2007 01 09 PCC 0 a Quinta
ity Of L 0
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-guinta.om
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
JANUARY 9, 2007
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2007-001
Beginning Minute Motion 2007-001
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled
for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit
your comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC AGENDA.doc
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must
be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission
consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested
the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a
public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the
approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s)
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior
to the public hearing.
A. Item ................... PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED STREET VACATION OF
A PORTION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED
WITHIN DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT 4.
Applicant......,...... Nispero Properties
Location .............. Main Street North of Avenida La Fonda
Request .............. Adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of Public Utility
Easement Located Within Desert Club Tract Unit 4.
Action ................. Request to continue to January 23, 2007
B. Item .................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-877
Applicant ............. Adobe Holdings, Inc.
Location .............. Within Tract 31249; on the South Side of Avenue 58,
t 1/2 Mile West of Madison Street
Request ............... Consideration of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for
Four Prototypical Residential Plans and Common Areas
for the Village at Coral Mountain ITT 31249).
Action ................ Resolution 2007-
BUSINESS ITEM:
A. Item .................... IMAGE CORRIDOR DETERMINATION
Applicant ............ City of La Quinta
Location ............. City-wide
Request ............. Discussion and Determination on Applicability of Image
Corridor Development Standards in the Special Purpose
Districts.
Action ................ Provide staff with direction.
CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC AGENDA.doc
II. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Review of City Council meeting of December 19, 2006.
ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to
be held on January 23, 2007, at 7:00 p.m.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
Carolyn Walker, Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing
lenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, January 9, 2007,
as posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the
lletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, January 5, 2007.
kTED: January 5, 2007
kROLYN 4KER, Secretary
ty of La Quinta, California
P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC AGENDA.doc
Public Notices
The La Quinta City council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special
equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at
777-7123, twenty-four (24 hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations
will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning
Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City
Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background materials is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a
Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all
documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for
distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00
p.m. meeting.
P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC AGENDA.doc
PH #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2007
CASE NO.: STREET VACATION 2006-043
REQUEST: REPORT OF FINDING UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65402 THAT THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION
OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN DESERT CLUB TRACT, UNIT
4 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
LOCATION: MAIN STREET NORTH OF AVENIDA LA FONDA
APPLICANT: NISPERO PROPERTIES, INC.
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE:
The Public Works Department requests continuance of Case No. Street Vacation 2006-043 to
the next Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for January 23, 2007. The applicant has not
provided labels which are required in order to provide sufficient time for notification of
surrounding property owners per LQMC 9.200.110.
Prepared by:
BRIAN CHING, Associate Engineer
Submitted
Planning Manager
BAC/bc
P:\Reports - PC\2007\1-9-07\Street Vacation\StaffReport SV 2006-043 continuation.doc
PH #B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2006
CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-877
APPLICANT: ADOBE HOLDINGS, INC.
ARCHITECT: SOUTH COAST ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: HERMANN & ASSOCIATES
REQUEST: RESIDENTIAL TRACT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF FOUR
PROTOTYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANS
AND COMMON AREAS FOR THE VILLAGE AT CORAL
MOUNTAIN
LOCATION: WITHIN THE VILLAGE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN (TRACT
31249), ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58, t1/2
MILE WEST OF MADISON STREET
GENERAL PLAN: LDR - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ZONING: RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-475, FOR TTM
31249, WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 (RESOLUTION 2003-93). NO
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST
WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF ANY
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: AVENUE 58; STONE CREEK RANCH (TR 30487)
SOUTH: ANDALUSIA (TR 31681)
EAST: VACANT, UNENTITLED LAND
WEST: COACHELLA VALLEY RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT
BACKGROUND
Site Background
The Village at Coral Mountain (TR 31249) consists of two parcels, which together
comprise of an area of approximately 33 acres (Attachment 1). The subdivision map
was approved by the City Council on September 16, 2003. A Site Development
Permit (SDP 2004-820) was approved by the Planning Commission on January 25,
2005. The Site Development Permit was valid for one year following the approval,
and subsequently expired on January 25, 2006. The applicant is now resubmitting
the same, previously -approved prototypical plans for four unit types (with some
minor changes in architecture and floor plans), new common area concept landscape
plans, and detailed entry gate plans. To date, the applicant has obtained a Rough
Grading Permit with the Public Works Department and has begun grading the project
site.
Project Background
The applicant has submitted prototypical plans for four unit types and common area
landscaping.
Units:
Each unit plan is designed with three elevation treatments and twelve color and
material schemes (Attachment 2). The unit plans utilize a Spanish Vernacular or
Mediterranean style of architecture and vary in size from 3,040 to 4,060 square feet
in area. Each unit has an optional 467 square foot detached pool house in the rear
yard. All units have cedar wood garage doors, clay S-tile roofing, and smooth plaster
stucco finish. Plan One and Plan Two are single -story, while Plan Three and Plan Four
will be two-story units. Each unit has the following characteristics:
Plan One: 3,040 square feet
2 BR with attached casita
2-car garage (1-car side -entry compact garage)
Plan Two: 3,230 square feet
3 BR with attached casita
2-car garage (1-car side -entry compact garage)
Plan Three: 3,835 square feet
3 BR with optional den/office
Second story casita and sky deck
2-car garage (one tandem space)
Plan Four: 4,060 square feet
3 BR with upstairs bonus room and sky deck
Optional 4`" BR upstairs
3-car garage (1-car side -entry)
Preliminary typical front yard landscaping plans have been submitted for each of the
four unit types (Attachment 3). Typical front yard landscaping plans include a
minimum of two to four trees, a variety of shrubs, and turf. Plant materials identified
appear to primarily be low water users with plants typically used in the desert.
Common Area:
The common area plans include one large common area, the Avenue 58 perimeter,
and two entrances, one primary and one secondary, along Avenue 58 (Attachment
4). The large common area is comprised of dry creek areas surrounded by desert
accents, decomposed granite walking paths and bridges, numerous benches and
trash receptacles, and a lake with a rock crop waterfall. Both the dry creek area and
the desert accent area consist of 3"-6" river cobble with decomposed granite
planters. The plant material includes those used in the production home front yards
along with a few additional plants.
The perimeter landscaping along Avenue 58 includes a 6-foot hiqh theme wall, a
landscape buffer wide enough to accommodate Mexican Fan Palms and additional
shrubbery, an equestrian/multi-use trail, and a smaller landscape buffer between the
trail and Avenue 58 (Attachment 5). The equestrian trail material consists of
decomposed granite, and the city -standard equestrian PVC railing runs adjacent to
the trail. The theme wall runs along the perimeter of the project, as well as in the
entrance areas, and consists of a white stucco finish with matching pilasters and
caps.
The primary vehicular entrance on Avenue 58 consists of. a roadway flanked on both
sides by lakes, both with rock crop waterfalls, the main entry gates, and an
unmanned guardhouse (Attachment 6). The primary entry gates are wrought iron,
with dark brown, simulated distressed wood. The unmanned guardhouse is
approximately 20 feet in height, and consists of two towers, a porte cochere, and a
fountain. The guardhouse is constructed of brick veneer and stucco, and has 2-piece
clay tile roofing. The guardhouse is non-functional and serves only an aesthetic
purpose, as the automatic gate is the main entry into the project. The gates at the
secondary entrance on Avenue 58 are constructed of wrought iron.
ALRC Action
On December 14, 2006, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee
reviewed these architectural and common area landscaping plans, discussed
alternative plant types, locations of the 2-story units related to varying streetscapes,
equestrian/multi-use trail design, and unanimously recommended approval of the Site
Development Permit. ALRC discussed alternative plant types and ultimately
recommended replacing the proposed Chilean Mesquite, Bottle, and California Pepper
trees due to maintenance issues. The possible locations of the 2-story units were
discussed and ALRC expressed concern regarding proximity of the 2-story units to
neighboring residential developments. It was recommended that staff work with the
applicant to diversify the placement of the 2-story units, which would also result in a
varying streetscape. The proposed equestrian/multi-use trail on Avenue 58 was also
discussed, and ALRC agreed with staff's recommendation that the trail be placed
closer to the perimeter wall rather than Avenue 58 in order to create a better trail
design.
ANALYSIS
Units:
Staff finds that the overall architectural style and design of the proposed units to be
acceptable. The detached pool house in the rear yards are architecturally compatible
to the main house, and will not to be used as a separate residence. The garage
doors are proposed to be cedar wood. Wooden garage doors are typically
discouraged due to maintenance issues, but these proposed doors are heavily framed
and do not present the same issues. In Plan 1 and Plan 2, the independent third -car
garage space does not meet the minimum 10-foot x 20-foot interior clear wall
separation as required by LQMC Section 9.150.080. For single-family detached
homes, two garage parking spaces are required, which the applicant has provided.
Subsequently, the third garage space shall be used as a compact garage. Plan 3
provides a "tandem" third -car space ahead of one of the two -car garage stalls,
which does not meet the zoning code requirements as a garage space. While the
code does not require three -car garages, the plans should, not indicate a third car
space, and staff has conditioned that reference on the plans be deleted.
Section 9.60.310 of the LQMC states that a dwelling located next to a project or
tract boundary shall be limited to one story if an existing one story dwelling is within
fifty feet of the common property line. If no existing dwelling exists or if there is
vacant land, there is no restriction on the placement of two-story units. Staff is
recommending that Planning Commission discuss the possible distribution of one and
two-story units on all lots adjacent to the eastern and southern project boundaries
because adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project is vacant, unentitled land,
and adjacent to the southern boundary is the Andalusia residential development,
with no unit layout at this time. Adjacent to the western boundary is parkland, and
staff does not feel that the same requirement is needed. The applicant has also been
reminded of an existing tract condition (TR 31279 Condition #81) that limits building
heights to one-story/22 feet for a distance into the site of 150 feet from the Avenue
58 ultimate right-of-way line.
Common Area:
The architecture and layout of the entry guardhouse and surrounding water features
are also acceptable, and comply with Zoning Code requirements. However, staff
recommends that an additional turnaround be added closer to the primary entrance
gates so that vehicles that cannot gain entry do not have to back up the length of the
main driveway to get to the existing turnaround at the simulated bridge. Additionally,
due to the amount of water being proposed in the common areas, staff recommends
that Planning Commission discuss the use of the various water features and any
viable alternatives.
The common area concept is similar to that employed in design of the Stone Creek
project, which is located directly across Avenue 58 from this tract. The landscaping
plans call for Chilean Mesquite and Bottle trees, which staff has discouraged use of
in past projects. Also, the landscape palette shows the use of California Peppers,
which staff has had past concerns related to wind damage and other related
maintenance issues. In general, the landscape palettes presented are acceptable. The
submitted landscape plan details are not to scale, so the applicant will be required to
submit to -scale plans for final review, and also to present water calculations to
illustrate compliance with LQMC Chapter 8.13.
Staff also recommends that the equestrian/multi-use trail along Avenue 58 be
redesigned with the smaller landscaped buffer relocated to be adjacent to the
perimeter theme wall, the larger landscaped buffer adjacent to the street, and the trail
in between. This minimizes any impact that vehicles traveling on Avenue 58 may
have on users of the trail.
Residential Tract Development Review Requirements
Each prototype plan and elevation meets the standards ,as specified by LQMC
Section 9.60.330.D. The landscaping as conditioned is required to be consistent
with the requirements specified in LQMC Section 9.60.330.E.
Public Notice
This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on December 29, 2006,
and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. To date, no comments
have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received
will be handed out at the meeting.
FINDINGS
As required by LQMC Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits), findings to
approve Site Development Permit 2006-877 can be made and are contained in the
attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- , approving Site Development Permit
2006-877, subject/to Findings and Conditions.
by:
Assistant Planner
1. Location Map
2. Unit/Floor Plans
3. Typical Front Yard Landscaping Plans
4. Conceptual Common Area Landscape Plan
5. Conceptual Common Area Elevations ;
6. Unmanned Guardhouse Detail
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR
FOUR PROTOTYPICAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANS AND
COMMON AREAS FOR THE VILLAGE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN (TR
31249)
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-877
APPLICANT: ADOBE HOLDINGS, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 9" day of January, 2007 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing
to consider a request by Adobe Holdings, Inc., for approval of architectural and
landscaping plans for four prototypical single-family residential plans and common
areas for the Village at Coral Mountain residential development, located on the
south side of Avenue_-58, approximately '/2-mile west of Madison Street, more
particularly described as follows:
APN: 766-070-001, 766-070-002
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2003-475) was
adopted by the City Council for Tentative Tract Map 31249 under Resolution No.
2003-093. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information,
which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and,
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the
City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14`h day of December, 2006, hold a public
meeting to review and recommend approval of architecture and landscape plans for
said prototype residential units for Tract 31249; 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 make the following mandatory findings pursuant to
Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Site Development
Permit:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed Site Development
Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it proposes a
single-family homes in an approved residential tract, which is General
Plan -designated for LDR (Low Density Residential) development.
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Site Development Permit 2006-877
Adobe Holdings, Inc.
January 9, 2007
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed, project, as conditioned,
is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code,
in terms of architectural style, building heights, building mass, parking,
and landscaping. The Site Development Permit is consistent with the La
Quinta Zoning Map, as it proposes single-family homes in an approved
residential tract zoned for RL (Low Density Residential) development. The
Site Development Permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with
the zoning standards of the RL district, and other supplemental residential
standards as established in Title 9 of the LQMC.
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The
proposed Site Development Permit is not subject to the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as Environmental
Assessment 2003-475 was adopted by the City Council on September
16, 2003 (Resolution 2003-093). No changed circumstances or
conditions exist which would require the preparation of any subsequent
environmental evaluation.
4. Architectural Design: The architectural design aspects of the proposed
Site Development Permit provide interest through use of varied roof
element heights, enhanced building entries, stone veneer and facade
treatments, horizontal banding, colored roof tiles and other design details
which will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding
development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City.
5. Site Design: The site design aspects of the proposed Site Development
Permit will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding
development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City, in
terms of interior circulation, pedestrian access, and other architectural site
design elements such as scale, mass, and appearance.
6. Landscape Design: The proposed project is consistent with the
landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for
landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning
Code. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit,
as conditioned, shall unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed
homes with surrounding development. Landscape improvements are
designed and sized to provide visual appeal. The permanent overall site
landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to accentuate views
and blend with the building architecture.
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Site Development Permit 2006-877
Adobe Holdings, Inc.
January 9, 2007
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 Planning Commission for this Site Development Permit.
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2006-877, subject to
conditions, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 9`h day of January, 2006, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PAUL QUILL, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. EVANS
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-877
ADOBE HOLDINGS, INC.
JANUARY 9, 2007
GFNFRAI
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site
Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its
defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim,
action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Site Development Permit is valid for two years from the date of this
approval, unless an extension is applied for and granted by the Planning
Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code.
3. SDP 2006-877 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation
measures, which are incorporated by reference herein, for the following
related approvals:
• Environmental Assessment 2003-475
• Tentative Tract Map 31249
In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions
of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine
precedence. No development permits will be issued until compliance with
these conditions has been achieved.
4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the
City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from
the following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-
Site Development Permit 2006-877
Adobe Holdings, Inc.
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 9, 2007
Page 2
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or
clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include
approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such
approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
5. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the City's
adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the, time of issuance of
building permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Department (760-
777-7012) for fee information.
6. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at
the time of issuance of building permit(s)
7. The model home complex shall comply with the requirements of LOMC
Section 9.60.250, which requires a Minor Use Permit approval prior to
establishing any of the model units or temporary sales facilities.
LANDSCAPING
8. Final landscaping and irrigation plans (and precise grading plans relevant to
landscape areas) shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional and
shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Community
Development Director prior to issuance of the first building permit. Said plans
shall include all landscaping associated with this project, including perimeter
landscaping, and be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient
Landscaping) of the Municipal Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall
be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County
Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the
Community Development Department.
Front yard landscaping for each dwelling shall consist of a minimum of two
trees (i.e., a minimum 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet up from grade
level after planting), ten 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. Palm trees may
count as a shade tree if the trunk is six feet tall. Double lodge poles (two-
inch diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be
irrigated by bubbler or emitters. To encourage water conservation, a no -turf
front yard option shall be provided for all types of lots.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006.
Site Development Permit 2006-877
Adobe Holdings, Inc.
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 9, 2007
Page 3
9. Final landscape and irrigation plans (three copies) shall be signed and
stamped by a licensed landscape architect, or professional landscape
designer, subject to the rules and regulations of LQMC Section 8.13.
10. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks and common
areas, retention areas and park areas.
11. Landscape plans as required under the approvals for Site Development Permit
2006-877 shall include lighting locations and details of all proposed fixtures
and mounting. Berms and walls shall be subject to review under the City's
applicable development standards.
12. The developer shall submit complete landscaping plans for all retention
basins, other interior common areas and the perimeter landscaped lot and
parkway along Avenue 58, to the Community Development Department for
review, prior to issuance of any precise grading permits.
13. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private-onsite improvement, perimeter landscaping, access
drives, and sidewalks.
14. If deemed necessary by the Community Development Director to prevent soil
erosion and provide acceptable slope (maximum 3:1) a short block retaining
wall may be required.
15. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are
coordinated to provide visual screening of aboveground utility structures.
16. The applicant shall replace the Chilean Mesquite, ..Bottle, and California
Pepper trees from the landscape palettes with alternate tree types as they
are susceptible to wind damage and present maintenance issues.
ILDING DESIGN
17. The applicant shall submit perimeter block wall plans and details, to include
exterior color and finish. The block wall plan shall be reviewed by the ALFIC
and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of
any building permits for wall construction.
18. Final locations of all structures
submitted
for
plan
check shall
be reviewed
against and meet all setback
standards
of
the
RL zoning
district. The
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-
Site Development Permit 2006-877
Adobe Holdings, Inc.
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January S. 2007
Page 4
developer shall submit a preliminary unit siting plan to the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of any dwelling unit permits.
Minor amendments to the development plans (e.g., architectural details,
house plotting, etc.) shall be subject to approval by the Community
Development Director.
19. Plans 3 and 4 may not be sited on any lot within 150 feet of the Avenue 58
ultimate right-of-way line as Tract 31249 Condition #81 states that building
heights shall be limited to one-story/22 feet, for a distance into the site of
150 feet from the Avenue 58 ultimate right-of-way line.
20. Front yard setbacks along streets where five or more homes have frontage,
shall be staggered at a range between 20 — 25 feet. The applicant shall
provide a siting plan with the plan check building plans for verification of all
setback issues.
21. All interior garage spaces shall maintain the minimum interior dimensions as
specified in LQMC Section 9.150 (Parking). Single -car garage spaces shall
maintain a minimum 10-foot x 20-foot interior clear dimension, otherwise
they will not be counted as an enclosed garage car space. The indication of a
third car space in Plan 3 shall be deleted from any future plan submittals.
22. Any guesthouse/casita will require approval of a Minor Use Permit, subject to
the provisions of LQMC Section 9.60.100 as determined by the Community
Development Department.
23. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened within or
otherwise integral to the roof structure, using compatible architectural
materials and treatments, so as to not be visible from surrounding properties
and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations
shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with
construction plan submittal for building permits.
MISCELLANEOUS
24. A vehicular turnaround shall be added in front of the primary entrance gate to
allow vehicles to turn around prior reaching the gate without having to
backup the length of the main driveway.
25. The applicant shall redesign the equestrian trail so that the smaller
landscaped buffer is adjacent to the wall, the larger landscaped buffer is
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-
Site Development Permit 2006-877
Adobe Holdings, Inc.
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 9, 2007
Page 5
closest to Avenue 58, and the equestrian/multi-use trail is located in between
to minimize vehicular impact on trail users.
SITE
I F--
60TH AVE
E-
z
O
CO)
G
Q
ATTACHMENT 1
58TH AVE
62ND AVE
BI #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2007
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
REQUEST: DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION ON APPLICABILITY OF
IMAGE CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE
.SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS
BACKGROUND:
The La Quinta General Plan defines and identifies the locations of primary,
secondary and,agrarian image corridors. Policy language within the General Plan
states that "standards for all Image Corridors shall be maintained in the
Development Code." Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code identifies such criteria
for all zoning districts except for the special purpose districts (Parks and Recreation,
Golf Course, Open Space, Floodplain, Hillside Conservation Overlay, Sexually
Oriented Business Overlay, and Equestrian Overlay). A recent development
proposal to reconstruct a clubhouse in the Golf Course special purpose district
revealed that this zoning district does not identify any image corridor development
standards. In an effort to maintain consistency and verify that the absence of
these standards was not an oversight when originally created, staff elected to have
this matter brought before the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS:
The image corridor development standards listed for all zoning districts other than
the special purpose districts consistently identify a maximum structure height of 22
feet within 150 feet of such a designated corridor. This essentially limits all
buildings to single story structures.
With exception to the special purpose overlay districts, most of the structures that
would likely be erected in the special purpose districts would either be less than 22
feet in height or greater than 150 feet from an image corridor. However, the Golf
Course District could see golf clubhouses and maintenance facilities proposed
within this setback area that could exceed 22 feet in height, though the
predominate landscape would be the golf course with a limited need for any
structures. Typically, golf clubhouses are not located near image corridor
designated streets and are not impacted by the image corridor development
standards.
Including the image corridor development standards in the special purpose districts
would provide consistency with the other residential and non-residential zoning
districts. However, there is limited potential for structures to be constructed within
the special purpose districts that would exceed the 22-foot maximum height image
corridor provision.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following options and
provide appropriate direction to staff:
1. Direct staff to prepare a Zoning Text Amendment to establish the image
corridor standards for the special purpose districts, or
2. Provide alternative direction as deemed necessary, or
3. Take no action.
Attachments:
LQMC Chapter 9.130 — Special Purpose Development Standards
Prepared by:
JOMSON, Planning Manager
9.130.010 Table of development standards.
ATTACHMENT #1
La Quinta Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main
Title 9 ZONING
Chapter 9.13.0_SPECIAL PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
9.130.010 Table of development standards.
Search Print No Frames
Table 9-9, following, contains standards for development of property within special purpose districts:
Table 9-9 Special Purpose District Development Standards .
Development Standard
District
•
PR
GC
OS
FP
HC
SOB
EOD
Minimum building site
n/a
n/a
n/a
'
'•
"`
•"
Maximum structure height (ft.)
28
28
28
•
++
•••
•••
Maximum number of stories
2
2
2
•
••
•••
"•"
Minimum perimeter building
setbacks (ft.)
From perimeter street Rows
30
30
30
•
••
"•
•••
From abutting residential property
or districts
30
30
30
"
'"
"`
"•
From abutting commercial and
other nonresidential property or
districts
20
20
20
Minimum setback from interior property lines within the same project
0
0
0
"
"
•••
"•
Parking and signs
See Chapter 9.150 and 9.160
Fences and walls
See Section 9.100.030
Landscaping and screening
See Sections 9.100.040 and 9.100.050
* As required for needed flood control structures.
As provided in the HC supplemental regulations, Section 9.140.040.
•`• As provided in the underlying base district regulations, subject to the additional requirements of the overlay district: SOB, Section 9.140.050; EOD,
Section 9.140.060.
(Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
http://gcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9_130-9_130_010&frames=on 1/5/2007
MULTIFAMILY
TRENDS
W W W.0 LI.ORG/MULTIFA M ILYTREN DS
THE NEW SUBURBANISM: CC (on To Pc
COM ' E
"COLIN DRUKKER
WhERE DO ,YOU LIVE? CHANCES ARE YOU LIVE IN
suburbia, where go percent of all growth in the United
States has occurred since ig5o. And there are few signs
of a slowdown. New communities are coming online at
a rapid pace nationwide, each involving hundreds of
thousands of housing units and millions of square feet
of office and retail space, along with all the necessary
public and social infrastructure. In Ontario, California, for
example, the goal is to add more than 30,000 housing
units in the next 20 years. All this growth will take the
form of suburban development.
The reasons so many Americans live in suburbia are.
numerous: homeownership, increased safety, better
schools, more open space, and a greater sense of pri-
vacy. The drawbacks, however, are not insignificant: a
sense of placelessness, long commutes; and an over-
reliance on the automobile. Left unchanged, the modem
suburb is poised to languish and gain the problems of
city living while losing the benefits of the suburban life-
style. Steps must be taken to improve suburbia. "New
suburbanism" embraces the concept that suburbia is
where people.want to live and focuses on improving it.
Put simply,.new suburbanism is a way to create
better suburban communities. It is a philosophy of plan-
ning, design, and development that aims to improve all
the complex elements that make up a community —
governmental, physical, economic, social, and environ-
mental. New suburbanism represents the full range
of tools and ideas needed to create a new template
for suburbandevelopment. It is not constrained by
emphasis on'one particular area —such as design or
the environment —and is"flexible enough to be applied
to older first -ring suburbs, postwar production sub-
urbs, and greenfield suburbs.
For many, however, suburbs are viewed as the
dominion of the single-family detached house —classic
white -picket -fence communities with wide streets and
big yards, surrounded by greenbelts and located far
away firm the hustle and bustle of urban living. Indeed,
ever since the spate of construction defect litigation in
the mid-ig8os, many suburban communities have been
reluctantto even consider multifamily housing. A lack of
on -site management exacerbated the problem as large
apartment complexes deteriorated and came to be seen
as slums. Communities got spooked, and even when
multifamily housing was a permitted use, the maximum
densities were often limited to ten or 12 units per acre.
In the past ten years, however, the pendulum has
begun to swing back in favor of multifamily housing.
Communities once again are recognizing the benefits of
introducing more compact patterns of living, such as
reduced automobile trips, enhanced housing affordabil-
ity, greater support for public transit and retail, and
more room for open space and pedestrian -friendly
avenues. In addition, multifamily living can bring people
from a wider range of social and economic positions
into a community. This variety increases the diversity of
demand for goods and services and enhances the spec-
trum of housing options, allowing a community to
attract workers key to building a healthy local economy.
A central aspect of new suburbanism involves bring-
ing multifamily housing back to the suburbs, but doing
so in a way that is appropriate for the existing and future
character of the community. The focus of multifamily
living is not bringing urban living to the suburbs; urban
living and suburban living are different. But there is an
increasing number of people who would like to enjoy the
benefits of suburbia while also realizing the benefits of
more compact growth patterns. It is a suburban/urban
"They are so far along
in creating a wonderful
DOWNTOWN, and this
just adds to it. We want
to create an area that
people will enjoy visiting.
You see it in Europe, you
see it in Latin America,
but you do not see it
much in America:'
blend of development that can be found in boulevard
housing replacing underperforming strip commercial
development, in the increasingly popular live/work row -
houses placed near transit stations, and in the lofts
perched above retail space in mixed -use developments.
The benefits and challenges facing multifamily hous-
ing in new suburbia can be seen in the experiences of
three suburban communities —Fullerton, California; West-
lake, Ohio; and Fontana, California. ,
MULTIFAMILY TRENDS MAY/DUNE 2006
a , ,
c
�
So
1
Fullerton, California: A Downtown
Resurrection
If there is a key lesson to be learned from the redevelop-
ment of downtown Fullerton, California, it is this: new
suburbanism is not a short -tens process. True reinven-
tion of any existing and dilapidated town center will take
time, patience, and effective communication among a
community, its leaders, and planners and developers.
Established in 1887 on the fringe of the California
coastal plain, Fullerton has buildings in its historic down-
town district that date back to the city's earliest years;
the mission revival —style train depot, for example, is ioo
years old. Over the years, however, the downtown area
has fallen victim to disuse and slow decay.
Twenty years ago, an initiative to revitalize downtown
Fullerton began. Rather than gut the area by removing
existing structures, the decision was made to preserve
more than 7o historic buildings, a process undertaken
by the city and its redevelopment agency, along with
the citizen -based nonprofit Fullerton Heritage organiza-
tion. Today, Fullerton has a fully revamped downtown,
comprising 4t7,000 square feet of retail and residential
space covering 42 acres, nearly 40 percent of which is
Twenty years ago, an
initiative to revitalize
downtown Fullerton began.
Today, Fullerton has a fully
revamped downtown,
comprising 417,000 square
feet of retail and residential
space covering 42 acres,
nearly 40 percent of which is
dedicated to outdoor social
interaction. Vintage Square
will add an estimated 170,000
square feet of residential
space and 25.000 square
feet of retail space.
dedicated to outdoor social interaction. Currently being
developed by Pelican Center LLC and John Laing Homes
is Vintage Square, a downtown project that will add an
estimated i7o,000 square feet of residential space and
25,000 square feet of retail space. The residential com-
ponent will consist of brownstones and live/work homes
built along inviting streets with wide sidewalks,
enhanced paving, and benches. .
"One of the beauties of doing this project in Fullerton
is that we are not out there pioneering," says John Tillot-
son, a managing member of Pelican Center LLC. "They are
so far along in creating a wonderful downtown, and this
just adds to it. We want to create an area that people will
enjoy visiting. You see it in Europe, you see it in Latin
America, but you do not see it much in America."
An additional benefit of developing in downtown
Fullerton has been consistent support from city leaders
and government, along with a constant communication
process with area residents. Fullerton's government
actively sought out the revitalization of the downtown
and solicited proposals from area developers for the two
MAY/DUNE 2006 MULTIFAMILY TRENDS
39
former parking lots where vintage Square will be con-
structed. As part of the ongoing early development
process, several meetings have been held with the full
participation of Fullerton residents and community organ-
izations. The result is a community that embraces the
resurrection of the town center and views new develop-
ments not as a threat to the status quo, but as an
opportunity to bring the heart of the town back to life.
"It is so refreshing to do business in Fullerton, in every
respect," says Tillotson. "There is a willingness to work
together on a cooperative partnership basis that we are
not finding in other cities. In addition, we have already
had a number of meetings with the citizens, and we are
having more. We want their input, and they have already
given us some good ideas, some of which we had not
even thought about. There are citizens that are concerned,
but they are fair for the most part, and they will listen."
"If you take a look at Fullerton, you have a place that
was never a place anyone would go, and now they have
made the place much more attractive and given Fuller-
ton a focus as a city that it had lost" says )oel Kotkin,
author of The New Suburbanism: A Realists Guide to the
American Future, a November 2005 report coordinated
and published by the Planning Center, a full -service con-
sulting firm based in Costa Mesa, California, that spe-
cializes in community planning, environmental services,
and land planning and design. "This is true in lots of
communities where there was an old central corethat
had been ignored a long time: if you go back 70 years,
Fullerton was a stand-alone town surrounded by farms,
and it had its own identity. In the great suburban
expansion of the postwar era, that identity was erased.
Now we are trying to bring those identities back."
Fullerton is an example of how the compact develop-
ment of new suburbanism allows preservation of the
single-family areas, enabling the city to accommodate
growth without drastic change.
Westlake, Ohio: Housing Is the Key to
Creating a Special Place
The process of building Crocker Park, a mixed -use develop-
ment in Westlake, Ohio, reflects the second and perhaps
most challenging template for new suburbanism—creation
of a new town center in a past —World War II production
suburb dominated by single-family homes.
"The hardest projects
are going to be in the
production suburbs —
those which never had
a DOQM and
are already there, so
they cannot be planned
from Scratch."
"The hardest projects are going to be in the production
suburbs —those which never had a downtown and are
already there, so they cannot be planned from scratch,"
says Kotkin. "How do we go into these areas where the
suburban tract house was developed along with shopping
centers, and how do you create a sense of identity or a
walking district where therenever was one before?
In Westlake, that challenge emerged primarily as a.
struggle for Crocker Park developer Stark Enterprises to
convince the city's people that planting a mixed -use
development with high -density housing in the heart of
their home -lined streets and shopping malls would be a
boon for the city —not just economically, but as a way of
building community identity as well. The city's zoning
regulations stipulate that any development of the type
planned by Stark has to be put to a vote of the people
for final approval in a general election. This gave the
people of Westlake more than just a voice in the devel-
opment of Crocker Park: they had the final power of
approval over the plans.
MULTIFAMILY TRENDS 'MAY/DUNE 2006
mj #=1 170
In Westlake, Ohio, Crocker Park developer Stark Enterprises had to convince residents that a mixed -use
development (above, right, and facing page) was in their best interests. The city established a requirement that no
more than 35 percent of the project's total square footage could be retail, and that at least 50 percent of the total
square footage in each phase of the project had to be residential. The incorporation of multifamily housing turned
what could have been just another high -end shopping center into a vibrant place for the community to gather.
"It was arduous, at a minimum, and that's not even
the half of it," explains Christopher Noble, vice president
of development for Stark Enterprises. "Our paper process
and economic models were largely conducted in open
forums with members of the community. We met with
church groups, community groups, and every cultural or
civic organization in town, either in formal or informal cir-
cumstances. The city council approved Our plan as sug-
gested by the planning commission. Then we moved to
the ballot Lox in the November general election of 2000.
During the course of the summer and fall of 2000, we liter-
ally went door to door to campaign for successful passage
of the zoning legislation to allow Crocker Park to continue."
Stark Enterprises' plans for Crocker Park will create
915,000 square feet of residential space in the forth of
for -sale housing and rental apartments above shops
and restaurants, 61o,000 square feet of retail and
restaurant space, and 225,000 square feet of profes-
sional Class A office space. More than half of the resi-
dential space has been built, along with.400,000
square feet of retail and commercial space, including a
new cinema. A total of 40,000 square feet of office
space also has been built and is occupied by tenants.
Getting Crocker Park off the ground —which meant con-
vincing a suspicious community that a mixed -use devel-
opment was in their best interests -became essenfially a
process of education. "The naysayers were characterizing
the development as solely a retail project —basically a
shopping center," says Noble. "Our goal with
the citizenry was informing them that this was
more than a shopping mall —that it was a
mixed -use development Throughout the
process, we made promises to the electorate
that we would not be seeking any tax abate- .
ment—that we would pay all costs of develop-
ing the project ourselves. It was a very arduous
process, but we won [the residents over]." '`
"Westlake is a bedroom community but did
not want just another mall or lifestyle center,"
says Bob Parry, planning director for Westlake. "The
inclusion of housing was critical to creating a special
place. The city established a requirement that no more
than 35 percent of the project's total square footage
could be retail, and that at least 50 percent of the total
square footage at the end and in each phase of the proj-
ect had to be residential. The city did not want all of the
retail to be built and have the residential follow later."
In addition, the Coral Company will build tt6 for -
sale housing units on 21 acres on the western edge of
Crocker Park. Called Westhampton at Crocker Park, the
project will include townhouses, loft -style units, and
larger, attached homes. "The goal is to create a seam-
less transition between Crocker Parks retail and restau-
rant portion and the new housing development," says
Coral chief executive Peter Rubin. "The architecture will
evoke Dupont Circle in Washington and residential
MAY/DUNE 2006 MULTIFAMILY TRENDS 41
neighborhoods in parts of Manhattan and London, and
will include such touches as walk -out basements and
second -story terraces on some models"
Some of the units are placed directly above one of
Crocker Park's parking garages and the Dick's Sporting
Goods store. jack Bialosky, senior principal of Cleveland's
Bialosky & Partners, architect of Crocker Park and Rubin's
project, said the arrangement "allowed us to make a really
nice transition from the mixed -use core to the residential
neighborhood. Residents won't be looking out at a parking
garage:'theyll be facing tree -lined streets and parks."
Today, Crocker Park is becoming a reality, and the
incorporation of multifamily housing turned what could
have been just another high -end shopping center into a
Vibrant place for this community to gather.. Crocker Park
instills a sense of identity and place into a community
previously seen as a residential enclave. "Developing
these kinds of mixed -use projects is also developing
community and supporting community values," says
Noble. "I think the best developers will always have that
as one of the top goals for developing mixed -use."
Fontana, California: A Change in Attitude
Before 2oo3, density was a four-letter word in Fontana,
California. The highest permitted density was 12 dwelling
units per acre, and projects were criticized for lacking
"Almost ten years
ago, the attitude in
FONTANA was if you
didn't have a 7,200-
square-foot lot mini-
mum, the project
wasn't quality.99 & r
io,000-square-foot lots. That attitude is changing. In his
State of the City address on April 8, Mayor Mark Nuaimi
said, "When I joined this city council almost ten years
ago, the attitude in Fontana was if you didn't have a
7,2oo-square-foot lot minimum, the project wasn't quality.
As you will see.... the quality of life we are developing
in Fontana is based upon amenities in the communities,
not the size of the backyard of your lot"
The shift toward a wider variety of housing options
stems from the city's anticipation of growth in employ-
ment, particularly in what is referred to as the Corporate
Corridor along Interstate 15. "Imagine 5 million square feet
of office, entertainment, and hotel development along the
1-15 corridor," said Nuaimi. "Imagine tens of thousands of
jobs in our own community that keep us working, living,
and playing in Fontana." To attract those employees, the
city will need to build more housing, and lots of it. How-
ever, only so many homes can be built at 7,200 square
feet per lot and the city must be able to offer a variety
of high -quality housing options.
With the adoption of the 2oo3 General Plan and
update of the zoning code, Fontana increased the maxi-
mum density to 24 units per acre. This increase was
brought about through discussions with the public, prop-
erty owners, and developers who sought to increase the
variety of housing available in the city. To guarantee that
developers could reach the maximum density of 24 units
per acre, the city has developed an optional density stan-
dards policy. In the R-3 zoning district the maximum
number of dwelling units allowed per adjusted gross acre
is 12.1. To increase that density, up to a maximum of 24
dwelling units per acre, projects must incorporate addi-
tional amenities and features to ensure high -quality, high -
density development Many of the amenities reflect a
desire to balance density with open space, ensuring that
the city maintains its suburban character. Such amenities
include large open lawn areas at least 5o feet wide or
deep, a quarter -mile dedicated jogging/walking trail,
large flower and vegetable gardens, and playgrounds.
The city is currently reviewing three projects offering
546 units at densities of up 22 units per acre. All three
qualified for the high density ranges using the optional
density standards. "Developers realize the importance of
providing additional amenities to not only achieve higher
densities, but to create a sense of community within
their projects," says Kevin Ryan, senior planner at
Fontana. "As a governmental regulation, the costs
Reprinted with permission from Multifamily Trends, May/June 2006. Published by ULI-Urban Land
Institute, 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., Suite 500W, Washington, DC 20007-5201
The Fontana Promenade Specific Plan (above and facing page), currently under review, proposes medium- and high -density multifamily units within a 125-
acre master -planned, mixed -use community. To achieve a density greater than ix.a units per acre (up to the maximum of ]4), projects must Incorporate
additional amenities and features, such as large open lawn areas, a dedicated walking/jogging trail, large flower and vegetable gardens, and playgrounds.
incurred from the added amenities are relatively low and
don't seem to be posing a constraint to the production
of multifamily housing in Fontana."
The city is seeing an abundance of growth through
specific plans, adding not just homes but complete
neighborhoods and communities. For example, the
Fontana Promenade Specific Plan, currently under review,
proposes medium- and high -density multifamily units
within a 125-acre master -planned, mixed -use community.
The Promenade site is in the northern part of Fontana
next to the Fontana Auto Center and the 210 Freeway.
With densities of up to 24 units per acre, the Promenade
would offer more than goo high -density multifamily units,
providing an alternative suburban/urban living environ-
ment, with unique housing types, designs, and sizes that
include lofts above retail and office space, townhouses,
and garden lofts, as well as condominiums in a village
setting. linking the residences to a 500,000-square-foot
retail center would be a pedestrian bridge spanning
Walnut Avenue. The bridge would include the potential for
access to 20,000 square feet of specialty retail. Another
project under consideration is the Ventana at Duncan
Canyon, a mined -use community adjacent to 1-15. Ventana
would have up to 672 medium- and high -density multi-
family units at densities of up to 20 units per acre, as
well as a 21o,000-square-foot office building along 1-15.
A third facet of the city's multifamily housing strategy
is housing for seniors. The city permits the development
of seniors' housing in commercial zones with no mini-
mum lot size or maximum density requirement. As a
result, the Fontana Housing Authority. recently completed
three phases of the Downtown Senior Affordable Hous-
ing Project at densities exceeding 30,dwelling units per
acre (Phase I opened in 2003, phases II and III in
2005). The project is within walking distance of public
transportation, various medical facilities, the post office,
a grocery store, and several churches. All 293 housing
units are affordable to very -low-income seniors (those
with income levels at or below 50 percent of the area
median income), using a combination of California Tax
Credit Allocation Committee (rCAQ, HOME, and redevel-
opment funds. In addition, a nonprofit entity will provide
a wide variety of ancillary services in conjunction with
the development, including meals, nutritional counsel-
ing, health services, and recreational activities. A fourth
phase is expected to bring another go affordable units
to very -low-income households_
With the infusion of multifamily housing, Fontana is
making a transition from a suburban community known
for large -lot, single-family living to a new suburban com-
munity seeking a balance of jobs and offering a wide
variety of housing options that accommodate residents
at all stages of life.
Into the New Suburbia
At the heart of new suburbanism is the simple concept
that the reinvention of any existing suburb or the construc-
tion of new communities should primarily be dictated by
contextual considerations arising from the natural land-
scape, economic aspects, and other factors. Most impor-
tant, the needs and desires of residents should guide any
attempts to reinvent suburbia.
For some communities, multifamily housing may not
be appropriate. In a growing number of suburban com-
munities, however, people are beginning to remember
the important role multifamily housing played in the
successful suburbs of early loth century and recognize
the role it must play for the zest century. 114177'
co t I a o au Ka E a is a senior planner and project manager at
the Planning Center's Costa Mesa, California, office, serving as
project director for its efforts on suburban studies.
pY i