitive position for any commercial use besides neighborhood level commercial uses because it does not appear to have any particular locational advantages over other available properties. The demand period for neighborhood level commercial uses may occur before the year 2000 as nearby residenti areas develop. However, it is more likely that neighborhood level commercial demand will occur after the year 2000. 2. The site can accommodate other level commercial uses but will require extraordinary conditions to attract these uses from other more competitive sites within La Quinta in feneral and the Highway Ill corridor in particular. These extraordinary conditions may involve reduced costs, availability, or the accommodation of marginal commercial uses. 3. Hotel/motel use of the site does not appear to be supportable at this time or in the near future. Locations for convenience hotels/motels along Highway 111 are far more competitive except for budget level facilities. However, the site may support a moderate level hotel/motel after the year 2000 as the availability of suitable sites diminishes following the development of the Highway I I I corridor. 4. There is not expected to be sufficient commercial development demand in 1A Quinta to induce commercial development of the subject site before the year 2000. Ile increased rate of absorbtion for commercial uses in La Quinta after the year 2000 will, however, be significant enough to create commercial demand for the subject site. 5. In short, the subject site is not able to effectively compete for the limited amount of commercial demand in the near term future without extraordinary concessions of price or development of marginal commercial uses. Development of competitive properties and increased demand after the year 2000 will, however, create commercial demand to support commercial development at the site. 4 AGAJANIAN &. ASSOCIATI This brief letter report summarizes our preliminary findings regarding the commercial development potential of the Spanos site. The supporting documentation for these findings will appear in detail in the report of the larger study. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter report please do not hesitate to contact me personally for a prompt response. 6R t Agajanian, :PhD Principal Attached: Tables 1 and 2 AGAJANIAN & ASSOCIATI Table 1 Market Level Market Asea Neighborhood Serving local residential areas within 1.5 miles of the site. Community Serving residential and business commercial needs within 5 miles from the site. Regional Serving residential and business needs within Coachella Valley or about 20 miles from the site. Tourist Serving overnight visitors from outside the Coachella. Valley from throughout the world. Source A.GAJANIAN & Associates Typical Commercial Uses Convenience outlets, food stores, drug stores, gasoline stations, fast foods and similar uses. Retail apparel, hardware, banks, small department stores, personal services, auto repairs, restaurants, movie theaters and similar uses. Retail discount stores, appliances, new car auto sales, larger offices, hospitals, theaters,im6 ma'or department stores and suses. Destination hotels, convenience hotels, budget hotels, specialty retail, specialty restaurants, attractions and similar uses. Table 2 POPULATION GROWTH OF C OACHEI.IA VALLEY CITIES City Cathedral City Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio 14 Quinta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Coachella Valley Cities Riverside County 4 County Region Annual Growth 1-1-1981 1-1-1988 Rate 12,041 26,758 12,08% 9,469 14,115 5.87% 6,245 10,383 7.53 % 1,473 2,443 7.50%® 22,490 33,068 5.67% 4,552 9,274 10.70% 12,120 18,088 5.89% 31,549 31,919 0.17% 6,333 8,525 4.34% 106,632 154,573 5.45% 680,710 946,074 11,119,874 12,980,699 Source AGAJANIAN & Associates California Department of Finance 4.82% 2.24% Al 1 AUHIAL N 1 [V©. E G ' aoe ont — —c co E Q. uuu z• • , _ �,I ro�� '� •u •Y'•-' 1 � ` f .....r., a V. (L r A O �� ,►s 433disaw —` atin Y r Dr,41• r• f.t as i z `` •i CO • �� g, d S 7* 4J � 1 ��''pp '� • %ci �.• �A�'" •p• if ••M ,.a•A < u" A•'• \ r - '+. �F'-/ ''�s� S►s=a• Al/00001 A '-4 k IIAWi a e IN INK A Alzmw-w 4 ell -en •t- ai � vo Aq -6 SIX ' Xx 14 °.�• w •1 •X -- —� • .11 Sri,• •;• a'!• t , , ATTACHMENT NO. g D REEVALUATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CA-RIV-2200 RECORDED ON TENTATIVE TRACT 23995, LOCATED NEAR INDIAN WELLS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By: Daniel F. McCarthy Staff Archaeologist Archaeological Research Unit University of California Riverside, CA 92521 UCRARU P970 Philip J. Wilke Administrator and Principal Investigator Uwtg 08130 for: J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc. 73-080 E1 Paseo, Suite 106 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Michael B. Dotson Project Planner Ref: December 1988 M.0.1 8810576-01 INTRO LICTION An archaeological assessment was performed on Tentative Tract 16449 by Jean A. Salpas in 1980. The project area, now identified as Tentative Tract 23995, is located northeast of Washington Avenue and the Whitewater River flood control channel. One archaeological site, CA-RIV-2200, was identified on the project area during the course of the 1980 field investigation. This archaeological site was described as a sparse scatter of artifacts along the northern edge of the Whitewater River. Before development of the project area can proceed, the recommendations made by Salpas (1980:11) need to be addressed. Specifically, Prior to development, the locations of all surface cultural resources would be mapped and collected. In addition, the area of ash and charcoal (hearth) should be tested for depth, sub -surface artifacts, and any evidence of a cremation. At the request of Michael B. Dotson, J. F. Davidson and Associates, Inc., the Archaeological Research Unit (ARU), University of California, Riverside, conducted an evaluation of the archaeological site CA-RIV-2200. On November 22, 1988, the author met with Mr. Dotson at the site to review and assess the most appropriate way of mitigating adverse effects to the site. • It was necessary to relocate the site and assess its nature and present condition in order to evaluate the proposed recommendations and offer current recommendations for mitigation. Surface artifacts are scattered along the southern part of the property along the former banks of the Whitewater River. There are two areas located in the southeastern portion project area where artifacts were concentrated. The artifacts observed, mostly pottery, along much of the southwestern property boundary may represent secondary deposits because much of the bank has been modified during earth moving activities to channeliae the river for flood control. These artifacts were all located on soils that have been either pushed up from the river bottom or moved latterly along the former river bank. Because of these disturbances, the context of the materials is lost and it is unlikely that it can ever be determined. Surface evidence of artifacts was limited, however, there is the possibility of isolated locations that may contain subsurface cultural deposits. During this field evaluation only a few artifacts were observed on the surface, but include numerous pottery sherds, fire -affected rock, and some bone fragments. Cremations are reported to be present, however, there I 2 was no surface evidence. There is insufficient data at this time to determine whether the site was used on a permanent or seasonal basis. The presence of any deposits, their depth, or significance cannot be determined at this time. The lack of surface artifacts could be due to past disturbances on the property. 'These include dumping, ORV use of the area, and maintenance roads and construction activities associated with the flood control channel. Also, relic hunters picking up artifacts could be responsible for the lack of surface artifacts. RECOWENDAT:IONS The surface artifacts suggest the presence of possible subsurface deposits in several small discrete areas located along the banks of the Whitewater River. Shifting sands may have hidden other evidence of aboriginal use of the area. Therefore, it is necessary to test for any subsurface deposits. It is recommended that a program of subsurface testing be conducted to obtain additional information to enable a better understanding of the nature and significance of the undisturbed areas containing surface artifacts. It may well prove that the subsurface remains present are not significant. Alternatively, it may be that the artifact -bearing deposits at depth can provide additional information on the prehistory of the area. This proposal outlines a testing program that is designed to reveal the extent, context, significance, and presence or absence of deposits, and attempt to gain additional information on the behavioral classification of the site and perhaps on the probable time that site was used in the past. In order to most efficiently determine whether subsurface cultural deposits are present at the site, two methods of excavation are proposed. The first consists of a series of backhoe trenches placed at intervals throughout the site area, and the second consists of hand excavated 1 x 2-m units. The primary emphasis in this phase of the fieldwork is to determine the presence or absence of cultural deposits, and their depth if deposits are encountered. The trenches will be excavated to a depth of not greater than 2.0 m (6.6 ft), with an average length of 6.0 m (20 it). After areas containing subsurface cultural deposits have been identified, data to evaluate the complexity of these deposits will be obtained from the hand -excavated units. These units will be excavated in arbitrary I0-cm levels unless 3 cultural stratification is present, in which case those strata will form the vertical provenience. All excavated soil will be screened through 1/8-inch mesh. Cultural and ecological remains, kept separate by unit and level, will be packaged and labeled in the field for transport to the laboratory where analysis will be conducted. Recommendations for further studies will be made if the site contains significant materials. The purpose of this phase of the fieldwork is to collect quantitative data on the character and quantity of remains contained in the deposits, so that the data recovery/protection plan can address the specific research values. The testing may well prove that no subsurface remains are present within the boundaries of Tentative Tract 23995. If this is the case, a report detailing the test phase with recommendations for no further work will be submitted. REFERENCE Salpas, Jean A. 1960 An Archaeological Assessment of Tract 16449. MS on file at the Eastern Information Center, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside (W-10M, :NLIAAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-021 ATTACHMENT No CUliERCM mmItm DENSITY ye. M.DIUM DENSITY 4-8 DWMLWS/A= APPROX. 84 ACRES % U-15BW\EUl�/A= c+14APPROX.,(40 ACRES EXIMM CENEM PLAN LAND USE -"I 7. 6 6'A'C ccm I L. HIMI DENSITY RE;SXDEtaM 40 ACRES o 0`0 % 68.90 ACRES C. I xmIum DENSITY RP-SIDEnIAL e4e 4410 PROPMED GFMIM PLAN UM USE HANGlE OF ;BONE 88--035 AIJ ACHMLN I' No.8 &.8 4=0 " :\\ CHANCE Of ZONE EXHIBIT TEVATWE TRACT N• 23."l I./ ' AII,/ W61A t1/1K. .064E ,ws4'_�4K ._- CP Proposed Zone 7.6 acres R'3 R.1 Proposed Zone 49 acres Proposed .Zone 68.90 -asr®e PROPOSED ZONING A T i A C H M E N 'i N o . 9 --- f t is ix sr:s;►;a{: s�.r,t!�s"tir� x?! /'"t'-�1��ti�e=+�Y,, it � � /•:�• 9 �--.�.'xr: e3.i2�.: R. ._s_;.6�.1..a�LaJ e�.ew._.•..�..s_i_�.-.-.�,G—S�.I•% . ✓. • ..`�''`�•� •� -i ��! i_j1I..''-�/ � t1.•yr:tF=F5?�'�' ' � _�!,=!��e'i.s-t:rs`r! �ti+&s. •t,l i YYi i •! j.'It\t;'i. it.±i ta; q I"WI ! r.tEi4�at- .�! t! s, •t Y�'� ''1 .1 �, � ; • :� �� _ � Y�t Fi, �-• �.- • -�--•----�-t• � -.: tom--•,� ., �� • 1 = we Ir :� a i el i ! ��'1�t. •.�, fit/ \ t ,. � t � � ��/ ,1, � Z = � f � 1 � ii ' � ��t 1. fl ! ; j 1 i 1 , , t ! t / ! � ! � ti •,t! of r r r v"' 1 V1, lid SL if ► e t1 Ile LLI �ttlt �I to e - ii 1-4 4J d �os3 :3- iCc," disia-:: U E a n�•• l.T1YL j 4io Or / i, � `-,�� i+?•ice' :t�:i.ii;l�p�f.A��?s� r « )i�'+k tr trt 'Zf I�eJ�t1. �+rl��e(/,/i•S� '__�y� '• �__� .y-�-- --' —�—' -1 --`-- .. .-�� "i' 3„� f /-tea �� �t � j t .. � / 1'—•'—u----z---s-- /ICJ(/ f-r-'--`l—`-Y--r"-:T—Ty�7'�— . I , � t 1 x � /• �~•\.� l.I j t J � : t i r ,�i-q+'-�'/ .� ✓ � vli � + 9 � :'�� � • � . .fir • � a f bf+ t t b � } � ! r = r —_y�i r/r f 'fy �J'� { : 1 ' t + r�",i s 1 r--4{'-qr— T t r li , { i r T 1 f�i + i t / 1 • '• 1+�U + ' 7� ♦ . tIr 1 .+ Yf� n ► r %rt ; f } U ' 1 • G�-y%�' y y / 14 lit , Q i:�✓�Z' !d •�,�1, agel/It) �x v �,. icy f• .v• /,'�'�1�n, �'. s �" /ti ,,, T` l.ri, '� I� tl{ r !�"to f -:i =Drl� ra '`tl,+E•\!� 1 L;,tI .I 41 _' / _ t • Aki Al lot at lid j. It FRI Is � I ; ' t3 'tile • e.. 1 =r - '� �as3"i3? act= ssiii::i r� , Tj :i„ ATTACHMENT No.1 Access rights may be restricted when necessary where the ultimate right-of-way width is eighty-eight feet or greater, except for approved access openings. (Ord. 5 511'part), 1982: county Ordinance 460 S10.1) °'ARTICLE II. DEDICATION OF LAND AND PAYMENT OF FEES FOR PARK AND RECREATION PURPOSES 13.24.020 AuthoritL_and purpose. This article is en acted pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section 66477 for the purpose of requiring the dedication of land payment of fees, in lieu thereof, for park and recreationa purposes, as a condition to approval of a tentative map or parcel map. (Ord. 77 52(part), 1985: county Ordinance 46 510. 27 (A) ) -�� 13.24.030 Requirements. A. For residential subdivisions of greater than fifty lots, the subdivider shall dedicate land or pay a fee, or combination thereof, such ratio as recommended by the .commission and approved b, the council. For residential subdivisions containing f1 lots or less, the subdivider shall pay a fee only. all fey shall be equivalent to three acres per one thousand popu- lation projected to inhabit said subdivision. S. All dedications shall be equivalent to three acres per one thousand population projected to inhabit said subd; vision. All fees shall be based on the average appraised• current market value of the undeveloped land in the subdiv; siren as Bete mined by the city assessor. Projected popu- lation shall be calculated by multiplying the numbers of units to be constructed by the average household size for the entire city as shown on the latest federal census or a census taken pursuant to Section 40200, Chapter 17 of Part of Division 3 of Title 4. C. Subdivisions containing less than five parcels am not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from tl requirements of this section: provided however, that a con. dit.ion may be placed on the approval of such parcel map thi if a building permit is requested for construction of a re; idential structure or structures on one or more of the par. eels within four years the fee may be required to be paid 1 the owner of each such parcel as a condition to the issuam of such permit. D. The provisions of this article do not apply to cot mercial or industrial subdivisions; nor do they apply to condominium projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment build• ing which is more than, five years old when ,no new dwelling units are added. (Ord. 77 52(part), 1985: county Ordinanc 460 S10.27 (8) ) 281-36 (La Quinta 6/87) .�.. -- AW 13.24.040 Use of land and/or fees. All land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes shall be fou; to be suitable by the commission and the appropriate rec, ation agency, subject to council approval, as to locatio parcel size and topography for the park. Park and recce; tional purposes may include active recreation facilities such as playgrounds, playfields, gardens, pedestrian or l cycle paths or areas of particular natural beauty, inclu, canyons, hilltops and wooded areas to be developed or le in their natural state. Also included are land and facia ities for the activity of 'recreational community garden, i.ng,' which activity consists of the cultivation by persi other than, or in addition to, the owner of such land, o: plant material not for sale. Land to be dedicated may ij elude all or part of a proposed facility. All fees are 1 be used for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitat: of existing neighborhood or community park or recreation< facilities to serve the subdivision inhabitants. (Ord. 52(part), 1985: county Ordinance 460 S10.27(C)) 13.24.050 Credits. A. If the subdivider is requi: to prodide !park and recreational improvements to the ded. icated land, the value of the improvements together with equipment located thereon shall be a credit against the 1 gent of fees or dedication of land required by this artic B. Planned developments and real estate development as defined in Sections 11003 and 11003.1, respectively, c the Business and Professions Code, shall be eligible to receive a credit, as determined by the council, against I amount of land required to be dedicated, or the aunt of the fee imposed, pursuant to this article, for the value private open space within the development which is usable for active recreational uses. (Ord. 77 S2(part), 1985: county Ordinance 460 S10.27(D)) Chapter 13.28 IMPROVEMENTS Sections: 13.28.010 Land divisions improvements. 13.28.020 Plans required. 13.28.030 Improvements for subdivisions. 13.28.040 Schedule A subdivision --Generally. 13.28.050 Schedule A subdivision --Streets. 13.28.060 Schedule A subdivision --Domestic water. 13.29.070 Schedule A subdivision --Fire protection. 13.28.080 Schedule A subdivision --Sewage disposal. 281--37 (La Quinta 6/87) ATTACHMENT No.11 Access rights may be restricted when necessary where she ultimate right-of-way width is eighty-eight feet or ;neater, except for approved access openings. (Ord. 5 SI(part), 1982: county Ordinance 460 S10.1) ARTICLE 1I. DEDICATION OF LAND AND PAYMENT OF FEES FOR PAR'.X AND RECREATION PURPOSES 13.24:.020 Authority and purpose. This article is en- acted pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section -66477 for the purpose of requiring the dedication of land or payment of fees, in lieu thereof, for park and recreational ,.urposes, as a condition to approval of a tentative map or parcel map. (Ord. 77 S2(part), 1985: county Ordinance 460 S10.27 (A) ) . 13.24,.030 Regui.rements. A. For residential subdivisions of greater than fifty lots, the subdivider zh all dedicate land or pay a fee, or combination thereof, in such ratio as recommended by the .commission and approved by the council. For residential subdivisions containing fifty lots or less, the subdivider small pay a fee only. All fees shall be equivalent to three acres per one thousand pcpu- lation projected to inhabit said subdivision. �-, B. All dedications shall be equivalent to three acres per one thousand population projected to inhabit said subdi- vision. All fees -shall be based on the average appraised - current market value of the undeveloped land in the subdivi- sion as dri:termined by the city assessor. Projected popu- lation shall be calculated by multiplying the numbers of units to be constructed by the average household size for the entire city as shown on the latest federal census or a census taken pursuant to Section 40200, Chapter 17 of Part 2 ®f Division 3 of Title 4. C. Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from the requirements of this section; provided however, that a con- dition may be placed on the approval of such parcel map that if a building permit is requested for construction of a res- idential structure or structures on one or more of the par- cels within four years the fee may be required to be paid by the owner of each such parcel as a condition to the issuance of such permit. D. The provisions of this article do not apply to com- mercial or industrial subdivisions; nor do they apply to condominium projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment build- ing which is more than five years old when ,no new dwelling units are added. (Ord. 77 S2(part), 1985: county Ordinance 460 S10.27 (B) ) 281-36 (La Quinta 6/87) A 1 I AC:hiMEN T NO. 12 of the University of California in 1983 entitled "Traffic Safety Evaluation, Enforcement and Engineering Analysis' provides information to guide action in this area. Implementation Policy= POLICY 7.5.17- INSTALLATION OF ALL NEW TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHOULD BE BASED UPON ESTABLISHED WARRANTS AND PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS IN ORDER TO ASSURE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND REDUCE POTENTIAL PUBLIC LIABILITY. POLICY 7.5.18 - THE CITY SHALL ESTABLISH A TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE NEED FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT. POLICY 7.5.19 - TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE CITY'S INFRA- STRUCTURE FEE PROGRAM. Public Tran__�ortation - The Sunline Transit Agency, SunBus, currently provides services in the La Quinta area. Line 4 loops from Palm Desert through the developed areas of La Quinta on a one -hour schedule. Future Increased use of bus transportation could provide benefits such as reduced congestion, better air quality, etc. Implementation Policies: POLICY 7.5.20 - PROVISIONS FOR BUS TURNOUTS SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE POSSIBLE AND BE REQUIRED OF ALL NEW DEVELOPMENTS WHERE APPROPRIATE. COVERED BUS SSELTEFtS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT EVERY BUS STOP 7[N THE CITY, TO BE A-CONDITIONbF NEW DEVELOP- MENT, OR TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY, IN COOPERATION WITH SUNLINE, WHERE NO DEVELOPMENT EXISTS OR IS PLANNED, POLICY 7.5.21 - EXPANSION OF BUS SERVICE TO LA QUINTA SHOULD BE EXPLORED WITH THE TRANSIT AGENCY. POLICY 7.5.22 THE POTENTIAL FOR A LOCAL "SHOPPER SHUTTLE* BUS SHOULD BE ANALYZED AND GRANT SUPPORT INVESTIGATED. VII-19 RECEIVED ATTACHMENT No. 13 CITY OF LA QUiNTA RIANNING & DE:VEI.D WENT DEFT. Planning Staff City of La Quinta, CA 78105 Calle Estado, La Quinta Dear Mr. Herman and Mr. Nesbit Coachella Valley Archaeological Society 68045 Monterico Road Desert Hot Springs, CA 92�4 The Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) has recently been formed by a group of local citizens interested in protecting vall wide cultural resources. Cne of our principle concerns is the implementation of CEGA as it pertains to archaeological resources in the local area. The rapid urbanization of the Coachella Valley has destroyed most of the areas occupied by late Cahuilla and ancestral populations. The La Quinta ar, in particular is a site of extensive Cahuilla settlement, and much of the area still undeveloped contains valuable evidence of their culture Because those sites are now so rare and are rapidly being destroyed by development we feel it is critical that thorough archaeological recording, recovery and publication of results be ensured in the planning process. On Tuesday, June 20, the La Quinta City Council is having a public hearing and vote of approval of a negative declaration on Tentative Tract 23995 (east of Washington Street and south of Miles Avenue). Th area is the subject of two archaeological surveys on file at the 4r,chaeoiogical Research Unit, University of California, Riverside, boti of which recommend archaeological testing and monitoring of at least ti recorded sites. Sites on the property in addition to those recorded b; the surveys have been observed by CVAS members. We expect the initial study of environmental impacts on tract 2391 will determine that development of the property will result in adverse impact to cultural resources. Because of the cultural value of these resources, we feel it is very important that the initial study pinov i des: 1) study of recorded archaeological site information and recommended mitigation measures prior to adoption of a negative declaration, 2) public, local Native American and CVAS review of and comment or archaeological records and proposed mitigation measures befo^e negative declaration approval, 3) agreerren`, betweer, the City of La Quinta and the pr,:ject dvelcG•er to testing and data recovery phases by a qualified ciltural resources rriana.gement firm prior to grading and the monitoring phase, and 4) agreement between the City of La Quinta and the project developer that adequate data analyses and a final publicat ior results be required. Because of the limited and nor -renewable aspect of archaelogical resources in the Coachella Valley and the importance of the La Quinta area to CahuiIla prehistory, we urge the city planning staff and coup Ito incorporate the provisions proposed above into the conditions required by the mitigated negative declaration process. Provisions 1 and 2 would determine the necessity of data recovery and analysis sta in provisions 3 and 4. A la^ge part of the La Quinta area has not been archaeologically surveyed, and there is consequently no record or knowledge of what archaeological resources may, in those areas, be present. For this reason and in compliance with the spirit of CEQA, it is critical and urge that an archaeological survey be required on previously unsurvey properties prior to the conclusion of the initial study of impacts caused by proposed projects. These recommendations we respectfully submit this day Wednesday, June 7, 1989. Sincerely, Members of Coachella Valley Archaeological Society Drew Pallette, President Gail 6roeker, Treasurer Carol Pan Iaqu1, Env ironmenta Assessment Comm itte James H. Toenjes, Survey Committee c.c. sent to: Richard Milanovich, Agua Caliente Tribal Chair, Cyr. Philip Wilke, Director, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside Daniel McCarthy, Archaeological Research Unit, UCR City of La Quinta council members ATTACHMENT No. 1 a A. G. SPANOS CONSTRUCTION, INC, 9449 FRIARS ROAD 0 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92108 TELEPHONE (619) 293-3964 June 19, 1989 Members of the Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-105 CalIe Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Re: A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc. General Plan -Amendment No. 88-021 Change of Zone No. 88-035 Specific Plan No. 88-012 Tentative Tract No. 23995 Dear Members of the Commission: The purpose of this letter is to briefly address certain questions raised in the June 13, 1989, Staff Report in connection with approval of the above -referenced applications. We will be glad to further address an,y of these items, or any other questions or concerns you may have regarding the merits of the project, at the June 27, 1989, Planning Cormission hearing,. 1. Multi-Famil,,r Density Calculation. At page 3 of the June 13, 1989, Staff Report, Section 2.b. indicates that the residential density calculation for the 49 acres of Nigh Density Residential is 16.3 units/acre, which exceeds the General Plan limitation of 16 units/acre. It has never been the intention of Spanos to exceed the 16 units/acre density for the multi -family 49 acre area, and therefore Spanos is willing to reduce the number of multi- family units to 736, which represents a 14 unit reduction. We have examined the reason for the discrepency and conclude the earlier cal- culations had failed to exclude the right-of-way dedications applicable to Washington Street and Miles Avenue from the gross 49 acres. After making that deduction, the actual net acreage for multi -family is less than 49 gross acres thereby necessitating the elimination of 14 multi- famiIy units. This unit reduction corresponds with the Staff recommen- dation contained on page 9 of the Staff Report at Section of 3.1 b. Members of the Planning Commission June 19, 1989 Page 2 2. R-3 Zoning in the Multi -Family Area. At page 10 of the Staff Report in Section 3.2 b. Staff recommends that instead of R-3 zoning for the multi -family area, the R-2A Zone would be more appropriate, because the R-3 zoning allows non-residential uses such as hotels and motels. We appreciate Staff's concerns regarding any non- residential use in the multi -family area, but still request R-3 zoning with the express limitation that non-residential uses, such as hotel, motel or an,y other non-residential uses, be expressly prohibited. This prohibition can be included in the Change of Zone conditions of approval as well as the Specific Plan conditions of approval. The reason for this request is that the R-3 Zone allows greater flexibility regarding height limitations carpared with the R-2A zoning designation. As we understand it, the R-2A designation actually restricts residential height to two stories, which is less than the corresponding R-1 single-family designation and less than the R-3 multi -family designation. While the Specific Plan before you con- tonplates exclusively one and two story multi -family units, the R-3 Zone with the requested residential use restrictions would allow the City to consider a limited 3-story design, if it can be shown to be a superior site plan. 3. _Washington Street Bridge and Adams Avenue Low Water Crossing Contribution. As part of the conditions of approval of the Tentative Tract Map, specifically Condition Number 8, for the first time requires partici- pation in the construction of part of the Washington Street bridge and of an Adams Street lcw water crossing of the channel. No contribution limit or allocation limit is indicated. This request had not been previously included in any of the prior Staff Reports. These facilities, while important, are regional and subregional in nature and given the very small proportion of the potential traffic created by this project utilizing those regional and subregional facilities, we believe the need for these facilities is not reasonably connected to any impacts generated by the project and is not legally supportable. However, in an effort to voluntarily support such regional or subregional facilities, Spanos is prepared to accept a condition that its property will participate in a future assessment district in the event one is formed for the facilities. In the event no such assessment district is formed which includes the project, Spanos would be willing to contribute up to $50,000.00 total to these facilities. We believe that amount to be reasonable based on the in- significant traffic generation from the project in relationship to all Members of the Planning Commission June 19, 1989 Page 3 the; regional and subregional uses and other traffic utilizing the Washington Street and Adams facilities. Therefore, we would request Condition Number 8 be modified accordingly. We look forward to answering any other questions you may have at the June 27, 1989, hearing. Very truly yours, Thomas R. Allen A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc. TAacae cc; Jerry Herman, La Quinta Planning Director PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.88-099 AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 88-021, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (ALTERED CONFIGURATION) AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL. CASE NO. GPA 88-021 - A.G. SPANOS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27th day of June, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc. to amend the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map from Medium and High Density Residential to Medium and High Density Residential (altered configuration) and General Commercial for a site totaling 132.5 gross acres, located between Washington Street, Miles Avenue, Adams Street and the Coachella Valley Water District Wash, La Quinta, excluding the small triangular area just north of the Wash and just south of the east/west Avenue 46 alignment (Westward Ho Drive), more particularly described as: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; 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 Planning Commission did. find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. Traffic impacts caused by the implementation of GPA 88-021 can be mitigated to a large degree. 2,. Location of a general commercial land use as proposed by this project would not be viable from a near -term land use inventory perspective. However, development of competitive properties and increased demand after the year 2000 will create commercial demand to support commercial development on this site. CM/RESO89.033 -1- 3. The request for commercial land use and a multi -family residential area at a density of +15 units per acre is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 4. This General Plan Amendment application 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). Mitigation measures can be generated to reduce the impact of General Commercial and High Density Residential land uses on the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1„ That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2„ That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 88-021, consisting of a Land Use Map Amendment as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 27th day of June, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR CM/RESO89.033 -2- MMIIAH DE24SITI A Vic, Vo MMI114 DEMITY 474 APPROX. S4 ACRES % M cWn RTCH DOLSnT 8-16 MMLD"/>,Mz '9APPROX. 4, *W4 40 ACRES D"Isn"a CINM4 Mm LAM - usa \\s PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 88-021, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (ALTERED CONFIGURATION) AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL. CASE NO. GPA 88-021 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27th day of June, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider an application to amend the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map from Medium and High Density Residential to Medium and High Density Residential (altered configuration) and General Commercial totaling 132.5 gross acres, located between Washington Street, Miles Avenue, Adams Street and the Coachella Valley Water District Wash, La Quinta, excluding the small triangular area just north of the Wash and just south of the east/west Avenue 46 alignment (Westward Ho Drive), more particularly described as: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; 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 Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the denial of said General Plan Amendment: 1. This is an unsuitable location for a General Commercial area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council denial of General Plan Amendment No. 88-021. CM/RES089.034 -1- PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED of` the La Quinta Planning Commission, held June, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR at a regular meeting on this 27th day of CHAIRMAN CM/RESO89.034 -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-099 AND APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-2-8000 AND R-1 TO C-P, R-2A AND R-1 ON A 132.5-ACRE SITE. CASE NO. CZ 88-035 - A.G. SPANOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27th day of June, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request for a Change of Zone from R-2-8000 and R-1 to C-P, R-2A and R-1 on a 132.5-acre site, located between Washington Street, Miles Avenue, Adams Street and the Coachella Valley Water District Wash, La Quinta, excluding the small triangular area just north of the Wash and just south of the east/west Avenue 46 alignment ('Westward Ho Drive), more particularly described as: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; 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 Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said Change of Zone application: 1. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. This Change of Zone application complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5). a. Mitigation measures can be generated to reduce the impact of a commercial land use and an R-2A zone on the subject property. b. Mitigation measures can be generated to reduce the impact on the transportation and circulation systems of this area by the introduction of a commercial use on the subject property. C:M/RESO89.035 '1' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above described Change of Zone request, and as illustrated on the map labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 27th day of June, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR C:M/RESO89.035 -2- gay�pi3 IT A f1 is .--- I✓ nlr/ CHANGE EXHI IENTAT'VE TI IF-XIST11 �CP Proposed \7_8 tone CHANGE 7.6 a6tee EXHIBIT UNTATIV[ TRACT 'W 13,"5 R.3 Proposed Zone 49 acres R.11 -Proposed .gone �68.90 ittre• Its PROPOSED ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-2-8000 AND R-1 TO C-P, R-3 AND R-1 ON A 132.5-ACRE SITE. CASE NO. CZ 88-035 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27th day of June, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request for a Change of Zone from R-2-8000 and R-1 to C-P, R-3 and R-1 on a 132.5-acre site, located between Washington Street, Miles Avenue, Adams Street and the Coachella Valley Water District Wash, La Quinta, excluding the small triangular area just north of the Wash and just south of the east/west Avenue 46 alignment (Westward Ho Drive), more particularly described as: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; 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 Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the denial of said Change of Zone application: 1. The proposed Change of Zone General Commercial and, High Density Residential elements are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of -the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council denial of the above described Change of Zone request. C:M/RESO89.036 _1_ of the La June, 1989, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 27th day of by the following vote, to wit: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR CM/RES089.036 -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-099 AND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-012 CASE NO. SP 88-012 - A.G. SPANOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27th day of June, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc. for a commercial, multi -family residential, and single-family residential development for a 1:32.5-acre site located between Washington Street, Miles Avenue, Adams Street and the Coachella Valley Water District Wash, La Quinta, excluding the small triangular area just north of the Wash and just south of the east/west Avenue 46 alignment (Westward Ho Drive), more particularly described as: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan request has complied 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 has conducted an initial study and has determined that, although the project could have a significant adverse impact on. the environment, the mitigation measures incorporated into the Conditions of Approval will mitigate those project impacts to levels of insignificance; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and incorporated into the approval conditions for Specific Plan 88-012, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; 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 Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan: 1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. CM/RESO89.037 '1- 2. The Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development. 3. The project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 11, That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2„ That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 88-099, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan will not result in any significant environmental impacts as mitigated by the recommended Conditions of Approval; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described Specific Plan request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 27th day of June, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR CM/RESO89.037 -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-099 AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23995 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON A 132.5-ACRE SITE CASE NO. TT 23995 - A.G. SPANOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27th day of June, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc. to subdivide 132.5 acres into one commercial lot, three high density residential lots, and 300 single-family development lots, generally located between Washington Street, Miles Avenue, Adams Street and the Coachella Valley Water District Wash, La Quinta, excluding the small triangular area just north of the Wash and just south of the east/west Avenue 46 alignment (Westward Ho Drive), more particularly described as: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; and, WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied 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 has conducted an initial study and has determined that the proposed tentative tract will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, Whereas, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 23995, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and interested persons desiring Commission did find the following the recommendation for approval of arguments, if any, of all to be heard, said Planning facts and reasons to justify said Tentative Tract Map: C:M/RESO89.038 -1- 1. That Tentative Tract No. 23995, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, C-P, R-2A, and R-1 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site has a rolling topography because of the sand dunes, with the overall slope going from the north to the south of the property. The proposed circulation design and lot layouts, as conditioned, are, therefore, suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 23995 may cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will lessen this impact. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 23995 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 6. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 23995, as conditioned, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas. 7. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 23995, as conditioned, provides storm water retention, park facilities, and noise mitigation. 8. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; C:M/RESO89.038 -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 88-099 relative to the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the subject Tentative Tract Map No. 23995 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 27th day of June, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR CM/RESO89.038 -3-- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC PLAN 88-012 PROPOSED JUNE 27, 1989 1. The development shall comply with Exhibit 1, the Specific Plan for Specific Plan 88-012, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the Specific Plan. 2. a. The project shall be limited to access points as illustrated on the Specific Plan, Exhibit 1. b. The following access points will be right-in/right-out only: o Access point off Washington Street; o The minor access point off Miles Avenue into the commercial area; o The northern access into the single-family residential area. C. In the following cases, access points in this project must line up with access points identified by approved tentative tracts located opposite this project: o The most northerly access point on Adams Street; o The easterly access point on Miles Avenue; o The commercial/multi-family area access point onto Miles Avenue. 3. The following conditions apply to the commercial area: a. The commercial area should be broken up into at least three commercial buildings, and not become one linear structure. CM/CONAPRVL.013 -1- b. Only the following uses shall be allowed in this neighborhood center, provided that they are small in nature, and no outside storage is allowed: o Art supply shops and studios. o Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the premises. o Banks and financial institutions. o Barber and beauty shops. o Book stores. o Clothing stores. o Confectionery or candy stores. o Delicatessens o Drug stores. o Employment agencies. o Florist shops. o Food markets. o Gift shops. o Hobby shops. o Ice cream shops. o Jewelry stores, including incidental repairs. o Laundries and laundromats, and drycleaners. o Locksmith shops. o Music stores. o News stores. o Offices, including business, law, medical, dental, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, community planning, real estate. o Photography shops and studios. o Refreshment stands. o Restaurants and other eating establishments (non -drive -through). o Shoe stores and repair shops. o Stationery stores. o Tobacco shops. o Travel agencies. C. The following uses shall not be allowed on the site: o Automobile repair garages, including body and fender shops or spray painting. o Automobile parts and supply stores. o Bakery goods distributors. o Bars and cocktail lounges. o Billiard and pool halls. o Department stores. o Hotels, resort hotels and motels. o Liquor stores. o Theaters, including drive-in. o Tire sales and service, including recapping. o Automobile sales and rental agencies. o Boat and other marine sales. CM/CONAPRVL.013 -2- 4. o Equipment rental services, including rototillers, power mowers, sanders, power saws, cement and plaster mixers, and other similar equipment. o Golf cart sales and service. o Mobilehome sales and storage, trailer sales and rental of house trailers. o Trailer and boat storage. o Truck sales and service, and rental of trucks. o Outdoor advertising structures d. The Developer shall submit and receive approval for a commercial plot plan for the above -proposed development prior to any development taking place. e. Only 30 percent of the commercial buildings can be two stories. The balance should be one story only. The following conditions apply to the multi -family residential area: a. The Developer shall submit and receive approval for a residential plot plan for the above development prior to any development taking place. b. One parking space provided per multi -family unit must be covered. C. A height limit of two stories will apply to the multi -family residential area. d. Buildings in the multi -family area must be set back 50 feet from the multi-family/single-family residential area boundary. If two story dwellings are located alongside this boundary, they must be oriented away from the single-family residential area. e. Only emergency access shall be taken off Miles Avenue. f. Maximum of 736 dwelling units shall be allowed. g. Adjacent to commercially zoned areas, parking areas shall be utilized. 5. The Applicant shall provide, within the multi -family housing area, a total of five percent affordable housing, subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. 6. Specific Plan 88-012 shall expire on the same date Tentative Tract 23995 expires. Approval of extension of time for TT 23995 shall constitute extension of time for SP 88-012. CM/CONAPRVL.013 -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23995 PROPOSED JUNE 27, 1989 A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 23995 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire two years after the original date of approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division ordinance. 3. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the District and to offer for dedication such easements as may be required for the maintenance and operation of related facilities. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis, as required by law. 4. The Developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior archaeological studies for site CA-RIV-2200 such as MF-1027 and UCRARU#970, as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary results show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. C;M/CONAPRVL.014 -1- Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant(s)/ representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 5. The Developer of this subdivision of land shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. Traffic and Circulation 6. The Applicant shall construct or bond for half street improvements to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code, as follows: a. Washington Street shall be constructed to City standards for a 120-foot right-of-way width (Major Arterial), with a curb -to -curb width of 96 feet, with a 12-foot bike/ sidewalk, and two -percent cross slope to centerline, plus joins. CM/CONAPRVL.014 -2- a b. Miles Avenue shall be constructed to City standards for a 110-foot right-of-way width (Primary Arterial), with an 18-foot raised median island, six-foot sidewalk, and two -percent cross slope to centerline, plus joins. C. The street identified as Lot S on Exhibit A (Tentative Tract Map) shall be designed for a 72-foot right-of-way. d. The Applicant shall construct all private street improvements to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code. e. The interior public street system shall be designed pursuant to the approved Exhibit A (tract map) for TT 23995. The cul-de-sac streets shall be designed for a 50-foot right-of-way with 36-foot width curb -to -curb. A five-foot utility easement shall be granted on each side of the 50-foot right-of-way. All other streets shall have a 60-foot right-of-way, a six-foot sidewalk, and two -percent slope. Any variations to the approved street system design sections shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. 7. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements (i.e., County of Riverside). 8. The Applicant shall participate in the construction or bond for part of the improvements to Washington Street Bridge and construction of Adams Street low water crossing of the Whitewater Channel, subject to the requirements of the City Engineer. CONDITION'S OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL 9. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall submit a proposal to the Planning Commission, for recommendation to the City Council, for meeting parkland dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code. The proposal for dedication, fee• -in -lieu, or combination thereof shall be based upon a dedication requirement of 2.63 acres in the single-family residential area, as determined in accordance with said Section. CM/CONAPRVL.014 -3- 10. The Applicant shall provide sufficient parkland in the multi -family residential area in accordance with Government Code Section 66477 and Section 13.24.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 11. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming and landscaping, etc.), and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments. A wall shall be provided around the multi -family residential area in accordance with the above study. 12. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning and Development Department. 13. The subdivider shall make provisions for maintenance of all landscape buffer and storm water easements via one of the following methods prior to final map approval: a. Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a maintenance district under Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets and Highways Code, Section 5820 et seq.) or the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code 22600 et seq.) to implement maintenance of all improved landscape buffer and storm water retention areas. It is understood and agreed that the Developer/Applicant shall pay all costs of maintenance for said improved areas until such time as tax revenues are received from assessment of the real property. CM/CONAPRVL.014 -4- b. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division, in order to insure common areas and facilities will be maintained. A unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. The common facilities to be maintained are as follows: (1) Storm water easements. (2) Twenty -foot perimeter parkway lot along Washington Street (3) Twenty -foot perimeter parkway lot along Miles Avenue. 14. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conversion Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 15. The Applicant shall coordinate with Sunline Transit and the City to provide a future bus turnout and shelter location on Washington Street. A bus turnout shall be provided for in the approved street improvement plans, and shall either be constructed with those improvements for bonded for. Appropriate bonding shall be provided in lieu of a completed bus stop shelter, until such time as service is provided by Sunline. Gradina and Drainage 16. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer who will be required to supervise the grading and drainage improvement construction and to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is required prior to final map approval. Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to final approval of grading construction. CM/CONAPRVL.014 -5- 17. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping, and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's water management program. 18. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. The report's recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 19. Any earthwork on contiguous properties requires a written authorization from the owner(s) (slope easement) in a form acceptable to the City Engineer. 20. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of any drainage fees required therewith. All drainage easements must be shown on the Final Tract Map. 21. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of TT 23995 and EA 88-099, which must be satisfied prior the the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this TT 23995 and EA 88-099, which must be satisfied prior to the .issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning :Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this TT 23995 and EA 88-099. The Planning Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. Traffic and Circulation 22. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Public Works Department: a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required, including all corner cutbacks. CM/CONAPRVL.014 -6- b. The Applicant shall submit street improvement plans that are prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs and markings and raised median islands (if required by the City General Plan), shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code (three -•inch AC over four -inch Class 2 Base minimum for residential streets). C. Street name signs shall be furnished and installed by the Developer in accordance with City standards. 23. Applicant shall dedicate, with recordation of the tract map, access rights to Washington Street, Miles Avenue, and Adams Street for all individual parcels which front or back-up to those rights -of -way. Tract Design 24. A minimum 20-foot landscaped setback shall be required along Washington Street and Miles Avenue. Design of the setbacks shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. Setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way lines. a. The minimum setbacks may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or curvilinear wall design is used. b. Setback areas shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition No. 13, unless an alternate method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. 25. The tract layout shall comply with all the C-P, R-2A, and R-1 zoning requirements, including for the R-1 zone minimum lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum R-1 lot size to be recorded in a final map shall be 7,200 square feet. Walls. Fencina. Screenina. and Landscapin 26. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include, but not be limited to: CM/CONAPRVL.014 -7- a. The use of irrigation during any construction activities; b. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site; and C. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with the requirements of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 27. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. 28. Prior to final map approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape buffer areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 29. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for landscaping of all single-family individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for two trees and an irrigation system. CM/CONAPRVL.014 -8- C. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 30. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning Division o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 31. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 32. The Applicant shall comply with the following: a. No buildings in the multi -family area within 150 feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Washington Street and Miles Avenue shall be higher than one story. b. Seventy-five percent of R-1 zone dwelling units within 150 feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story, not to exceed 20 feet in height. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department for approval a drawing showing the location of any single-family units higher than one story located along Miles Avenue frontage. CM/CONAPRVL.014 -9- 33. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. Temporary construction facilities. b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage. C. On -site advertising/construction signs. 34. In the R-1 zone, if a specific dwelling product is envisioned or if groups of lots are sold to builders prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant/ Builder shall submit complete detail architectural elevations for all units. The Planning Commission will review and approve these as a Business Item. The basic architectural standards shall be included as part of the C.C. & Rs. 35. The residential plot plan for the R-2A (multi -family) zone shall show 6.57 acres of private open space within the development which is usable for active recreation space in accordance with Section 13.24.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and Government Code Section 66477. Traffic and Circulation 36. The Applicant shall pay a 25 percent share of all fees necessary for signalization costs at the corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, and 50 percent of signalization costs at the multi-family/commercial area access point onto Miles Avenue and 25 percent of the signalization costs at the intersection of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. Public Services and Utilities 37. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. 38. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District, including those related to the storm water channel. Any necessary parcels for District facility expansion shall be shown on the final map and conveyed to the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. CM/CONAPRVL.014 -10- 39. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to City standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer, as may be required. CM/CONAPRVL.014 -11- STAFF REPORT PH-2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JUNE 27, 1989 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY, INC. REQUEST: PLOT PLAN 89-413 PGA WEST RESORT HOTEL AND RELATED ANCILLARY HOTEL USES PROJECT LOCATION: WITHIN THE PGA WEST DEVELOPMENT: WEST OF MADISON STREET, BETWEEN AVENUE 54 AND AVENUE 58 BACKGROUND: PGA West Specific Plan No. 83-002 was originally approved by the City Council on May 15, 1984, subject to conditions. On September 20, 1988, the City Council amended the project to add 350 hotel rooms. In June 1989, the Specific Plan was amended to :increase the size of the project by 21.5 acres. The project now contains 1686 acres generally bounded by Avenue 54 on the north, Avenue 58 on the south, the All -American Canal/Lake Cahuilla on the west, and Madison Street on the east. The approved project includes 5,000 residential units, 20 acres of commercial, a major recreational center, and a 65-acre resort village containing 1000 hotel rooms, ancillary hotel uses, and .retail shops. ]PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking Plot Plan approval to construct the 1000 room hotel and ancillary hotel uses. The proposed uses .include: 1) arrival center, 2) conference center (Grand and Junior Ballrooms), and 3) a retail village (five restaurants, :night club, and retail space). ,ANALYSIS: 1. PGA West Specific Plan No. 83-002 received original approval in May of 1984. The approval consisted of 400 hotel rooms plus 250 additional apartment/condominiums or hotel rooms. The Hotel was limited to a height of four stories. 2. An EIR was certified (containing Statements of Overriding Considerations) by the City Council on May 1, 1984. CM/STAFFRPT.010 -1- 3.. Amendment No. 1 of PGA West was approved on September 20, 1988, increasing the hotel rooms from 650 to 1000 and increasing the hotel height from four to six stories. 4„ A supplemental EIR focused on traffic generation/circulation prepared for Amendment No. 1. Mitigation measures which reduced potential circulation impacts were adopted. 5„ Amendment No. 2 was approved by the City Council in June 1989 which increased the overall project size of PGA West by 21.5 + acres. No other changes were approved. 6,. The original PGA West Specific Plan envisioned the project to be a resort destination providing recreational amenities for permanent and seasonal residents and hotel guests. 7. PGA West has been reviewed under CEQA previously. Most of the impacts were mitigated. For those that could not be mitigated, a statement of overriding consideration was adopted. The proposed Hotel and related facilities have therefore been adequately reviewed and addressed. 8. As of the preparation of this report, one written comment has been received and is attached. 9. The Public Hearing Notices were sent to property owners within PGA West and 300 feet beyond the Specific Plan boundaries. 110. A Parking Space Analysis has been submitted by the applicant. The analysis is based upon the Urban Land Institute Shared Parking Program. The program identifies parking needs by use, by time and includes factors for employees, guests, and other service personnel. Based upon the analysis, the peak demand for parking requires 1137 parking spaces. The applicant has provided 1460 parking spaces. The parking ratio (space/room) is above the Stouffer's Hotel and just below the Marriott Desert Springs Hotel. 11. The Coachella Valley Water District has indicated that the area is protected from stormwater flows and that domestic water and sanitation services can be furnished to this development. 12. The Fire Department has been meeting with the applicant to resolve fire access concerns. All-weather access roads along the north side of the hotel wing and between the retail shops and the ballrooms are needed. A condition has been provided to meet the Fire Department's concerns. CM/STAFFRPT.010 -2- 13. The applicant has not provided a detail landscaping plan. 14:. The Hotel and related uses are consistent with the current General Plan policies and generally with the PGA West Specific Plan. 15. The Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan still apply to this Plot Plan. 16. The architectural style of the Hotel and ancillary uses is contemporary and in keeping with the current style of the existing clubhouse and gate houses. 17. Additional permits and/or clearances are required from the Public Works Department, Fire Marshall, Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, Riverside County Environmental Health Department, and Desert Sands Unified School District or Coachella Valley Unified School District, as applicable. 18. Agency Comments: Written comments have been received from the Fire Department, Coachella Valley Water District, Chamber of Commerce, Public Safety Department, Sheriff, and Coachella Valley Unified School District. Their comments are attached. FINDINGS: 1. Plot Plan No. 89-413, as conditioned, is generally consistent with Specific Plan No. 83-002 as amended, the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan and the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 3. The design of Plot Plan No. 89-413 is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, or cause serious public health problems. 4. The proposed development will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Coachella Valley Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 5. The development of the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area. 6. 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. CM/STAFFRPT.010 -3- 7. The Specific Plan approval contained conditions to ensure among other things, consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences. 8. 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". The supplemental EIR, focused on traffic generation/circulation, identified circulation impacts and mitigation measures which reduced the potentially significant circulation impacts associated with Amendment No. 1 was certified as adequate and complete. Based upon the prior environmental review, it is determined that no additional environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the above Analysis and Findings, it is recommended that Plot Plan. No. 89-413 be approved by Minute Motion, subject to the attached conditions, and that the Commission confirm the environmental determination. Attachments: 1. Site plan with elevations 2. Parking analysis 3. Agency comments 4. Written comments CM/STAFFRPT.010 -4- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN NO. 89-413 PROPOSED JUNE 27,1989 1. The development of the site shall generally be in conformance with the Exhibits A and B contained in the file for Plot Plan 89-413, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within one (1) year of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading, which is begun within the one-year period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. Plot Plan 89-413 shall comply with the original and modified conditions for Specific Plan No. 83-002. 4„ Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall: a. Submit, for Planning Director approval, a final landscape plan showing location, size and type of a17, landscape material to be used. b. Provide written verification from the Coachella Valley Water District and the Fire Department that their concern/requirements have been satisfied. 5. An access from PGA Boulevard shall be provided for the hotel wing fire lane. The median opening design shall be the minimum needed. It is not the intent to design/construct the median opening for the general public. 6. Outside lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of -way. CM/CONAPRVL.016 -1- A,,,,,T'A,,44MEwNTOw / a � � S S S I t t I � 0cc � � iii{i 1141i liil � f'{lii� � !!s!�iliill�iiiii! wo r Il{ �� llNA F1 v Z. LU c a �o w N 5 � °� o �° U� I I co uj c�5 a f . - - - �-14 - 1 81 S s 0 93 Ev- is m Ia r s UA ui 0 uj Cc z r I i Q • t- z LU a > co cla w a � a v r ga 3 11 �z W a V N I V z v d cc } ' � I U n t i r tu a W °p Q U. iJ cl: d O-0 U a 1 1 ! s I r I A''("�'�REEVVISED �! J /� � � �"` °'°' ► �i"r� Nor irk SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PGA WEST RESORT HOTEL JUNE 14, 1989 he following chart lists the variables used in an Urban Land Institute ULI) mixed -use shared parking analysis. HARED ;PARKING ESTIMATION - INPUT ASSUMPTIONS .AND USES SIZES RATIO % AUTO PERS/AUTO % .etail 70,000 SF GLA 4.00 100 1.80 75 restaurant 30,000 SF GLA 22.2 100 2.00 70 lotel-Rm 1,000 Rooms 1.00 60 1.40 N/A hotel-Conf. 950 Seats 0.33 60 2.00 100 Iotel-Cony. 45,500 SF 44.40 85 2.50 90 [on -Hotel Golf 18 Holes 2.8 100 2.00 -0- ►ssumptions: Ratio: represents the number of vehicles per 1,000 SF GLA or per one seat. (As per La Quinta City Ordinance.) The golf ratio is based on Landmark experience. ?) % Auto: represents the percent of auto users for a land use versus public transportation or hotel shuttle. Retail and restaurant ratios are. per ULI standards. Hotel rooms, conference and convention "% Auto" are based on Landmark Hotel Operations' experience. 3) Pers/Auto: represents the average number of persons per auto as per ULI: standards. Hotel convention "Pers/Auto" based on Landmark Hotel Operations' experience. 4) % Captive: represents the percentage of persons on -site who visit a particular land use. (As per Landmark's estimate.) 5) Land Uses: All land uses factor in employees and other service personnel. The golf parking assumes that 2/3 of the tee times, for the three 18 hole courses, are reserved for hotel guests. 6) Hotel Conference/Convention: Conference is comprised of (a) 8,000 SF, 350 seat auditorium, (b) 8 meeting rooms @ 750 SF, with 60 seats per room and (c) 3 board rooms @ 960 SF, with 32 seats per room and 1 board room @ 1,800 SF,. with 24 seats. Convention space includes (a) Grand Ballroom @ 30,500 SF (1800 seats max) and (b) Junior Ballroom @ 15,000 Sr (620 seats max) . 7) Golf Assumptions: 100 golfers are on 18 holes at one time. Two persons/auto which yields 2.8 autos per golf hole (5.6 persons playing a 'hole at one: time) . 'hared Parking Analysis, PGA WEST Continued. Tune 14, 1989 'age Two HOTEL HOTEL HOTEL !OUR GOLF RETAIL REST ROOM CONF CONV TOTALS 6 : 0 0 AM 55 0 0 750 0 0 805 7:00 AM 65 6 4 708 0 0 783 8:00 AM 80 13 10 667 0 55 825 9:00 AM 80 29 20 625 0 137 891 L0:00 AM 80 48 40 583 0 137 888 L1:00 AM 80 61 60 541 0 137 679 L2:00 N 80 68 100 500 0 137 885 1:00 PM 80 70 140 500 0 137 927 2:00 PM 80 68 120 536 0 137 941 3:00 PM 80 67 120 536 0 137 940 4:00 PM 68 61 100 571 0 137 937 5:00 PM 60 55 140 607 0 137 999 6:00 PM 55 57 180 643 0 137 1,072 7:00 PM 45 62 200 679 0 137 1,123 8:00 PM 25 61 200 714 0 137 1,137* 9:00 PM 10 43 200 730 0 137 1,120 LO :00 PM 0 22 180 750 0 55 1,007 11:00 PM 0 9 140 750 0 0 899 i2:00 Nf 0 0 100 750 0 0 850 k Peak Demand 1) Shared Parking Computer Program. ULI - The Urban Land Institute, ShELred Parking. Washington, D.C.: ULI - The Urban Land Institute, 1963. fiuTEL InRKINL; STALL:'. l,led_.e ncitF the following parking fiqures were provided by thL- liidividudl city offices. They are "approximate" numbers which were reported to the city. The room numbers and banquet facilities were provided by the IIot e 1 L # of ii of City Hotel Rooms Parking Stall_• Indian Wells Stouffer,s 560 730 f Indian We115 Hyatt Grand Champ. 340 608 Palm Desert Marriott Desert Spr. 892 1,450 RianC110 ldlrage Marriott Rancho L.P. 456 900 >/ Ij banquet Facilities Hotel V Meeting Rms. Gr. Ballroom Jr. Ballroom StouirEl's 22- 1 (15,000 SF) 1 (5,106 SFI Hyatt G1. Champ. 6 (parlors) 1 2 Harriott Ices. Spr. 1 (26,000 SF) 1 (17,000 SF) Marriott Rancho L.P 14 1 (seats 1,000) DIS BYRD, SF[?ERIFF 4 City of La OuinLa Planning Depa.rtmcn L 78- 1.05 Calle Es tado La Ouinta, CA 92233 Gcr_-lemen_ TEA Cfil M FONT if 3 Sheriff June 1.2, 1989 RE Plot Plan 89-413 PGA West Hotel titre have the following cc=c-Its reference the above project. The project is a 1_000 r_oon 'zotel, retail/restaurant center and coherence cen''-er_. The .par'cing spaces allotted are only 1127, including handicap pa.:ki_ng. During seasonal :,se of the hotel and/or conference center, and the retail/restaurant center, there will not be adequate parking for guests, customers and employees. This will cause people to Park in.tio pac-•:i_nq zones and to doL.ble park., This will create a safety hazard i_o emergency vehicles .r_espording to an emergency, and increase the cza-,1ccs of traffic aCCidents due to the inadequate parking. P.G.A. Boulevard iz; a four lane north/south :roadway inside the .P.C.A. West project. Ale oellevc t--iis .roadway to be adequate for the increase in tr_a.f:!ic loads, n.oweve:- P.G.A. Boulevard empties into Jefferson Sheet, which is a two lane roadway. This will cause a bottleneck in this a -ea for exiting traffic. The increased traffic flow on Jefferson Street at the P.G.A. .3oulcvard in,_-erscction and north along Jefferson Street co. 1_ft increase the accident rate due to poor flow pattern. As N,aith all projects which increase traffic flow and population, the e be an increase in call;d. fo.r. police services. Wo appreciate tic op.por-_uri_ty to review plans for construction. 1 vot J-a.ve any questions, please contact Sr. Deputy Bill Walker. Sincerely, CO_I_S M. BYRD, 3ERIFF Micrael R. Lewis, Captain Cove Station Commander \n-m 1. Will there be a cut in the PGA Blvd. median at the north end of the complex, to accomodate the fire access road to the rear of the hotel? 2. I hope they are not planning on using turf block for the fire access road. Entirely too long. 3. Must provide fire access to lower level of cart barn at the Club House. QI'HE# .iLTfu CHAMBER of COMMERCE DESERT I (0)F June 7, 1989 rO: City of La Quinta Development Review Committee 17ROM: Robin Groat 1st Vice President La Quinta Chamber of Commerce In respect to the attached request for response concerning the PGA WEST Hotel complex, the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce fully supports this project and the positive economic effects it will have on the community. We do not find any identifiable impacts that will have a significant adverse effect on the enviornment which cannot be avoided through conditions. Thank you, C.C. Jim Brotherton, Jr., President Mark Moran, 2nd Vice President Robin Llewellyn, Secretary John Bund, Treasurer Korryn Friestad, Interium Executive Director LA QUINTA CHAMBER of COMMERCE ° 78-085 Avenida I_a Fonda, Suite A • Post Office Box 255 • La Quinta, California 92253 ^ (619) 564-3199 ell—. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE: DEPARTMENT " tO U N T Y RIVERSIDE Planning 8: Engineering Office 46-209 Oasis Street, Suite 405 Indio, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 City of La Quinta Planning Division RE: PGA West Hotel Plot Plan No. 89-413 IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFOi�NIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF June 7, 1989 Planning iy Engineering Office 4080 I erron Street, Suite 1 11. Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 Present design of the above referenced plot plan is unacceptable to the Fire Department due to the following; I. An ail —weather, hard surface access road must be provided along one full side of the Resort Hotel. A full median —cut will be required along PGA West Boulevard, adjacent to the north entry point of the access road. Apparatus staging and set—up areas are to be provided adjacent to the lobby of each wing. 2. An all—weather,hard surface access road must be provided into the Retail Center so that the distance to all buildings does not exceed 150 feet. If the road is to be used for other purposes, ie; pedestrian walkway; details of the propsed method of.`access restrictions, road deliniation and signage need to be submitted. Specific details of the required access roads must be submitted with the plot plan in order for the Fire Department to determine the minimum fire and life safety requirements for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By 'J ,'� I,, (�, fir. ,,::, Dennis Dawson Deputy Fire Marshal Vd ATER SISTRIO ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PCST OFFICE BOX 1058 - COAC:HELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RJMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY JOHN P. POWE_L .TllnE FJ O KEITH H. AINSWORTH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M. NICHOLS , 1 9 89 REDWINE AND SHERR ILL, ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH Planning Commission City of La Quints. Post Office Box 1515t La Quanta, California 92253 Gentlemen: File: 0163.1 Subject: Plot Plan 89--413, Portion of Sections 16 and 21, Township 6 South, Range 7 Fast, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected. from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and nay be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone C or.,. Federal Flcod Insurance rate maps which are it of -ect at this time. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. The district will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its domestic water system. These facilities may include wells, reservoirs and booster pumping stations. The developer wiii be required to provide land on which: some of these facilities will be located. These sites shall be shown or the tract map as lots to be deeded to the district for such purpose. Plans for grading, landsca-cing, and irrigation systems shall be submitted. to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. "'he area is within Improvement District No. I of the Coachella Valley Water district for irrigation water service. Water from the Coachella Canal is available to the area.. The developer shall use this water for landscape irrigation. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY UNIFIeb - C a COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 847 THERMAL, CALIFORNIA 92274 (619) 399-5137 June 5, 1989 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning Director City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: We have completed our, review of Plot Plan 89-413 PGA West Hotel. As a mitigation measure to help resolve the school housing problem due to this type of Commercial Development, the school district will levy a developer fee. The fee consists of .25t per square foot for all commercial construction. The fee will be required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City of La Quinta. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (619) 399-5137, Ext. 235. Sincerely, Jorge B. Gutierrez, Director Facilities & Operations JBG/ee MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA PH-3 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: JUNE 27, 1989 SUBJECT: HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AND CHANGE OF ZONE TO HC BACKGROUND: The first Hearing on this matter was held April 25th. A special meeting was held for property owners and other involved parties on May 16th. A second Hearing was held May 23rd. A postponement (to allow more time for written responses) was scheduled so that the last Hearing was set up for June 27th. City Council has the :matter scheduled for their July 5th meeting as a Public Hearing. The draft Ordinance has been revised several times. The last change was a final section outlining the procedure by which a property can be removed from the Open Space designation and proposed for a specific use ("Change of Designation", Section 9.145.070). WRITTEN RESPONSES: Attached to this memo are the responses which Staff received (eight in all). Please read and evaluate the responses. After due consideration, please provide Staff with direction as to how to proceed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution (attached) recommending the Hillside Ordinance as presently drafted to the City Council. MR/MEMOPC.024 -1- Planning Corr=.ssion City of La Quanta La Quinta, CA 92253 Chairman Walling & Re: Hillside Ordinance Commission Members: May 23, 1989 Mark S. Moran and Associates represents Dwight & William Stuart, whose property may be effected by the proposed Hillside Ordinance before you tonight. We are not in opposition to an ordinance that protects the IS,ur..& hills and mountains of La Quinta. We are confused and concerned about the following issues: 1.) Alluvial fans that are less than a 10X slope should zwj be a part of this ordinance, yet it is unclear- where slopes less than IOX fall within the new zoning and restrictions. 2.) Hills and Mountains have not been defined within the ordinance adequately. The Santa Rosa Mountain Conservancy suggested by Sen. Robert Presley will have an effect on our area, how does our proposed ordinance read in light of that pending legislation? The ordinance Attempts to define our mountains using "the toe of the slope" as the principal measure, is this the best measure? 3.) Some hillside development can and would enhance the natural surroundings in La Quinta, Yet, the ordinance does not seek to allow any use unless it is hidden. It is apparent that this ordinance is designed to-Rrobjb t. all development and does not take into consideration design, use, type of development, or financial commitment by the property owner. Private property rights are being ignored, as well as common sense. 4.) I am concerned with section 9.145.020-Permitted Uses, Item C, the issue of visibility. It appears that visibility negates viability. Y•.yQAi -see it. dg13't build it• is not protection, it is prohibition and prohibition is a poor substitute for good planning and design. I have read and reread the proposed ordinance and each time I feel like I understand it Iess and less. To say the least it's confusing. I feel the issue of Hillside Conservation is a, very important issue and should be studied further. Mark Moran Mark S. Moran & Associates P.O. Bost 1305 La Quinta, Ca. 92253 _Indian Gardens Development Co. June 7, 1989 City of U Quinta Commissioners of Planning 913 105 Calle Estado U Quinta, California 92253 Attention: John Walling, Chairman Dear Commissioners: JUN 12 1989 CITY OF LA QUNTA PLANNING & DEVELOMENT DEPT. I thank you for delaying action on the proposed hillside ordinance. I'm asking you to consider the following points: 1. The view shed analysis which is proposed under the hillside ordinance is something that should be adopted on a city wide basis. All flat land developments are likewise visible from somewhere. I would hope nothing unattractive would be allowed on a city wide basis. 2. The drainage element of the hillside ordinance should be removed and implemented under the flood control elements mandated by the City, County, State or Federal Governments. 3. The flatlands of section 29 should be removed from the hillside designation. If it is clear in everyones mind that my property would not be subjected to the ambiguous methodology of the ordinance, please remove it from the designation. In looking at the contour map for section 29, I believe that a statement, that anything below the 220 foot contour line would not be affected by the ordinance, would clarify the definition of hillside land. Or, as an alternative, the north half of section 29 should be removed. I thank you for your consideration. Mr. John Criste of Terra Nova Planning and Research will submit an additional response on my behalf and will address to the issues on a more technical basis. incerely, Richard J. Mey RJM.js 81713 highway 111, Suite 3, Indio, California 92201 (619) 342-1541 P.O. Box 7247, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 852-0193 11■ in ii Interactive Design Corporation June 9, 1989 161 Scuth Civic Drive S.nte 7 Palm Springs. CaMomia 92262 (619) 323-4990 Merry Herman, Director Planning and Development Department City of La Quinta 11. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Hillside Conservation Ordinance Dear Mr. Herman: �. .SUN 12 1989 CITY OF LA QUjjgA PLANNING $ DEVELOpMENT OEPT. The following is a philosophical approach to hillside development that differs from that presented in the ordinance. One way to approach hillside development is to concentrate the development so that the form resembles a Swiss or Italian hilltown. For this to happen, buildings have to "step up" the mountain creating narrow pedestrian paths. From a distance the development looks somewhat organic ---composed of many small parts, but all unified into a "town." 1: propose this because the typical strategy of isolated houses built against the hillside, in my view, is more disruptive to a larger area, than if all that development were brought together, serviced by a funicular (not allowing cars into the development) and designed to blend with the topography. The result would be a "'place" or "town" or "cluster," rather than a string of individual houses. The Ritz -Carlton does not demonstrate the stepping down, the small component, and "organic" design I would suggest for this kind of development. The net development might be greater, but it would be concentrated so the hillside would be disturbed in only one place, rather than many. On another item, I would recommend that the language express a demand for exceptional architectural and landscape design. Not in the sense of "out -standing", but in the sense of "fitting in. The effort should be to complement and integrate with the desert hillsides. palm springs • los angeles Jerry Herman June 9, 1989 ]Page Two Under permitted uses: I believe higher density uses could be accommodated on hillside development following the suggested "hilltown" model. Recommended Working: 19.145045.G Architectural Treatment: Because of high visibility and the fragility of hillside sites, Architectural design should be "exceptional." The architecture shall be reviewed for its sensitivity to the desert climate, its compatibility with the indiginous colors and textures, and the appropriateness of its scale. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. Sincerely, lkeuel Ar=gI,. .A .k�eue. RAY: dIh Interactive Design Corporation 161 South Civic Drive ■ Suite 7 ■ Palm Springs, California 92262 (619) 323-4990 JUNE 12, 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION 78-105 CALLE ESTADO LA QUINTA CA 92253 DEAR SIRS: P.O. BOX 65783-0783 • LOS ANGELES, CA 90065-0783 THEATRES WITHIN A THEATRE JUN i"�`1 CITY & o�v�t��t�EN�o � PLANNING. RE: YOUR NOTICE OF HEARING FOR ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE #89-043 THE PROPOSED HILLSIDE CHAFE OF ABOVE -SHOWN AMENDMENT IS A CONCERN OF PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF LAKE CAHUILLA PARK PLANNED AS A CIVIC -- ORIENTED PROJECT. THE LOCATION AND THE PARK WHICH ARE ISOLATED FROM THE CITY OF LA QUINTA PROPER, HAS BEEN A CONCERN OF PREVIOUS RIVERSIDE COUNTY PARK'S DIRECTORS, PETER DANGERMOND AND RICHARD SIMONS, TO ATTRACT THE PUBLIC. THE THEATRE PROJECT HAD BEEN PRESENTED AS THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS PUBLIC ATTRACTION ,AND INCLUDING THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. WE BEGIN WITH A NATURAL BOWL OVERLOOK1ING A PARK AND LAKE TO CREATE A COMPATIBLE BLEND OF PUBLIC NEED AND DESIRE TO ATTEND. THERE HAS BEEN MANY YEARS OF PLANNING FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT CENTER ASSOCIATED WITH A COUNTY PARK AND ITS BASIC PURPOSE BEING JEOPARDIZED BY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. WE ARE IN HOPES THAT THE CITY OF LA QUINTA SHALL CONSIDER ALL ASPECTS OF PUBLIC DESIRE PRIOR TO THE FINAL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE. SINCERELY, DESERT GARDEN THEATRE, INC. /O/HNfKWA8KE / JK:CS C." IVD Henry J. Hohenstein P. O. Box 193 Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 619-329-1514 June 13, 1989 Jerry Herman, Director Planning and Development Department P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Jerry: ,l U N 1 5 1969 CITY OF LA QU I NTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. L02 Below are some modifications which might be helpful to your Draft Hillside Conservation Ordinance. 9.145.045 (Add) 1. When all property is located above the "toe of the slope" these specific development standards shall NOT apply, when applicant proposes a cluster development. Overall density shall not exceed one residential unit per twenty acres. The proposal shall be evaluated on its own merits. Said performance standards shall be unique and based on the characteristics of the site. Cluster development is in keeping with section 9.145.040 of this Chapter, i.e., overall reductions of grading and reductions of disturbances to natural slopes, vegetation and wildlife. 9.145.055 (Add) D. Any owner of property within the H.C. Zone may transfer development rights, in accordance with this Chapter (9.145), to any properly organized non-profit organization whose charter allows for the ownership of development rights. Jerry Herman, Director June 13, 1989 Page Two 1. Said non-profit may retain or transfer acquired rights in accordance with this Chapter (9.145). Than you for considering these thoughts. Sin rel�, l He J. Hohenstein AICP HJH:dlh KWL ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING • ENGINEERING • SURVEYS 712 EUGENE RD. PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92264 (619) 327-7786 June 14, 1989 Mr. Jerry Herman DZrector City c f La Quinta PZanning and DeveZopment Department Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, Cabi fornia 92253 Dear Jerry: mn IVD J UN 15 1989 CITY OF LA QUINT) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEI I have read your draft of the Hi'tZside Conservation Ordinance. I have also given it to several designers to read and comment on. We are pleased to inform you that we found the Ordinance acceptable as is and recommend that it be passed. Ver Zy yours, Robert T. s o l President RTL: m rI L J TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH INC June 16,1989 Jerry Herman, Director PIanning and Development Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman, We represent Richard J. Meyer, the owner of property in Section 29 in T6S, R7E; this property will be affected by adoption of the proposed Hillside Conservation (HC) Zone. After review of the proposed ordinance, we would offer the following comments: 1. ITL_Ce_p We are aware of the need to provide for the protection and appropriate development of unique areas of the City of La Quinta in a manner that permits the implementation of special community objectives. Our review of the ordinance had a three- fold focus: Is our ability to predict likely development and its location on the Meyer's property enhanced or derogated by this proposal? Are the standards clear and straightforward? Are the definitions provided objective. Where possible, are ranges of standards explicit so that alternative uses may be considered? Are there "catchall" paragraphs that may call for arbitrary conditions that are not explicit in the ordinance but that may be required? Does the ordinance establish a process that is clearly related to specific policies and goals of the community? Is the process one that is responsive in a timely manner so that complex development problems faced in unique areas can be efficiently and effectively resolved? 1 275 NORTH EL CIELO, SUITE D-3 11 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 0 (619) 320-9040 2. &dai n-A._1� . 5_GENE1ftA1L. An alternative to the approach used in the ordinance is to establish a hillside overlay zone that fits over the present zone of involved properties. This has the advantages of: allowing for greater specificity of properties to be included; the overlay zone can be simplified to deal only with the regulations necessary for development in hillside areas; the underlying zone(s) can be more readily adjusted while the protection of the overlay remains in place; administrative relief may be provided for in cases where the property clearly is not characteristic of hillsides or satisfy criteria for inclusion in the overlay zone. As presently written, the de:Einition of land which falls into the zone is unclear. We would rec,3mmend that degree of slope be the controlling factor. This should be immediately stated in Section 9.145.005 so that the property owner can readily discern whether the ordinance is applicable or not. The concept of land "above the toe of the slope" is difficult to comprehend and define. It is our recommendation that this not be used as the definitive standard for inclusion in the overlay zone. In any event, paragraphs A. and B. of the proposed ordinance should be renumbered to A.1. and A.2. so that all land included in this zone is found together in the same subsection of the ordinance. $, diora_g�4�,.01,0. PI POSE, A1V1J IN'�l EIS . This part of the ordinance defines the purpose for the ordinance and is that which the decisionmaker and administrator will rely upon when considering matters of discretion. Therefore, it should be clear and unambiguous in its staternents. The purposes are stated as two: to define hillside areas which are not developable because of aesthetics and engineering limitations and to insure that the placement, density and type of hillside development that does occur is suitable to existing topography, provides for minimal disturbance of the natural terrain and that certain characteristics be retained when practicable. It is appropriate to define the engineering standards and outline those aesthetic characteristics which are undesirable and will lead to the decision to prohibit development on certain land. The term "mountainside" should be stricken from this paragraph; it is not used or defined elsewhere and is t./pically assumed to be "hillside" in its characteristics. The objective set forth in paragraph B.1. should include an ending statement relating to how; for example, in paragraph B.2.,, it is through the careful dispersion, sizing and location of building pads that this objective will be achieved. This same deficiency is noted in paragraph B.5, which also seems redundant with B.I. Paragraph B.3. contains terms that are subjective: " conspicuous and obtrusive". What is it about development that makes it conspicuous and obtrusive? Its elevation? Architecture? Color scheme? Roof pitch? Access points? Landscaping? This needs to be clearly defined so that the property owner has an understanding of what is, or is not, acceptable. 2 4. Sgis�el4fi.016. APPI.I�A�`It?N TS? �QPE13 This subsection is more appropriately included in the beginning of the ordinance as this is the definition of land to which the zonewill be applied. It is our recommendation, for ease of administration and purposes of application, that degree of slope be the controlling factor for inclusion in this overlay zone. Spacific wording could be as follows: "For any parcel subject to the jurisdiction of the City of La Quinta, the City Engineer, upon viewing the site and considering a land suitability study submitted by the applicant, shall determine the boundary and extent of the hillside overlay zone as it affects the property. For purposes of determining this boundary, the following shaII apply: That portion of the property which exceeds an angle of slope of 10% shall be included in the hillside overlay zone." It is strongly recommended! that B.1. and B.4., relating to alluvial material of one foot or more and areas unprotected from flooding potential, be deleted. The development potential and constraints for these areas are not the same as for hillsides. Alluvial fans are co-Jalposed of different soils, vegetates[ by different plants, require different methods of construction to mitigate hazards, etc.; regulation should be done separately from hillsides. This is also true of those areas subject to flooding. We also recommend that, as an alternative, the City require the preparation of a land suitability study for review by the City Engineer so that a determination of the extent of the hillside overlay zone can be made for indivitlual properties. The list of reports set forth in Section 9.145.035 of the ordinance includes several that do not appear necessary to make such a determination. For example, an access plan and utility plan may well change depending upon the boundary of the overlay zone. The land suitability study should consist of a professional evaluation of all physical and environmental factors on the site so that the zone boundary, general type, density and distribution of development may be established. Topics to be covered would perhaps include: overall theme and possible phasing; relationship to the General Plan and its Elements; total acreage, acreage by (broad) land use category and sequence of development; estimated population; relationship to other approved plans on directly adjacent properties. Once the boundary and general aspects of development have been approved, then much more detailed reports and plans can be ;prepared. In fact, this type of approach is one the City should consider to aid in setting the initial boundary of the overlay zone An overall land suitability analysis would greatly assist in determining the general Iocation for the overlay zone. If the definition of land which falls in the overlay zone remains as proposed by the City, then the determination of land within that zone is likely to become an involved process, 3 requiring modification and negotiation. In all likelihood, the boundary will shift which will necessitate new reports and plans for all the involved properties. It is most cost- effective and efficient for all involved to decide the boundary of the overlay zone as early in the planning process as possible. 5.�tio�z l��I5�020. P:E l_viI�, _F,I) iJ Combine paragraphs A. and F. Delete paragraphs B. and C. The method for deteimiining visibility is burdensome and unpractical. Erecting the lights will cause disturbance in advance of approval; sites for proposed buildings may be substantially altered. Other methods of visual impact analysis are more appropriate. A community -wide view impact analysis should have been prepared as a part of the General Flan Scenic Corridors Element so that all major vistas visible from city lands and especially city streets were adequately protected through appropriate guidelines. Specific building elevations and parcel profiles should be required on a birilding-by-building basis as individual plot plans or other development applications are being reviewed. Paragraph E. outlines permitted uses on slopes that are 20% or less AND in non -visible areas. Paragraph F. lists the permitted uses on slopes that exceed 20% AND are visible. 'What is permitted where slopes are 20% or less AND are visible? What is permitted on slopes that exceed 20% AND are non -visible? `4'e recommend that any mention or list of pe;rnaitted uses be deleted. Tlie hillside overlay zone need only deal with specific regulations for aAual development. Those uses permitted in the underlying zone(s) would apply. 6. autiQ11,9, 1),.Q Skis' :[_sue rR>): ttQ.�SCAR$ING CONTROL Paragraph F. indicates that "special drawings showing grading and topography as viewed from critical locations within the neighborhood or community" must be submitted prior to obtaining a grading permit. This needs to be defined. What is a special drawing? How many? From where? Who will decide? When? What is the neighborhood? Where else in the community? Paragraph G. contains references to "maximum", "excessive", "sensitive" and "Imaginative". These are highly subjective; the terms should be deleted or otherwise defined or quantified. In the alternative, detailed engineering and grading plans can provide more than sufficient information to assess impacts from on -site grading and grubbing. Additionally, a plan can be submitted to deal with impacts of scarring, both preventive and restorative. 7,PrE I ATION. Is it necessary to pursue only one of the procedures to change the designation? Can the designation be changed by the City Engineer after reviewing reports? If a property owner complies with all regulations in the 4 zone except those listed in part E., does this mean the property is no longer subject to the regulations? This is not clear. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this ordinance. It is obvious that a great deal of effort bas gone into this endeavor on the part of staff. We, too, believe that the com, -.qiiunity will be enhanced through the adoption of appropriate regulations. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. NTeyer, John Criste or myself if Nve may be of further assistance. CGC 4- k tt-"' CATHERINE A*, MITTON Project Manager cc: Richard J. Meyer 5 Palm Springs, CA 92263 June 16, 1989 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning and Development Director City of La Quinta P. 0. Box 1584 La Quints, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: Re: Hillside Conservation Ordinance /zecrf Vel) CityJUN ' 9 1989 PZ4#NI ; O F Q1J D�EtQpy�F��T� We would like to suggest a few changes to your HC draft ordinance. Under GENERALLY "B" Change the difinition of being above the toe of the slope to "The toe of the Hillside" 110 Delete reference to alluvial fans and leave flood ,control problems to current, in place rules and regulations. Under APPLICATION TO PROPERTY. 1. Delete. All of La Quinta, with the exception of hillsides is water— borne alluvial, including PCA West. 3. Change angle of the slope to read 20%. Under PERMITED USES "C" Delete. There is no place in the City of La Quinta where the proposed string of red lights would not be visible from another part of the City. Sincerely • I ��l�l ;Jacque Boecker Willard Kelsey JANES V. SCHLECHT JOIN C. SHEVLIN JON A SHOENBERGER JOEL S V _IBANO 7AN E.. T JOHNSON �OSEPH A GIBBS 3CNN E GARLAND GUSS NA,TER J.P. TRAVER CRAIG W. MCARTHJR June 27, 1989 SCHLECHT, SHEVLIN 8. SHOENBERGER A LAW CORPORATION Jerry Herman Planning Director Planning Department City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92233 LAWYERS POST OFFICE BOX 1905 801 EAST TAHOUITZ NAY, SUITE 100 PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92263-I906 RE: HILLSIDE CONSERVATION ORDINANCE Dear Mr. Herman: TELEPHONE l6 91 320-7161 TELECOPIER '6 9) 323-1758 IN REPLY REFER 'O JUN 2 71989 CITY OF LA QUI'NTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. This letter is a follow-up to our conference attended by the City Manager and Bernard Debonne Monday morning, June 26, 1989. Air, I indicated, this office represents La Quinta Heights, the entity that owns an 87.1 acre parcel described as the East half of the Southeast quarter of Section 13, T6S, R6E. Wle assert that the ordinance as presently drafted would substantially preclude any development on the properties described in the proposed ordinance and certainly on our client's property. Whether by design or not, the effect of the ordinance as proposed results in a taking of private property rights for what is perceived to be the "public good." Certainly with respect to any property below a 20% grade the proposed ordinance is far more extreme than any which we are aware. While we commend the attempt to put some equity into the ordinance by the insertion of the provisions providing for a transfer of development rights, the limitations proposed in the ordinance on that transfer really do not provide reasonable nor adequate compensation for the taking of the private property rights. SCHLECHT SHEVUN & SHOENBERGER A LAW CORPORATION LAWYERS June 27, 1989 Page 2 If the transfer of development rights section were to be modified so that a density transfer of two units to the acre for all property below a 20% grade while remaining with your proposal of one unit per 20 acres for property above that grade were to be included in the ordinance, we think then it would be substantially more equitable to the property owners and certainly would be acceptable to our client. In. the absence of some feature such as suggested above, we believe the ordinance will be fatally defective and will only result in substantial attack upon it by private property owners who are adversely affected thereby. We: enclose ten copies of this letter so you may have ample copies for distribution to staff members and members of the commission. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter with you and the City Manager yesterday morning. Vy. y truly yours If / J' ►MES M. SCH.L CHT MS/ct 9/60 nclosures cc: Bernard Debonne 22 June 1989 ]?lanning Commission City of La Quanta '78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 RE: Hillside Conservation Zone Commissioners JUN 2 7 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. This letter is to comment on the proposed amendment to Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, the addition of a Hillside Conservation Zone (Chapter 9.145). We request that this letter be made a part of the record as public comment on the proposed zoning changes. In general we would like to complement the Commission and City staff on what appears to be a thorough and carefully constructed Hillside Conservation Ordinance. The Ordinance includes :important recognition of the magnificent natural features in our hillsides. Indeed the hillside areas in their natural state are one of the most attractive aspects of the City of La Quinta. We have several comments we submit for consideration by the Commission: 1. Inasmuch as one of the purposes of the Hillside Conservation Ordinance is to provide for protection of hillside ecosystems, we suggest that the initial statement of purpose and intent (Section 9.145.010) include recognition of ecological as well as aesthetic values. Suggested wording might be as follows: . . . for those hillside areas which are developable, to insure that the placement, density, and type of all hillside development within the City of La Quinta is suitable to the topography of the existing terrain, that proposed developments provide for minimal disturbance of the existing terrain and natural habitats, and that the natural hillside and mountainside characteristics will be retained wherever practicable." 2. In the definition of "open space" (Section 9.145.015) alluvial fans drainage ways, and stream courses are included in the Hillside Conservation Zone. We strongly support this inclusion but express concern that these areas be recognized for their value as natural habitats for desert wildlife and plants. These alluvial fans and stream courses are important "right of ways'' for movement of desert wildlife, and, because of the soil characteristics, important sites for dens and burrows. We suggest that any development plan be subject to review based on the potential impacts to these sensitive natural habitats. 3. We strongly support the careful review process which has been incorporated in to the H.C. Ordinance, including design, engineering, and plot plan reviews. However, we are concerned that these review processes do not address _mpacts to ecosystems or biological resources. We strongly recommend that the H.C. Ordinance include a Biological Review requirement. This section might read: 9.145.03'215 BIOLOGICAL REVIEW REQUIRED All development in the HC Zone shall be subject to a review by a qualified biologist, to be filed with the City Planning Dept., which addresses the following features: a.) Natural vegetation and native plants which may be affected by the project; b.) Wildlife habitats, migratory routes (eg. for Bighorn sheep), and native animal species ; c.) Plan to maintain corridors for wildlife habitat and movement of animals within H.C. Zone. 4. We are pleased with the careful consideration of grading proposals included in the ordinance. We are concerned that some alterations, specifically construction of flood control facilities, may not be addressed by this review process. We encourage the Commission to include specific language to insure that flood control facilities include sensitive grading and revegetation plans. Otherwise these flood control areas become unattractive "landscapes". 5. Also, in regard to grading and scarring control (Section 9.145.040), we encourage the use of native vegetation to restore these areas to a natural condition. For example, Section 9.145.040, part G might be amended as follows: 5. The encouragement of revegetation plans for disturbed areas which employ native plant species or drought tolerant plants for restoration. We believe that these comments and changes will enhance the ability of the Hillside Conservation Ordinance to protect the natural habitats and biological resources of our hillsides. We encourage the Commission to consider these suggestions in a final draft of the Ordinance. Again, we wish to commend the City for a carefully worded ordinance. We are concerned only that this ordinance as it presently stands does not address the ecological features of the hillsides as completely as it considers aesthetic and safety consideration. For this reason we submit these comments for your consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Katie Barrows Resident 53277 Avenida Diaz La Quinta, CA 92253 (619) 564-2413 Yvonne Davis Resident P.O. Box 534 La Quinta, CA 92253 (619) 564-1162 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-122, AND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT (NO. 89-008) CREATING CHAPTER 9.145, H.C. (HILLSIDE CONSERVATION) ZONE, AND THE APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE OF ZONE (NO. 89-043) REZONING ALL LAND IN THE CITY ABOVE "THE TOP OF THE SLOPE" TO H.C. (HILLSIDE CONSERVATION) ZONE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25th day of April, 1989, the 23rd day of May, 1989, the 6th day of June, 1989, and the 27th day of June, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of the City of La Quinta to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to create a new Chapter 9.145, H.C. (Hillside Conservation) Zone, and to rezone all land in the City above "the toe of the slope" to H.C. (Hillside Conservation) Zone, and to consider the Negative Declaration prepared for these changes; and, WHEREAS, said Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment and Change of Zone have complied 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 conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed changes will not have a :significant, adverse impact on the environment; 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 Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the approval of said Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment and Change of Zone: 1. The Text Amendment and Change of Zone are consistent with the General Plan in that the General Plan (Natural Resources Element) contains the following policy statements relating to these matters: 14R/RES089.033 -1- GOAL: TOPOGRAPHY: PROTECTION AND STEWARDSHIP OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AS A MAJOR COMMUNITY ASSET FOR THE FUTURE OF LA QUINTA. A "resource" is an asset or valuable commodity that is useful and/or necessary to people. Natural resources are those not manufactured by man. In the context of city planning, these include flora and fauna, topography, water, air quality, energy, and soils. Issue Assessment - (MEA Reference: II-A.1) The magnificent natural setting of La Quinta is undoubtedly a major asset. The rugged slopes, the impact of the Coral Reef of the Santa Rosa Mountains and its enclosure of the Cove, and Point Happy, the prominent west entrance to the City, are components of this topographic environment. However, these natural factors are very fragile. The slopes of the mountains will become subject to development pressure as the flat lands are used up. Even limited construction of roads and housing will have a serious effect on stability. Therefore, the City must take action to establish strong policies to protect this significant resource. Implementation Policies: POLICY 4.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PREPARE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. POLICY 4.1.2 SLOPES GREATER THAN 20 PERCENT SHALL BE DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE TO PREVENT INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT. POLICY 4.1.3 WATERSHED AREAS WITH SLOPES LESS THAN 20 PERCENT SHALL LIMIT DEVELOPMENT TO ACCESS ROADS, RURAL HOMESITES, AND RECREATIONAL USES ONLY. MR/RESO89.033 -2- OPEN SPACE: Issue Assessment - (MEA Reference: II-B.3) La Quintals natural setting has mandated a major land use commitment to open space. Over 40 percent of the city's area consists of steep hillsides plus several water courses and other essential flood control facilities. This land must be kept in primarily undeveloped condition due to its topographical characteristics, access constraints, lack of infrastructure and similar inherent limitations. Implementation Policy: POLICY 6.1.1 AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRON- MENTAL CONCERN (E.G., HILLSIDES WITH SLOPE OF 20%, FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES, WATER COURSES, ETC.) SHALL BE DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE AND SHALL BE LIMITED FROM DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD CAUSE ADVERSE IMPACTS. HISTORIC/ CULTURAL RESOURCES: Issue Assessment - (MEA Reference; II-C) As a relatively new city, La Quinta has few historic structures. The La Quinta Hotel, established in 1926, is perhaps the most significant historic building. However, the cultural resource potential of the area is considerable, based upon current understanding. Accordingly, there is a high potential for discovery of archaeologic material in portions of the city. Implementation Policies: POLICY 5.3.3 POINT HAPPY, A SIGNIFICANT TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURE AND THE MAJOR GATEWAY TO LA QUINTA, SHALL BE DESIGNATED A LOCAL HISTORIC AND CULTURAL LANDMARK. I4R/RES089.033 -3- 2. The areas above "the toe of the slope" now designated Open Space on the General Plan Land Use Map contain both developable and undevelopable land. The Hillside Conservation Ordinance (Text Amendment) provides a way of distinguishing between the two, as well as providing standards for appropriate development. 3. The hillside areas of the City now are zoned a variety of different zones, without any consistency. The Hillside Conservation Zone allows the City to treat like areas in a like fashion and introduce consistency of treatment. The Change of Zone subjects all similar land to similar regulation, based on engineering considerations and aesthet=c justifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89-122 (a Negative Declaration) relative to the environmental concerns of this Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment and Change of Zone to H.C. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (No. 89-008) creating a new chapter 9.145, H.C. (Hillside Conservation) Zone, and the Change of Zone (No. 89-043) from a variety of zones to H.C. (Hillside Conservation) Zone for all lands above "the toe of the slope," within the following 19 sections (San Bernardino Base and Meridian) within the City of La Quinta: TSS, R7E: Sections 19, TSS, R6E: Section 36; T6S, R6E: Sections 1, T6S, R7E: Sections 6, 28, 29, 30; 25, 30; 12, 13, 24, 25; 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. MR/RESO89.033 -4- PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTE of the La Quinta Planning commission, held Tune, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR D at a regular meeting on this 27th day of WITTUI-Mr M., MR/RESO89.033 -5- MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA PH-4 TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING C0101ISSION FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DraPAR` MENT DATE: JUKE 27, 1989 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND REVISION (t,ENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-024 ) BACKGROUND: State law requires that all jurisdictions in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region update their General Plan Housing Element by July 1, 1989. La Quintals draft was sent to the State Office of Tloiis.ing and Cor�imunity Development (HCD) on May 12th for the 45 , ay , -"i'iew. The Planning Commission will hold their Public Hearing on the Housing Element General Plan kriendlaent on June 27th and the City Council Public Hearing will occur on July 5th. As no Study Session will be held on Monday, July 3rd. the City Council discussion of the Housing Element took place on June 19th. An informal review of the Housing Element was conveyed by HCD to the Staff by telephone on Friday, June 9th. Many suggestions were made by HCD. Most were Tatters of clarification of numbers. The draft Housing Element is now being revised to accommodate as many of the suggestions as possible. The draft may still be in a state of revision at the time of the Planning Commission Public Hearing. 7,4()Pefully, a final version will be available in time for the ilily 5th City Council Public Hearing. The letter of has not yet importance to review which Staff has arrived. Therefore, give to each of the HCD :;k-,en expect i_jtg from HCD Staff is not sure what sljggestions. MR/MEMOPC.025 -1- HCD REVIEW: The following are the points which HCD suggested might be changed or clarified. 1. Clarify some housing stock totals, especially occupied versus total housing units. :2. Provide tenure (renter vs. owner) figures from the 1980 census for total households and elderly population. These figures are not available for La Quinta's individual block groups. They are only available for whole enumeration districts (which is far larger than La Quinta) and is therefore misleading. 3. Need a windshield survey of housing condition in the Cove (and any other older areas) to identify those units which may need rehabilitation and/or demolition. Code Enforcement is now conducting such a survey. The numbers are expected to be small. 4. Mention the City Council awards program for improvements of housing appearance. 5. Clear up the reviewers confusion between numbers of individuals mentioned throughout the text versus the number of households listed in the table on page 65. (The reviewer did not read carefully.) 6. Discuss any plans to involve the Self -Help Program. 7. Mention the function of the City Newsletter in getting information out to the citizens. 8. Recap the program as it relates to new construction, rehabilitation, and conservation of existing housing stock. 9. Provide a total column for the Table on page 83. 10. HCD took issue with the design review standards for the SR zone (1,,200 square feet, 2-car garage, tile roof, single -story, etc.). They are maintaining that such standards are a constraint to providing affordable housing. HCD was informed by Staff that the SR standards were: a. A large part of the reason the City incorporated; b. Responsible for the upgrading which has been taking place in the condition and appreciation of property in the Cove over the past seven years; MR/MEMOPC.025 -2- C. The standards were not likely to be changed by the City just because HCD took issue with them; d. The thrust of the La Quinta program was the provision of affordable rental housing (not in the Cove) and so the SR standards had little affect; e. The Cove area was still the most reasonable housing market available in this part of the Valley, despite the salutary effects of the SR standards. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An environmental assessment (EA 89-123) was conducted by Staff of the impacts of the revision of the Housing General Plan Amendment. It was determined that no adverse impacts were foreseen and,, as a consequence, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. CRITICAL POINTS IN HOUSING ELEMENT REVISION: The first point to consider is the SCAG projection of total households needing housing between 1988 and 1994, found on page .14. They predict 1,262 households of all incomes will need rousing, and of that number, 406 (32.7 percent) will be in the low or very low income category. The Staff has added to the projection the difference in employee pools accounted for by the expansion of the PGA West :Hotel from 650 rooms to 1,000. This results in approximately 400 more lower income households needing assistance, for a total of 806. On page 17 is a comparison of the SCAG projection, plus PGA 'West Hotel, to the CVAG projection which is based on an accelerated growth projection. The figures are very similar. On pages 70-75 are the conclusions and the discussion of the foundation of the La Quinta Housing Program. The policies and their economic implications start on page 76. The Table which outlines each year's contribution to the program is on page 83. A caveat must be emphasized at this point. The ability of La Quinta to actually provide multi -family rental housing at affordable prices will depend on the market and the developers' willingness to build multi -family units in La Quinta. It is very definitely a partnership between the City and private developers. If they do not build any multi -family between now and 1994, La Quinta will not be able to accomplish its objectives. This point is spelled out in the text. HCD may well take issue with the truthfulness of this caveat, saying that we don't intend to accomplish the objectives. MR/MEMOPC.025 -3- Another caution relates to the role of State and Federal programs in La Quinta. Our objectives includes the necessary participation of State and Federal programs. If they do not carry their own weight, La Quinta does not have the funding to accomplish the objectives alone. RECAP OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1. CONSERVATION 8.01 Maintain existing housing stock 210 units 8.02 Remove blighting influences 600 units 8.03 Enhance existing and new neighborhoods 450 units Approximate Total: 1,260 units ;?. REHABILITATION 8.09.2 Grants and loans for home enhancement, $481,479. Assume average of $2,000 per unit 241 units Approximate Total: 241 units :3. NEW CONSTRUCTION 8.09.4 Creation of new housing stock, $3r322,204 (assume an average of $10,000 per unit) combined with density bonuses 332 units 8.07 Federal and State programs 570 units 8.11 Minimum 5% affordable required in all multi -family projects 68 units ,B.14 Special mobile home projects 200 units Approximate Total: 1,170 units 4. AFFORDABLE EXISTING UNITS 8.04 Expand existing RCHA Section 8 Program 55 units 8.09.1 Section 8 supplement, $962,956. Assume $300 per month per unit ($18,000 per unit over five years) 53 units ------------ Approximate Total: 108 units MR/MEMOPC.025 -4- `i . HOMELESS 8.09.3 Expand homeless capability, $48,146. Assume $100 per night. 481 nights 6. FAIR HOUSING 8.05 Assume approximately 14 cases in 5 yrs 14 cases APPROXIMATE TOTAL UNITS AFFECTED: 2,793 UNITS ]RECOMMENDATION: Staff will present briefly the Housing Program at your Study Session on June 26th. Questions will be answered both at the Study Session and at the Public Hearing on June 27th. After consideration of the original draft text and recognizing the some refinements of the Housing Element may take place after :receipt of the formal letter from HCD, adopt the resolution attached, recommending the Housing Element update and revision ,as General Plan Amendment 89-024, and the acceptance of the Negative Declaration resulting from EA 89-123, together with ,any refinements which may be included in response to HCD's letter. MR/MEMOPC.025 -5' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-123, AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89-024, BEING THE UPDATE AND REVISION OF THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27th day of June, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the Update and Revision of the General Plan Housing Element; and, WHEREAS, the Update and Revision of the General Plan Housing Element has complied 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 the City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that -the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; 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 Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the approval of the General Plan Amendment; 1. The proposed Update and Revision of the Housing Element of the General Plan appears to comply with the required contents of Housing Elements of Government Code 65580 through 65589.8; 2. After review, the State Department of Housing and Community Development comments appear to be tending toward acceptance. Suggestions for improvement are being incorporated into the draft text, to the extent they are known; 3. The housing program contained Element appears to address households needing assistance, subsequently produced by CVAG; in the proposed Housing the SCAG projections of as well as the projections MR/RESO89.034 '1' �I. The Housing Element is feasible and can be accomplished within the five-year period, provided that State and Federal housing programs also contribute to the objectives outlined in the Housing Element; The Update and Revision of the Housing Element were within the impacts envisioned within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan, and were more specifically addressed by EA 89-123. 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 correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89-123, relative to the environmental concerns of this Amendment to the General Plan, and that a Negative Declaration is a supportable finding; 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the Negative Declaration and the General Plan Amendment of the Housing Element, subject to minor revisions called for by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 27th day of Tune, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR 14R/RESO89.034 -2- TO: FROM: CITY OF LA QUINTA HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION SS-1 MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: JUNE 27, 1989 PROJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 89-088 LOCATION: EXISTING BUILDING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND AVENIDA BERMUDAS, PREVIOUSLY LA QUINTA BUILDERS SUPPLY (SEE LOCALITY PLAN, ATTACHMENT NO. 1) APPLICANT AND OWNER: CHESTER DORN BACKGROUND: This application was previously discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting dated June 13, 1989, in conjunction with Plot Plan 89-414. The Plot Plan Application which proposed exterior remodeling to the structure was approved June 13, 1989, by the Commission and accepted by the City Council on June 20, 1989. At the June 13, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, it was noted that the sign was already installed on the east side of the building, even though the Sign Permit Request had not yet been approved. The Planning Commission elected to let the sign remain and allow the sign to be lit as a temporary demonstration. This did not constitute Planning Commission approval of the sign. It was noted that the sign did not essentially comply with the intent of the Village Specific Plan. The applicant stated a willingness to meet with staff to discuss this issue. As a result of the above discussion, Sign Application 89-088 was continued until the June 27, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting. CM/MEMOPC.003 -1- APPLICATION: Sign Application 89-088 comprises one wall -mounted sign. Although the Sign Ordinance allows the Planning Department to approve an individual permanent sign, it was felt in this .nstance that the Planning Commission should review this application. Note should be made that only one sign has been proposed on the east side of the building, although two have been illustrated on Attachment No. 5. "he sign proposed is mounted on the east (Avenida Bermudas) :side of the building. The sign proposed has metal channel :Letters with interior neon illumination (see Attachment No. 6). The word "ACE" is in red and "HARDWARE" a combination of smokey and white face to appear black in the daytime and white when illuminated. The sign is approximately 3'9" high and 25' long, with a total area of 42.02 square feet. .['he proposed sign complies with the locational and size requirements of the Sign Ordinance. However, as regards the color utilized and the proposed illumination of the proposed sign, the Village Specific Plan, Section 6.5.1 Building Signs, states the following: "The colors, materials, and lighting of every sign shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which it principally relates." "Back lit (box or can) signs are to be discouraged, directly illuminated signs shall be limited to individual letters. Exposed bulb or garish neon lighting is prohibited." "Identification signs of a prototype design and corporation logos shall conform to the criteria for all other signs." "Signs on glazed tile with indirect lighting are to be encouraged." I'he proposed sign is in conflict with the Village Specific Plan as regards illumination methods, materials, and colors. CM/MEMOPC.003 -2- RECOMMENDATION/COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Instruct the applicant to restudy the sign design to be compatible with the Village Specific Plan, subject to the following criteria. 1. Applicant should consider a redwood sandblasted sign or sign on glazed tile with compatible indirect lighting. 2. Sign logo and size is acceptable. 3. Sign colors should be modified to be restrained and muted earth tones. attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Location of Proposed Sign 3. Proposed Sign CM/MEMOPC.003 -3- ATTACHMENT No. 1 Orchard North End Vacant Orchard Large Lots 0%� KVA= * Residentla AVMX 0 C%LU 5""W LOCATION MAP y -L CASE No. 0&0 i Tampico ,al A CAM NORTH SCALE: ATT A C 1, 1 Mi "li i A 21 MW U. a a �. .y OD 4 C Z o � U� w� MEMORANDUM SS CITY OF LA QUINTA TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: 77HE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: JUNE 26, 1989 SUBJECT: DRAFT "DARK SKY" (OUTDOOR LIGHT CONTROL) ORDINANCE DRAFT ORDINANCE In your Study Session for July 26th, please consider and discuss this draft of the "Dark Sky" (Outdoor Light Control) Ordinance. It was adapted from an ordinance written for Yavapai County, based on a model ordinance put out by the two observatories in Arizona. The basic idea is that different sources of light have different profiles in the frequency range. Low and high pressure sodium lights can be filtered out. Mercury vapor light is too broad in its frequency distribution and cannot be filtered out. The Ordinance is not just for professional astronomers. Amateur astronomy is a large and growing hobby group, especially in the desert. The desert night sky should be preserved for observation by anyone. RECOMMENDATION Consider the draft and provide direction to Staff on ways to modify the Ordinance to accomplish your objectives. CM/MEsMOPC.004 -1- CHAPTER 9.210 OUTDOOR LIGHT CONTROL 9.210.10 GENERALLY A. Conformance with Applicable Codes: This Chapter shall be construed as consistent with the remainder of Title 9 (La Quinta City Land Use Ordinance) and with all Uniform Building Codes administrated by the City. B. Applicability: All outdoor artificial illuminating devices shall be installed and operated in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter, plus any Uniform Building Codes presently or subsequently administered or adopted by the City. Any language contained therein which may conflict with this Chapter shall be construed consistent with this Ordinance. C. Approved Material And Methods of Installations: The provisions of this Chapter are not intended to prevent the use of any material or method of installation not specifically prescribed by this Chapter provided any such alternate has been approved. The Building Inspector may approve any such alternate provided he finds that the proposed design, material or method: 1. Provides approximate equivalence to those specific requirements of this Chapter or; 2. Is otherwise satisfactory and complies with the intent of the Chapter. D. Purpose: This Chapter is intended to restrict the permitted use of outdoor artificial illuminating devices emitting undesirable rays which: 1. Have a detrimental effect on astronomical observations, and/or; 2. Inefficiently utilize scarce electrical energy, and/or; 3. Create a public nuisance. 91.210.15 DEFINITIONS A. Outdoor Light Fixtures: Shall mean outdoor artificial illuminating devices, outdoor fixtures, lamps and other devices, permanent or portable, used for illumination or advertisement. Such devices shall include, but are not limited to, search, spot, or flood lights for: LM/ORDDRFT.004 -1- 1. Buildings and structures; 2. Recreational areas; 3. Parking lot lighting; 4. Landscape lighting; 5. Billboards and other signs (advertising or other); 6. Street lighting; 7. General area and yard lighting. B. Individual: Shall mean any private individual, tenant, lessee, owner, or any commercial entity including but not limited to companies, partnerships, joint ventures or corporations. C. Installed: Shall mean the initial installation of outdoor light fixtures defined herein, following the effective date of this Chapter. 9.210.20 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Shielding: All exterior illuminating devices, except those exempt from this Chapter and those regulated by Section 9.210.25 shall be fully or partially shielded as required in the Table. 1. "Fully Shielded" shall mean that those fixtures shall be shielded in such a manner that light rays emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, are projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest point on the fixture where light is emitted, thus preventing the emission of light above the horizontal. 2. "Partially Shielded" shall mean that those fixtures shall be shielded in such a manner that the bottom edge of the shield is below the plane center line of the light source (lamp), minimizing the emission of light rays above the horizontal. B. Filtration: Those outdoor light fixtures requiring a filter in the Table shall be equipped with a filter consisting of a glass, acrylic or translucent enclosure. (Quartz glass does not meet this requirement). C. Requirements for Shielding and Filtering: The requirements for shielding and filtering light emissions from outdoor light fixtures shall be as set forth in the following table: LM/ORDDRFT.004 -2- TABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIELDING AND FILTERING (see also footnotes below) FIXTURE LAMP TYPE SHIELDED FILTERED (4) Low Pressure Sodium (1) Partially None High Pressure Sodium Fully None Metal Halide (6) Fully Yes Fluorescent Fully (5) Yes (2) Quartz (3) Fully None Incandescent: Greater than 160W Fully None Incandescent 160W or Less None None Mercury Vapor Fully (7) Yes (7) Fossil Fuel None None Glass Tubes, filled with Neon, Argon, Krypton None None Other Sources AS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR Footnotes: (1) This is the preferred light source to minimize undesirable light into the night sky affecting astronomical observations. (2) Warm White and Natural Lamps are preferred to minimize detrimental effects. (3) For the purposes of this Ordinance, quartz lamps shall not be considered an incandescent light source. (4) Most glass, acrylic, or translucent enclosures satisfy these filter requirements. Quartz glass does not meet this requirement. LM/ORDDRFT.004 -3- (5) Outdoor advertising signs of the type constructed of translucent materials and wholly illuminated from within do not require shielding. (6) Metal halide display lighting shall not be used for security lighting after 11 p.m. (or after closing hours if before 11 p.m.) unless fully shielded. Metal halide lamps shall be in enclosed luminaries. (7) Recommended for existing mercury vapor fixtures. The installation of new mercury fixtures is prohibited one year after the effective date of this Ordinance. 9.210.25 PROHIBITIONS A. Searchlights: The operation of searchlights for advertising purposes is prohibited. B. Outdoor Building or Landscaping Illumination: The unshielded outdoor illumination of any building, landscaping, signing, or other purpose is prohibited except with incandescent fixtures less than 160 watts, fossil fuels, and/or glass tubes (see Table). C. New Mercury Vapor Installations: One year from the effective date of this Chapter, the installation of mercury vapor fixtures is prohibited. All mercury vapor lights installed shall be fully shielded. 9.210.30 EXEMPTIONS A. Nonconforming Fixtures: All outdoor light fixtures existing and fully installed, prior to the effective date of this Chapter may remain in use as "nonconforming" indefinitely; provided however, that no change in use, replacement, structural alteration, or (after abandonment) no restorations of outdoor light fixtures shall be made unless it thereafter conforms to the provisions of these regulations. B. Fossil Fuel Light: Light fixtures using fossil fuel (i.e. light produced directly or indirectly by the combustion of natural gas or other utility type fossil fuels) are exempt from the requirement of this Chapter. C. Federal, State And County Facilities: Those facilities and lands owned and operated or protected by the U.S. Federal Government or the State of California and Riverside County are exempted by law from all requirements of this Chapter. Voluntary compliance with the intent of this Chapter at those facilities is encouraged. LM/ORDDRFT.004 -4- D. Recreational Facilities: The illumination of outdoor recreational facilities, public and private, is exempt from the requirements of this Ordinance with the following limitations: 1. The light fixtures for outdoor recreational facilities shall meet the shielding requirements in the Table. 2. No such outdoor recreational facility shall be illuminated by nonconforming means after 10 p.m. except to conclude a specific recreational or sporting event or any other activity conducted at a ball park, outdoor amphitheater, arena, or similar facility in progress prior to 10 p.m. E. Special Exemption: The Planning Commission may grant a special exemption to the requirements of the Table only upon a written finding that there are extreme geographic or geometric conditions warranting the exemption and that there are no conforming fixtures that would suffice. 9.210.35 PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE A. Applications: 1. Any individual intending to install outdoor lighting fixtures (other than 160 watts or less incandescent) shall submit an application to the Building Inspector providing evidence that the proposed work will comply with this Chapter. 2. Any individual applying for a building permit, Use Permit, Specific Plan or Final Site Plan or Final Subdivision Tract intending to install outdoor lighting fixtures (other than 160 watts or less incandescent) shall as a part of said application submit such evidence as may be requested that the proposed work will comply with this Chapter. 3. Utility companies, lighting or improvement districts entering into a duly approved contract with the City in which they agree to comply with the provisions of these regulations, shall be exempt from applying for and obtaining a permit for the installation of outdoor light fixtures, including residential security lighting. LM/ORDDRFT.004 -5- B. Contents of Application or Submission: The submission shall contain but shall not necessarily be limited to the following, all or part of which may be part of or in addition to the information required elsewhere in the City Regulations upon application for the required permit: 1. Plans indicating the location on the premises and the type of illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports, and other devices. 2. Description of the illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports, shielding, filtering and other devices. This description may include but is not limited to, wattage, lighting output, manufacturer's catalog cuts, and drawings (including sections where required). The above required plans and descriptions shall be sufficiently complete to enable the Building Inspector to readily determine whether compliance with the requirements of this Chapter will be secured. If such plans and descriptions cannot enable this ready determination, by reason of the nature or configuration of the devices, fixtures, or lamps proposed, the applicant shall submit evidence of compliance by certified test reports as performed by a recognized testing lab. C. Issuance of a Permit: Upon compliance with the requirements of this Chapter, the Building Inspector shall issue a permit for installation of the outdoor lighting fixtures, to be installed as in the approved application. D. Appeals: Appeal procedures of the zoning regulations for decisions of the Building Inspector shall apply. E. Amendment To Permit: Should the Applicant desire to substitute outdoor light fixtures or lamps after a permit has been issued, the Applicant must submit all changes to Building Inspector for approval, with adequate information to assure compliance with the Chapter. LM/ORDDRFT.004 -6- 9.210.45 PUBLIC NUISANCE Any light fixture which violates the provisions of this Chapter constitutes a public nuisance and shall be abated. LTd/ ORDDRFT . 0 0 4 —8— MEMORANDUM SS CITY OF LA OUINTA TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: JUNE 26, 1989 SUBJECT: :DRAFT' TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CHAPTER BACKGROUND In the process of drafting the Hillside Conservation Zone Chapter, it was decided to create another Chapter which would contain the definitions, procedures, and sample documentation necessary to implement a Transfer of Development Rights. Chapter 9.146, Transfer of Development Rights, has now been draf tied. RECOMMENDATION Consider the draft Chapter on Transfer of Development Rights, and give Staff direction as to any necessary changes so that Staff can schedule hearings on the subject. LM/ORDDRFT.005 -1- 9.146 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 9.146.05 Generally 9.146.10 Definitions 9.146.15 Procedures 9.146.20 Timing 9.146.25 Documentation 9.146.05 GENERALLY A. All transfers of development rights or credits shall follow the definitions, procedures, timing, and documentation presented in this Chapter, and shall observe the restrictions and guidelines presented in other enabling chapters, such as Chapter 9.145, Hillside Conservation Zone, and others which may be from time to time adopted enabling transfers of development rights or credits. B. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide the process by which development rights or credits may be transferred from donor parcels to receiving parcels such as in Open Space land use designations to enable it to be preserved as open space, and other purposes which may be adopted in other enabling legislation. Such transfers of development rights or credits may be within the same property, or may take place from one property to another by means of sale or transfer within the same ownership. C. Transfers shall take place under the guidance of the City and shall be documented by means of recordation. 9.146.10 DEFINITIONS A. Development Right or Credit: A potential entitlement created by a land use designation and, by adoption of a zoning category, applying to a parcel of land, to construct one dwelling unit per a given number of square feet or per a given number of acres, which can only be exercised when the development right or credit has been transferred pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter and the enabling Chapter, from a donor parcel to a receiving parcel, and all other requirements of law are fulfilled. B. Donor Parcel: A parcel, or portion of a parcel (which has been described by legal description and the total acreage specified), from which all potential entitlements for residential development are transferred and thereby extinguished. LM/ORDDRFT.005 -2- C. Receiving Parcel: A parcel, or a portion of a parcel (which has been described by legal description and total acreage specified), to which potential entitlements for residential development are transferred up to the limits of the enabling Chapters, and exist in addition to any potential entitlements created by General Plan Land Use Designation and Density Specification and in addition to any zoning which applies to the parcel. D. Fractions: Development rights or credits may be transferred as a fraction carried to the second decimal place, rounded up or down to the second place following the rule of the third decimal being 0-4, round down; 5-9 round up to the next digit in the second decimal place. When applied to the receiving parcel, the number of credits (carried to the second decimal place) will be spread across the acreage of the receiving parcel and will be translated into an increment of additional development entitlements carried to two decimal places per acre. E. Density Bonuses: Transferred development rights or credits shall not be counted in the basis for density bonuses granted for providing for affordable housing or good design or special amenities. The order in which bonuses and transferred rights or credits are applied shall be as follows: 1. The base density ranges as per the General Plan; 2. Density bonuses applied for providing affordable housing (up to 30 percent of the base density alone); 3. Density bonuses for good design or special amenities (up to 10 percent of the base density alone); 4. Transferred densities added to the final figure of any density bonuses. Transferred densities shall not become a part of the base on which bonuses are figured. F. Enabling Chapter: A chapter of Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code which creates and further specifies and limits the transfer of development rights or credits. G. Timing: The time limits as specified in Section 9.146.20 Timing. H. Documentation: The requirements for City approval, recordation and notice to the City of La Quinta of such recordation, following example language specified in 9.146.25 Documentation. LM/ORDDRFT.005 -3- 9.146.15 PROCEDURES A. The enabling Chapter shall specify by class the donor parcels and the receiving parcels, the number of residential development rights or credits which can be transferred per square footage or per acre; and the limits of development rights or credits which can be transferred to any one parcel. B. The donor parcels, from which development rights are being removed must: 1. Remove all development rights or credits at the same time (residual development rights or credits cannot be left on the property); 2. Be mappable; i.e., a legal description and a total acreage will be required to be recorded. 3. Record a document which acknowledges that all development rights or credits for the described parcel have been extinguished and that no further residential development can occur on the parcel. C. The receiving parcel, to which development rights or credits are being transferred, must: 1. Be mappable; i.e., a legal description and a total acreage will be required to be recorded; 2. Record a document of affixture (or attachment) which has been attested to by the City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, tying the transferred development rights or credits to a specific parcel, in perpetuity, following the sense of the following example of language contained in Section 9.146.25 Documentation. D. This document of transfer and affixture must be recorded. Evidence of the Recordation must be supplied to the City Clerk of the City of La Quinta within 30 days of the date of attestation by the City Clerk. E. The City Clerk shall only attest to a transfer of development rights or credits upon receipt of written authorization from the City Manager. The City Manager shall only authorize such transfer after receiving a report from the Planning and Development Department containing a recommendation and a synopsis of the engineering report from the Public Works Director. LM/ORDDRFT.005 -4- F. If a property consists of both undevelopable and developable portions, and if development rights are transferred from the undevelopable portion, the City shall authorize a parcel split of the property. If density is transferred to the developable portion, the parcel split shall only be authorized after City Council approval of a Specific Plan for the property. 9.146.20 TIMING A. A transfer within the same property such as a transfer of development rights from hillsides to developable alluvial fans may be executed upon the approval by City Council of the Specific Plan, but within 90 days of that date. A condition of approval of the Specific Plan shall specify the transfer and the deadline for its accomplishment. The procedure to be followed shall be the same as if the property were not contiguous. That is to say, development rights shall be removed from one portion (legal description and acreage described) and affixed to another portion (legal description and acreage described). S. A sale or transfer within the same ownership of development rights between non-contiguous properties shall be affixed to the receiving property within 90 days of the date of the close of escrow or of the execution date of the contract for sale and the exchange of value. C. In the event that a parcel of hillside land (with development rights still attached) is granted, bequeathed, sold, transferred, given or otherwise becomes the property of a not -for -profit land trust, conservancy, or public agency, the receiving entity shall have a period of five years from the date of receipt in which to dispose of the development rights by sale or other means. This period may be extended by a Resolution of City Council upon receipt of a report from the receiving entity relating their efforts to dispose of the development rights. 9.146.25 DOCUMENTATION A. There shall be recorded for the donor parcel a document having the sense of the following: 1. A legal description and a total acreage of the parcel or portion of the parcel. 2. The total number of development rights or credits being removed from the property. LM/ORDDRFT.005 -5- 3. An acknowledgement that no further residential development rights or credits shall accrue to the parcel in perpetuity. 4. The assessor's parcel number of the parcel to which the development rights or credits are being transferred. 5. An attestation by the City Clerk of the City of La Quinta (dated). 6. The signature, name and address of the owner of the parcel. B. There shall be recorded for the receiving parcel a document having the sense of the following: 1. "In addition to the number of dwellings units on this parcel APN# (legal description and total acreage attached as Exhibit A) which may be permitted by the City of La Quinta by virtue of the General Plan Land Use and Density Designations, this parcel shall be permitted (number) of additional dwelling units per acre, which have been transferred to this parcel pursuant to Chapter 9.146 of the Municipal Code, Transfer of Development Rights." 2. "These additional dwelling units are hereby affixed to this parcel APN# and may not be further transferred, sold, traded, or otherwise removed from this parcel, except by the purchase by the City of La Quinta or other public agency authorized by the City." 3. "The Assessor's Parcel Number(s) of the donor parcel(s) from which the development rights or credits have been removed and transferred to this parcel." 4. "The signature of the City Clerk of the City of La Quinta affixed below attests to the legitimate transfer of these development rights to this property (as described in Exhibit A)." City Clerk, City of La Quinta Owner of APN NAME ADDRESS Date Date LM/ORDDRFT.005 -6- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California May 9, 1989 I. A. II. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to Chairman Walling. The Commissioner Steding. POT.T. rAT.T, 7:00 p.m. order at 7:00 p.m. by Flag Salute was led by A. Chairman Walling requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Zelles, Steding, Moran, and Chairman Walling. Commissioner Bund was absent for roll call, arriving at 7:25 p.m. B. Staff Present: Planning and Development Director, Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Ted Bower, and Assistant Planner Glenda Lainis. HEARINGS Chairman Walling introduced the Public Hearing items as follows: A. Continued Hearing - General Plan Amendment 88-021, Specific Plan 88-012, Tentative Tract 23995, Change of Zone 88-035; A.G. Spanos. The Applicant requested that the Public Hearing on this item be conducted later in the meeting to allow for all Commissioners to be present. The Commission agreed to this request by consensus. B. Plot Plan 89-411; John Bund. It was the consensus of the Commission to conduct the Public Hearing on this item later in the meeting pending the arrival of the Applicant. C.'Tentative Tract 24317; a request by Sunrise Desert Partners to subdivide 22.8 acres into 8 residential lots for the construction of 111 condominium units, 6 private street lots, a buffer lot, and a landscape lot, for a location south of Avenue 54 and east of the All -American Canal. MFt/MIN05-09.DFT -1- 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Al Levine, representing Sunrise, addressed the Commission regarding approval condition number 5.a., urging that a 15-foot setback be allowed, similar to other approved projects. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Public Hearing. 3. Following Commission discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Moran to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-016, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 24317, subject to conditions, and concurrence with the environmental determination. Upon roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted, with Commissioner Bund absent. D. Plot Plan 89-412; a request by Landmark Land Company for expansion of the La Quinta Hotel in accordance with SP 121-E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club), increasing the unit count by 38 rooms, from 603 to 641; located on the east side of Avenida Obregon, between Calle Mazatlan and Avenida Fernando. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Herman advised the Commission that approval conditions 7.a. and 7.b. can be eliminated because they are already covered by documentation on file. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Alejandro Martinez, representing Landmark Land Company, addressed the Commission regarding approval condition 7.d. Mr. Martinez expressed Landmark's position that they have enough parking. There being no further comments, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing. 3. Following Commission discussion, a m:Lnute motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to approve Plot Plan 89-412, subject to conditions modified to eliminate conditions 7.a., 7.b., and 7.d. Unanimously adopted. NR/MIN05-09.DFT -2- IV. PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to address the Commission. V. CONSENT CALENDAR - :Tone VI. BUSINESS Chairman Walling introduced the Business Item as follows: A. Specific Plan 85-006, Oak Tree West; a request by Landmark Land Company for a first time extension, for a location generally one -quarter mile south of Avenue 50, bounded by Jefferson Street, Avenue 54, the Heritage Club project, Avenida Ultimo, and the easterly portion of the Duna La Quinta project. 1.. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. The Commission discussed the request as presented. During the discussion, Forrest Haag, representing Landmark Land Company, questioned conditions 13 and 41. Planning Director Herman requested the Commission to continue the discussion to enable Staff to get further information from Engineering regarding conditions 13 and 41. 3. A Minute Motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Bund to continue discussion of SP 85-006 to the next regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Unanimous. CHAIRMAN WALLING NOW RE -INTRODUCED THE REMAINING PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: B. Plot Plan 89-411; a request by John Bund to convert an existing 3,500-square-foot single-family dwelling into a 4,800-square-foot restaurant on a 1.57-acre site, located on the northeast corner of Calle Barcelona and Avenida Bermudas. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Herman advised the Commission that Condition 2 should state that bonding is subject to approval of the MR/MIN05-09.DFT -3- Public Works Department; and added a new Condition 16.d., that the height is subject to the CV zone. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. The Applicant, John Bund, addressed the Commission, requesting continuance to allow further preparation for revised setbacks and bonding. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Public Hearing. 3. A Minute Motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Moran to continue discussion of PP 89-411 to the next regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Unanimous, with Commissioner Bund abstaining. A. Continued Hearing - General Plan Amendment 88-021, Specific Plan 88-012, Tentative Tract 23995, Change of Zone 88-035; requests by A.G. Spancs for: a General Plan Amendment application proposing changing the land use designation from Medium and High Density Residential to Medium and High Density Residential (altered configuration) and General Commercial; Specific Plan proposing a mixed -use development consisting of 7.6 acres Tourist Commercial, three Multi -Family Residential parcels consisting of 250 units each, and a 300-lot single- family subdivision; Tentative Tract application proposing to subdivide the property as described above in the Specific Plan; and, Change of Zone from R-1 and R-2-8000 to C-P, R-3, and R-1; for an area located between Washington Street, Miles Avenue, Adams Street, and the Coachella Valley Water District Wash, La Quinta, excluding the small triangular area just north of the Wash and just south of -the east/west Avenue 46 alignment (Westward Ho Drive). Commissioner Moran excused herself from discussion of the items due to a conflict of interest. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Speaking in favor of the project were Mr. Ron Rause, legal counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Raul Young, architect. Speaking in opposition were Mr. Bob Krauss and Mr. MR/MIN05-09.DFT -4- Michael Shovlin. There being no further public comment, Chairman Walling closed the Public Hearing. 3. The Commission discussed the matter at length, wherein a motion was made by Commissioner Bund as follows: 1. Adopt Resolution 89-018, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 88-021; and Resolution 89-019, recommending approval of Change of Zone 88-035. 2. Specific Plan 88-012 and Tentative Tract 23995 are to come back before the Commission incorporating the following changes: (a) two-story commercial, 30 percent of floor area, plus ratio for open space; (b) allow parking in the 150-foot setback area, including berm and retaining wall; (c) allow ancillary alcoholic beverage sales; (d) allow three-story multi -family with minimum 200-foot setbacks. The motion was seconded by Commission Zelles, who amended the original motion to exclude the three-story multi -family. Commissioner Bund did not accept the amendment to his motion, so a vote was held on the amendment only. Commissioners Zelles, Steding, and Chairman Walling voted yes, Commissioner Bund voted no. The motion stands as amended. A roll call vote was held: Commissioners Zelles, Bund, and Chairman Walling voted yes; Commissioner Steding voted no; Commissioner Moran abstained. The amended motion was adopted by a majority vote. V I. OTHER - None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Moran to adjourn to a regular meeting on May 23, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:57 p.m., May 9, 1989. MR/MIN05-09.DFT -5-