Loading...
2007 11 13 PCCity of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the. La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California NOVEMBER 13, 2007 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CON TINUED.TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2007-044 Beginning Minute Motion 2007-018 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 Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 9, 2007. P:\Reports - PC\2007\11-13-07\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 ................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007-106 Applicant ............. PetSmart #1230 Location.............. 79-375 Highway 111, within the Centre At La Quinta Shopping Center Request .............. Consideration of a request to allow two (2) outdoor metal containers for the temporary storage of seasonal merchandise at the rear of the building from October 15, 2007 through January 4, 2008. Action ................. Resolution 2007- B. Item .................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-892 Applicant ............. Tarlos & Associates, Architect Location .............. The southwest corner of Depot Drive in the Komar Desert Center Request ............... Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 7,000 square foot restaurant. Action ................ Resolution 2007- C. Item ....... :.... ........ ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2007-094 Applicant ............. City of La Quinta Location .............. City-wide Request ............... Consideration of an amendment to the La Quinta Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9.60 to modify the City's Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives in accordance with State Law. Action ................ Resolution 2007- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None P:\Reports - PC\2007\11-13-07\PC AGENDA.doc Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of November 6, 2007. IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the ,Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on November 27, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, November 13, 2007, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, November 9, 2007. DATED: November 9, 2007 0 B YVa YER, Executive Secretary City ofinta,California 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:\Reports - PC\2007\11-13-07\PC AGENDA.doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA October 9, 2007 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Alderson who asked Planning Director Les Johnson to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jim Engle, Paul Quill, and Chairman Ed Alderson. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Engle/Quill to excuse Commissioner Barrows. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David; Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Chairman Alderson requested two items be added to the Agenda under "Commissioner Items." The addition of Item B - Status of New Planning Commissioner Appointment, and Item C - Discussion of Future Meetings and the Planning Commissioners Attendance Schedule. It was then moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Engle to confirm the Agenda as revised. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of September 25, 2007. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Engle /Quill to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued - Village Use Permit 2006-03: a request of Dan Cline, Forward Architecture and Design, Inc. for consideration of architecture and landscaping plans for three retail commercial buildings located on Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 3.39 acres located at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive. 1. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report,:a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of the Commissioners. Commissioner Engle asked if the landscaping was consistent with the buildings in the surrounding area. Staff replied it will have a water efficient design. Commissioner Engle asked staff if they had asked if the applicant had considered using a contrasting color to break up the large expanse of white. Staff went back over the exhibits and explained the colors in the landscaping, as well as the use of tiles to relieve the monotony of all the white used. 3. Commissioner Engle asked if the parking was consistent with City regulations. Staff said it was and explained the parking layout and usages. 4. Commissioner Engle was concerned about having enough trellises to help curtail the amount of heat going through the windows. Staff went over the exhibit and explained the usage of the trellises. 5. Chairman Alderson asked about the proximity of this project to Old Town and its affinity to pedestrian traffic. He was concerned about the entrance into the buildings from Calle Tampico. He said it did not appear to be pedestrian -friendly and asked if staff had given any thought to having an entrance on the street side. Staff said they did discuss the pedestrian entrances into the buildings. The applicant wanted the parking close to the store entrances and the Village Guidelines state the parking should be far from the street. Therefore, a compromise had to be reached on the parking and entrances. 6. Chairman Alderson gave an example of a pedestrian shopping experience. Staff pointed out the large- expanse of glass on Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 Shop 1 and said there was a possibility of additional tenants changing their entries on the south elevations. 7. Chairman Alderson asked about the two blank walls that showed 27 foot dimensions. He asked if they were just blank walls. Staff explained there would be trellises placed on those walls. 8. Commissioner Quill asked if this application had been presented to the Planning Commission on a prior date. Staff replied it had not. There had been a previous project planned for this site, but it was not presented to the Planning Commission. 9. Chairman Alderson explained the history of the elevation process on this project. He wanted to know if the columns on the north elevation were going to stick out so the vines could wrap around and climb up them. Staff explained the vines would be attached to "green screen" material to allow the vines to climb up the columns. 10. Commissioner Quill disclosed that when this came in as a proposed Rite Aid he did have a conference with the applicant and that was why he thought he had seen this before, but it was a different plan. His concern is the box on Calle Tampico which carries the capacity to the street. He asked if there was an opportunity to connect to this box for storm water on the site. He said that was the whole point of putting it in to begin with. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer replied the applicant has many different options on how to handle the storm water off the site and this is one option. Staff has crafted several options for the applicant to choose from and several were outlined for the Commissioners. He explained typically the drainage plan is complete when the application comes before the Planning Commission. However, the applicant wanted to bring his application before the Commission prior to finalizing the hydrology issues for this development. To be receptive to that staff crafted conditions that are fairly flexible to allow them multiple options, one of which was just described. 11. Commissioner Quill said staff alluded to the fact this was partially contingent upon a study, but was not available at this Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 time. Staff said it was not. The study; previously referred to, was the potential outcome of one currently being conducted, regarding the capacity of that particular pipeline. Anecdotal information shows the pipeline is of sufficient size.. Commissioner Quill asked who was doing the study. Staff replied Psomas of Orange County was preparing the study but under worse case scenario, if the pipe was full and couldn't accept this water, there would still be other options. 12. Commissioner Quill referred back to the date the pipe was installed and said it was designed to handle the flow of the low line area down to Calle Tampico even with build -out. He asked if there had been a hydrology study done when this was installed and did we have that study for reference. Mr. Wimmer said they had searched the archives and no study was found. 13. Commissioner Quill asked if there was anything that reflected the redevelopment phasing they did for the improvements to La Quinta from the late 1980's. Mr. Wimmer replied his staff searched for information on capacity at that facility on Calle Tampico and they didn't have any information reflecting that information. 14. Commissioner Quill said there was an interim City Engineer at the time, who was also the engineer who may have worked on that design. His name was John Curtis and staff should contact him for his input. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer said he would be happy to contact Mr. Curtis as the City would like to have a copy of it. 15. Commissioner Quill said his fear was storm water engineering is not an exact science and if there is a system designed with a certain capacity and another firm comes up with different numbers it's going to create a conflict. It would be helpful if the original work could be found. Staff said they would try to contact Mr. Curtis order to obtain that report. Commissioner Quill said he would be happy to give the contact information to staff. 16. Commissioner Quill asked if this would, be a hold up for the applicant. Staff said it would not and the conditions were Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 crafted with flexibility so the applicant could move forward while awaiting the additional information. Staff said contacting Mr. Curtis would help move things along. 17. Chairman Alderson said he read through the conditions which were enormous for a three building project. Several references are made to the site, and two scenarios on the storm drain. One of the scenarios alludes to a retention basin. His question was if there is a retention basin introduced to the project will it affect the site layout and have any bearing on relocating buildings or the parking count. Staff said the applicant has the ability to do a retention basin. Staff is not recommending it, but there is enough flexibility in the conditions that they can achieve their drainage requirements without on -site retention. Chairman Alderson said there is no preliminary grading plan, preliminary traffic study, or preliminary hydrology report. However, he did not anticipate any problems with taking care of the storm water. There is a pipe on Calle Tampico, and one on Desert Club Drive. Staff met with the developer's engineer who studied their options and was very comfortable they could handle the storm water. Chairman Alderson asked if that included without the use of the retention basin. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer replied it was without the use of the retention basin. 18. Chairman Alderson said the traffic study and hydrology study were still forthcoming. Another issue is with the trucks and their turning radiuses. He asked if they had been analyzed in a practical sense or were they the result of some mathematical calculations. Staff said the turning movements had not been analyzed with scale drawings, but the applicant was working on that. Since the applicant was in a hurry to get this application before the Commission the conditions had been crafted so that if they were unable to get either an appropriate length of truck to make the maneuver, have their hours of operation accommodate the deliveries, or move the traffic signal poles they could still accommodate the turning radius of a truck. They were given enough flexibility to solve the problem. Staff does not know what is going to happen because they still have .not seen any scale drawings. They are .waiting on their traffic engineer to finalize their report. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 19. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to come forward. Mike Singelyn, Highland Development Company, 80 South Lake Avenue, Suite 660, Pasadena, California 91101, introduced himself. He stated they had been addressing the conditions with the Public Works Department and had been working with the City to solve the storm water conditions. The upcoming traffic study has highlighted several concerns on Calle Tampico and Washington Street. He said the traffic study is being done by Psomas and should be completed in two weeks and they will submit it to the City. They, have already done the traffic count. This report will be given to the Public Works Department for their study, comment and recommendations. They do not have scale studies, but their information shows this area will accommodate a 40 foot truck. They are waiting to determine if the tenant's trucks are able to do that. They are open to conversations with the Public Works staff. They are excited about working with Fresh and Easy and tying into the downtown Village concept. They are excited about the green screen treatment and hope pedestrians will want to sit and stay there for awhile. 20. Commissioner Quill asked if they thought they were providing adequate pedestrian access from Old Town. Mr. Singelyn said the layout works for the tenant and the pedestrians. They have worked with this layout for a year -and -a -half to come up with the best compromise for both pedestrian access and parking available. 21. Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant had any problem with changing the color of the green screen pylons to match the color in the awnings. Mr. Singelyn said it was no problem. 22. Commissioner Quill liked the concept, but was concerned about vandalism and maintenance and asked if the pylons were sturdy enough to resist vandalism. Mr. Singelyn said they were made from sturdy materials, placed firmly in the ground, and not easily removed. Mr. Singelyn said the pots were intended to withstand vandals. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 23. Commissioner Quill asked if they previously had designed a trellis attached to a column with a sidewalk underneath it. Mr. Singelyn said that was a different applicant. Commissioner Quill asked about the trellis hanging over Tampico. Mr. Singelyn said they were unable to position the trellis in that manner due to City regulations. Staff made a comment about a free-standing trellis being used instead of an attached trellis. Staff concluded the free-standing trellis could be incorporated, but the attached trellis went into the setback on Calle Tampico. Staff described the items in the exhibit which were colonnades set within the setback. 24. Commissioner Quill asked about the right-of-way and location of the sidewalk. He asked if the sidewalk was going to be within the colonnade. Staff showed the exhibit and Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant was going to be completely removing all the landscaping and sidewalk currently on site and referenced the exhibit with replacement options for those areas. Staff confirmed he had interpreted the exhibit correctly. 25. Mr. Singelyn replied to Commissioner Quill's inquiry about tearing out the current sidewalk. He said they are currently considering leaving in the meandering sidewalk and replacing all the landscaping. They may have to work with staff to design the sidewalk and green trellis treatments as shown on the exhibits. 26. Commissioner Quill asked the applicant about the comment made by staff regarding the two foot drop and asked if the applicant preferred not to do that. He 'asked if there was an architectural reason for it. Mr. Pedro Garcia, 7864 Home Court, La Quinta, representing the architect for the site, said originally the building was designed at a height of 28 feet, but the tenant required a mezzanine to accommodate their mechanical units which are not roof -mounted. They are within this mezzanine which requires that area be raised. That is the only part of the building that will be raised to 30 feet. It is the northeast corner of the building and the furthest part of the building from the street. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 27. Commissioner Engle said if they 'added a contrasting color on top of that or along that way it might break up the monotony of the white walls. Mr. Garcia said they were trying to match the Old Town La Quinta design style and that is why they used the large amount of white. 28. Commissioner Quill said there is a two-story building right across the parking lot as well as two-story buildings right across the street and they are at least 35 feet high. He did not have an issue with the applicant's elevations. Staff said the two- story buildings were approximately 35 feet. 29. Commissioner Quill commented on the outdoor seating area. He asked if any outdoor seating was proposed along Calle Tampico. The applicant said they were trying to put everything in the center courtyard. 30. Commissioner Engle said he was very happy someone is developing on that parcel. Most of his concerns were addressed. Had no problem with the height. He was not concerned with the north elevation, but on the east, west, and south elevations, the top piece (or pilaster) projects out a couple of inches and if it were painted brown it would help break up all the white. The applicant said they had no concerns with doing that. 31. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant was going to use the existing driveways on Desert Club. The applicant said the northern driveway has to stay, but they are requesting some modifications to the southern driveway. They are working with the Public Works Department'on the ingress/egress issues. 32. Chairman Alderson commented on the fountain design and the Commission's sensitivity towards water usage. Mr. Pedro Garcia said this water treatment is not really a fountain but a very shallow reflecting pool. Mr. Singelyn said if they wished to eliminate the water feature the applicant would be happy to bring back an alternative. Chairman Alderson said the Commission would appreciate their efforts as long as this does not sacrifice the applicant's aesthetics. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 33. Chairman Alderson said he was still concerned about the pedestrian -friendly traffic pattern into this project. He asked to be shown where a pedestrian could enter the store if they were on Calle Tampico. He asked if there was any way to include an entrance on that side. The applicant said that was not possible due to the accommodation of the delivery, of goods. 34. Commissioner Quill commented on the Shops 1 doors and their locations in relationship to Calle Tampico and the parking lot. What he's seen is a new shop comes in'and the doors on Calle Tampico become inoperable because the tenant blocks the entrance. He said there were no columns and no ambiance on the shops facing Calle Tampico. There is no replication of those green screen columns on Calle Tampico. Commissioner Quill said there was an opportunity for a coffee shop with a south facing entrance but this has not been made user friendly. Mr. Singelyn said tenants want the doors facing the parking lot. There may be an opportunity for tenants to use doors on that elevation. He explained how the buildings were laid out. 35. Chairman Alderson asked for clarification that they were discussing the south elevation. Applicant replied yes. 36. Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant could add green screen columns and pots along Shops 1, on the Tampico side to keep the theme moving in that direction. The applicant said they would not have a problem with it, but they have been trying to break up the monotony of the buildings and when the greenery grows out there will be one large green wall on Calle Tampico. He gave a description of what would happen when the plants mature and why the landscaping was designed as shown. 37. Commissioner Quill asked if there was a landscaping architect involved. Mr. Pedro Garcia replied there was. Commissioner Quill asked if the green screen column would be a spiraled column or a pruned square. Mr. Garcia said they would be consistently pruned into four foot high squares. 38. Chairman Alderson asked about the pre -made landscape product. Mr. Garcia said he had used this product in a project Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 in Phoenix, Arizona in 1998. He visited : it last year and it still looked great. 39. Commissioner Quill asked if they were four foot diameter pruned squares would there be at least five feet of planted area in that square. Mr. Garcia said yes. 40. Chairman Alderson opened the discussion to the public. Hearing none he opened the discussion to the Commissioners. 41. Commissioner Engle was happy there was something going in on the barren lot, but he did suggest the addition of color on the roof treatment. He said their landscape ideas and the addition of the columns was wonderful. 42. Commissioner Quill said Fresh and Easy was an incredibly good use of the location. He much preferred it to the Rite Aid previously proposed. He said he would prefer a little bit better orientation for pedestrian use, but this plan was acceptable. He had concerns about the appearance of the plant material when mature and asked if the staff had to approvethe landscaping prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. He asked if they could add a condition about the final landscaping, especially when it is "right off the truck". He wanted to make sure the plants were of good quality. Staff said due to the high visibility of this project the staff will do several inspections of this site to assure the plant materials will be appropriate. Commissioner Quill described the type of plant materials that would ideally work better for this site. 43. Commissioner Quill said the applicant did a good job. It is different than Old Town but has an old town feel and did not have any problems with the 30 foot height. He liked the elevations. 44. Chairman Alderson still had concerns about the large white expanse on the north face of Building One. Chairman Alderson asked if it would be advantageous to continue the green walls across. Staff suggested the architect comment. Mr. Garcia said they tried to follow the Old Town palette but in addition to the large amount of green they would add some interest to the Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 building by adding another shade of white. They did not wish to add another color as it would introduce too much of a contrast. Chairman Alderson said it just needed to be broken down so it was not such a large expanse of one color. 45. Chairman Alderson said since he was formerly in the development business he understood the importance of getting tenants in on time. He had five concerns and felt most of them had been answered, but he was still concerned about storm drains, retention basins, and storm basin scenarios that had yet to be determined. The traffic and hydrology studies have yet to be determined. The truck turning radius has not been properly researched but he was sure it can be. There is the potential of having to relocate and rework the intersection and signals at the corner of Desert Club and Calle Tampico and the potential of a left turn lane at Calle Tampico and Washington. All of these things are yet to be determined and he didn't think they would be a problem, but they may. The Commission is being asked to approve a project with a whole bunch of contingencies and the conditions of approval are extensive. One option is to recommend continuing this until some of these are taken care of unless staff could assure him these problems could be addressed he would be hesitant to go forward. There are too many ifs. He liked the project but he was still concerned about the pedestrian access from Calle Tampico. 46. Chairman Alderson reopened the public hearing and Mr. Singelyn addressed the Commissioners on the traffic issue. There are two left turn lanes already on Calle Tampico. They expect the traffic study will recommend the northern -most left turn lane queuing area would have to be extended further to the west, however in the current condition they could not extend it that much because it would encroach into the westbound lane. They are very comfortable they have the scope of the work that will have to be done on that lane. Regarding the turning radius of the truck westbound on Calle Tampico and north on Desert Club, the applicant worked on drawings showing a 68 foot truck with a clip of eight feet on that corner. The resolution of that problem would be the relocation of the signal box and the current signal and bring it in eight feet closer. They will get the scaled drawings to the Public Works Department and are Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 prepared to work with them to resolve these problems. They have spent a lot of time with staff on this project and are confident these items and time frames can be met. Their civil engineer has been working on this, but they are still awaiting the Psomas study. They feel comfortable with the conditions and confident they can work with the Public Works Department to resolve these issues. 47. Commissioner Quill said with respect to the storm drain issue it sounded like these are options versus finalized conditions. What has been done is they have provided "all of the above" so that solution can get rectified and frankly it's an engineering/Public Works solution that's going to get rectified pretty much irrespective of what we say or do in this forum. The same thing goes for the issue of the turning radius. They will do I hat they need to do to make it work. 48. Commissioner Quill asked the applicant about the additional columns in the front of Shops 1. He said it made sense to him they would carry the theme of what you would see on Calle Tampico and he would like to see four additional four foot by four foot columns in that location. The bottom line is you are going to see hazy glass there. He'd rather see columns rather than the glass. The columns would filter the "back of the house" look. The applicant said they would be happy to accommodate that request. 49. Chairman Alderson closed the public comment portion and returned to the Commissioner portion of the meeting. 50. Chairman Alderson said he had previously stated his many concerns and was confident staff could work them out with the applicant. Ed Wimmer said they were going to work with the applicant to get a good project. 51. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Engle to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-042 approving Village Use Permit 2006-035 with the addition of the following recommendations: Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 1. Modification of the landscaping plan adding four more columns in front of Shops 1 2. The addition of a color treatment to the parapet. 3. Modifications of the conditions pursuant to the memorandum that is dated October 9, 2007 from Les Johnson and Tim Jonasson. 4. Allow the 30-foot height limit AYES: Commissioners Engle, Quill, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Barrows. B. Street Vacation 2007-045; consideration of a Report of Finding under California Government Code Section 65402 that the proposed Vacation of an Easement in favor of the public for access, ingress and egress of fire, police and other emergency vehicles and personnel within Tentative Parcel Map 33367 and Public Utilities Easements established over the vacated portions of Avenue 52 and Adams Street lying within Tentative Parcel Map 33367 is consistent with the General Plan. 1. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Engineer Manager Ed Wimmer presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Chairman Alderson asked for questions from Commissioners. 3. Commissioners Engle asked if this type of request was just standard operating procedure. Staff replied it was. 4. Commissioner Quill said the utility easements were not taken out because there was an office in the near proximity and the power was needed. So, the utilities were left in place to accommodate that need. 5. Chairman Alderson asked if there was; any public comment. Since there was none he did not open the public comment portion of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 6. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Engle to adopt Resolution 2007-043 recommending approval of Street Vacation 2007-045 as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Engle, Quill, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Barrows. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioners Schedule: 1 . Commissioners Schedule did not include the new Commissioner and asked if they could put it on the back burner until the additional Commissioner was appointed. Staff pointed out the additional Commissioner was included in 2008. B. Status of New Planning Commissioner Appointment: 1. Chairman Alderson said he spoke to the City Clerk regarding appointment of the fifth Commissioner. There were five applicants from the previous group but are the City is re - advertising. They will hold interviews on November 6, 2007, and select a fifth Planning Commissioner. He said he would be covering that Council Meeting. C. Discussion of Future Meetings and Planning Commissioners Attendance Schedule: 1. Staff reminded the Commissioners of the Joint Meeting on the 23rtl of October at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Engle asked if they will get an e-mail reminder of that date. Staff encouraged the Commissioners to add items. The agenda currently includes green building, the general plan and housing element updates, as well as what the Commission hopes to accomplish by June of next year. If there are additional comments please get them Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 to Planning Director Les Johnson. Chairman Alderson had a comment on the eligibility issue and would like to have an explanation of how that was resolved. He also wanted to make sure the Council was aware of the Commissions' efforts on to promote water efficiency. Staff said that would be listed under the green building topics. 2. Chairman Alderson said he would cover next week's Council meeting. 3. Chairman Alderson asked about a Chamber meeting that was faxed to him. Commissioner Quill said one of the Chairman's tasks is to attend a joint city and chamber meeting every quarter. Chairman Alderson said he would attend. D. Pedestrian -Friendly Planning Considerations: 1. Commissioner Quill was also concerned about access and pedestrian accessibility between various City amenities via bikes or walkers. 2. Staff made comment on attendance at a recent APA meeting. One of the topics they addressed was pedestrian walkability of communities. One of the key issues is the ability of people not having to drive and focus on more pedestrian -friendly areas. Transit and non -motorized functions are very important. La Quinta has few transit opportunities but we can certainly encourage people to get out and walk. Gas emissions are a priority item for the State of California and will continue to be an important issue. 3. Commissioner Quill said the previous project on this site had a cover on the south side of the building to encourage walkers to use the sidewalk. In the interest of walkability and health some exceptions should be allowed on setbacks to encourage more pedestrian usage. He used the example of walkability of Carmel and why it is so pedestrian -friendly. We need to adjust our laws, rules and regulations to accommodate that type of atmosphere. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 4. Chairman Alderson asked if there could be encroachment if the possibility of shade and walkability is in question. Staff said they were looking at the walkability of the Village to enhance and improve upon what is there today; such as a central parking lot. They want to encourage folks to walk around downtown. The second opportunity would be the update of the General Plan. There are two great opportunities within the next twelve months to encourage walkability in the City. IX: ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Engle to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on November 13, 2007. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. on October 9, 2007. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Secretary City of La Quinta, California PH #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2007 CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007-106 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: PETSMART #1230 REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO (2) OUTDOOR METAL CONTAINERS FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF SEASONAL MERCHANDISE AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING FROM OCTOBER 15, 2007 THROUGH JANUARY 4, 2008 LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING PROJECT PROPOSAL: 79-375 HIGHWAY 111, WITHIN THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER (ATTACHMENT 1) THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS, OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4) IN THAT THE STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE TEMPORARY AND WILL HAVE NO PERMANENT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. RC (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) RC (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) Every September the Planning Department issues a letter to all major tenants along Highway 111 regarding the Conditional Use Permit process for temporary holiday storage. All applications were to be submitted no later than ,October 15, 2007. To date, only PetSmart has applied for the Conditional Use Permit. On October 9, 2007, the Planning Department received a Conditional Use Permit from PetSmart requesting to place two temporary metal storage containers at their back of building for additional holiday merchandise storage. The applicant has requested the two temporary containers be in place between October 15, 2007 and January 4, 2008. A site visit on October 16, 2007, indicated the applicant, without Planning Commission approval, had placed the storage container on site. PAReports - PC\2007\1 1-1 3-07\CUP 07-106 Petsmart\CUP 07-106 Petsmart (STAFF REPORT).rtf Each container measures eight feet wide, by 40 feet long, by ten feet high (Attachment 2). The outdoor storage containers are located at the back of building, adjacent to the truck delivery area, and are screened by a five foot high chain - linked fence with green mesh (Attachment 3). The two storage containers are located approximately seventy (70) feet from the PetSmart building, just west of the Sam's Club Gas Station. Due to the layout of the building site, adequate space exists to accommodate both storage containers, through traffic, and truck deliveries. Located directly east of the temporary storage containers is the Sam's Club gas station, where a five (5) foot high wall separates and screens the gas station from the storage containers. In addition, the PetSmart building to the west helps to screen the storage containers from public view. The applicant has also installed a six (6) foot high chain link fence with green mesh material to further screen the storage containers. Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 1, 2007, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no letters have been received. Any written comments received will:be handed out at the meeting. ATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve this request per Section 9.210.020 (Conditional Use Permit) of the Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. ANALYSIS 1. Public view of the temporary storage containers are limited by the surrounding built environment. A five (5) foot high masonry wall at the Sam's Club gas station limits views from the east, while the PetSmart building and green mesh construction fence block views from the west. 2. The proposed temporary storage containers comply with the sixty (60) foot safety setback clearing area, set by 2001 California Building Code. 3. The placement of the temporary storage containers does not affect the traffic pattern for the ' Centre of La Quinta, as adequate space exists between the storage containers and the street curb to the east. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007- , approving Conditional Use Permit 2007-106, subject to findings and the attached Conditions of Approval. P:\Reports - PC\2007\1 1-1 3-07\CUP 07-106 Petsmart\CUP 07-106 Petsmart (STAFF REPORT).rtf Prepared by: Eric Ceja, Assist t Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Storage Container Sighting 3. Additional Site Photos PAReports - PC\2007\1 1-1 3-07\CUP 07-106 Petsmart\CUP 07-106 Petsmart (STAFF REPORT).rtf PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING TWO TEMPORARY OUTDOOR METAL STORAGE CONTAINERS FROM OCTOBER 15, 2007 THROUGH JANUARY 4, 2008, AT THE REAR OF THE EXISTING PETSMART STORE CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007-106 APPLICANT: PETSMART STORE # 1230 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 13`h day of November 2007, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by PetSmart Store #1230 to allow two temporary outdoor metal storage containers from October 15, 2007 through January 4, 2008, on the east side of the existing PetSmart store, within the truck delivery area, for the storage of holiday merchandise at 79-375 Highway 111, more particularly described as follows: APN: 600-340-024 Parcel 5 of Tract Map 30420 WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit 2007-106 is within Specific Plan 97-029 for which Environmental Assessment 1997-337 was certified by the City Council on July 15, 1997. Therefore, no changed circumstances or conditions and no new information has been provided which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; 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 9.210.020,of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed temporary use is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the property is designated Regional Commercial which permits the temporary use proposed by this application. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed temporary use is consistent with the development standards outlined in Section 9.100.120 (Outdoor Storage and Display) of the Zoning Code because merchandise will be stored in enclosed metal containers placed at the rear of the building. Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditional Use Permit 2007-106 PetSmart November 13, 2007 3. Compliance with CEQA: The proposed temporary use is in compliance with CEQA in that the project area lies within Specific Plan 97-029 for which Environmental Assessment 1997-337 was certified by the City Council on July 15, 1997. Therefore, no changed circumstances or conditions and no new information has been provided which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes.' 4. Surrounding Uses: Approval of the Conditional Use Permit will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or be injurious to, or incompatible with, otherproperties or land uses in the vicinity in that they are placed in areas away from customer traffic and public view. The adjacent properties are designated and zoned for commercial use and within the Centre at La Quinta Shopping Center. 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 Conditional Use Permit; 2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2007-106 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 131h day of November, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditional Use Permit 2007-106 PetSmart November 13, 2007 ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007-106 PETSMART CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED November 13, 2007 GENERAL 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Conditional Use Permit 2007-106, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. This Conditional Use Permit allows a total of two (2) temporary metal storage containers to be located at the rear of the building to be used for the storage of holiday merchandise between October 15, 2007 and January 4, 2008. The storage containers shall be removed by January 5, 2008. 3. A minimum 20 foot wide aisle for emergency/fire access shall be maintained at all times to the rear of all buildings/stores. Any storage containers that block a required fire access lane to existing commercial buildings/stores shall be relocated within 24 hours of a written notice from the Fire Marshal. 4. The outdoor storage area shall be cleaned daily of debris and litter. 5. All storage shall be within the enclosed metal storage containers. 6. The applicant/property owner agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. ATTACHMENT 1 k lye t Ir IP co y mt Rn i•�3d��ty iLa � CO) 'Mb�d s Ir co) F�Jd Yfl' to x {{1 ». iQ - ors• 14t• � ' ! � ` a x � «y cl) ic. CA c/i e rt h �4 Y it xyy-��i V ? •i{ t�i f � < h� '?r t��y� • C'a `� .k � � , � � " Fri. * i 4>?x ;pow-' ATTACHMENT 3 T. r' l r yt 3 5 i I Cy1 Gd S v 111111 I r1 S 4 i 1 p, W v p a r W s 11 • °i a W'b+' o 41 I A N rp J 1 ✓ Y A 1 9 a s 15 y.: >t� �k ��N .' Q`Ya• llw� Air r^ �x5 S_46 �.� %f. ,(.f wlw WII .�-c"S�i'Y �'f` k�' i �s8 . a q{, �3 .,cv! t �'.4 t�{ ,•^�. r 1�� C.ro: lq AG^5r,l{ "3i"�®ftf J"b., �d P •, {a+j!c'., ,a 4:'_'� �,. 2$�°. it' # ac +..Ls3!1>+1 + {tfsF3 79 `' J °'VIP —IV. : x� t.„�r 4�•. * ,tt #.'O�F'i 1 A' aN /' 7 � .�—,-�7--cs• rt n .t 37t '�Y'n �r .5t��� 'eiegp i yy�{ I l iI `� A � r�li ft n Y ` { '�.• � ° a.��C4 c�' at !l��Y�n•,R �t+'Snp���r d r 3 t - YfC _1(�a�r t rs py 1 1{g S,. p titje P j �. i r( -_- ' p-' r. � .7" � dh / a_1..;� r ! �,-u w � d$ a`pi ct��'" <� �"�� 1� � S �, rt � !'.`r.� f"' r�Y � � 1O�S*b ; t�r}� $"x .•"i �Ff�(�u�C+�,t% ! S�. �¢�� a PH #2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2007 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-892 APPLICANT: TARLOS & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A 7000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT LOCATION: SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPOT DRIVE IN THE KOMAR DESERT CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: KOMAR INVESTMENTS, L.L.C. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2005-539 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2005-075, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 33960, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON JANUARY 4, 2006. NO CHANGES CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 21166 SINCE THIS PROJECT IMPLEMENTS SPECIFIC PLAN 2005-075. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: HIGHWAY 111, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL SOUTH: COSTCO, COMMERCIAL PARK EAST: MIMI'S CAFE (RESTAURANT), REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WEST: VACANT, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL BACKGROUND: Tarlos and Associates are proposing a Souplantation restaurant on a pad within the Komar Desert Center (Attachment 1) located on the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Depot Drive, opposite the project entry from the previously approved Mimi's Cafe restaurant. The Komar Desert Center Specific Plan 2005-075 was approved by the City Council on January 3, 2006. Three previous Site Development Permits have been reviewed and approved for the Komar Desert Center. The first approval was for Costco (by the City Council) on January 3, 2006; the second was for seven retail buildings proposed north of Costco on February 13, 2007; and the third was for a 6,480 square foot Mimi's Cafe restaurant on April 10, 2007. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The proposed 7,000 square foot restaurant is a custom designed desert contemporary building with tiered massing that includes painted plaster, stack stone highlights, recessed windows, and canopies (Attachments 2 and 3). The main entrance is located at the southeast corner of the building with patrons exiting the building from the door at the south elevation. A portion. of the north elevation facing Highway 111 will consist of split -face blocks. Most windows on the building are either recessed or covered by a canopy to provide shading. The service yard located at the northeast corner of the site will be fully enclosed by a wall with a metal gate painted to match the building. All proposed lighting fixtures attached to the building will be dark -sky compliant. All rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened behind the parapet which extends six to eight feet above the roof. The surrounding parking area serving the proposed restaurant has been previously approved. The building has been designed to have some variation and undulation of both the massing and height. Forward depth of the building elevations will range from one to two feet. Variation of the roofline will range by five feet with the tallest point of the building at 24 feet in height. Roofline parapets will have a metal cap painted a contrasting color. The building is located behind the landscaping setback and berm, 56.5 feet from the Highway 111 right-of-way. Landscaping The applicants have identified a water -efficient landscaping design containing Chinese Pistache, Mimosa (Silk), and Shoestring Acacia trees, and Texas Rangers, Agave, Red Yucca, Desert Spoon, Waxleaf Privet, and Desert Ruellia for shrubs (Attachment 4). The Komar Desert Center landscaping palate uses the same plant selections, but has a greater variety. The groundcover will consist of decomposed granite. The applicants will be providing landscaping around the immediate perimeter of the building, as the surrounding landscaping has already been approved as a part of the Komar Desert Center and will be installed as those buildings are constructed. ANALYSIS The proposed restaurant is a geometrically -designed contemporary style similar to the approved buildings in the Komar Desert Center and consistent with the Komar Desert Center Specific Plan design guidelines. The color scheme will consist of a palate similar to the other existing and approved buildings on the site. The landscaping palate will also be consistent with the overall Komar Desert Center landscaping. The applicants have provided some level of detail and variation to the building's cubic elevations, but the general footprint remains rectangular. The use of canopies, expansion joints, and recessed windows provide some relief. The applicant has made an effort to be consistent with the overall architectural style and design of the Komar Desert Center shopping center (Attachment 5) while still maintaining an individual identity. Overall, the project, as presented, is consistent with the Specific Plan and complies with applicable zoning requirements. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of October 24, 2007. The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2007-028, recommending approval subject to the following conditions which have been incorporated into this review: 1. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional, reviewed by the ALRC and Public Works Director, and approved.by the Planning Director prior to issuance of the first building permit. An application for Final Landscape Plan Check shall be submitted to the Planning Department for final landscape plan review. Said plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project, including perimeter landscaping, certified to comply with the 50% parking lot shading requirement, 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 Planning Department., 2. Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. All trash enclosures shall have a color and finish consistent with the buildings. 4. The applicant shall provide two additional trees along the south elevation in order to provide some additional shading for parking and the building. 5. The applicant shall substitute the Texas Rangers along the split face block wall on the north elevation with an alternative specimen that provides some vertical relief, similar to those identified in the color elevations. Public Notice This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 2, 2007, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site as required by Section 9.200.1 10 of the Zoning Code. To date, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All agency comments received are on file with the Planning Department and have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by LQMC Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits), findings to approve Site Development Permit 2007-892 can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-_, approving Site Development Permit 2007-892, subject to Findings and Conditions. Attachments: 1. Site plans and line elevations 2. Color building elevations 3. Color building rendering 4. Landscaping plans 5. Sample elevations from other buildings within Komar Desert Center Prepared by: drewlJPMoeensen cipannr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING BUILDING ELEVATION, SITE, AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-892 FOR A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WEST OF DEPOT DRIVE CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-892 APPLICANT: TARLOS AND ASSOCIATES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the, 131h day of November, 2007 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to review the application for Site Development Permit 2007-892, which includes building elevations, site, and landscape plans for a 7,000 square foot restaurant; generally located south of Highway 111 and west of Depot Drive, more particularly described as: APN: 660-020-035 WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 24`h of October, 2007 hold a public meeting to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a 7,000 square foot restaurant and unanimously recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department determined that the request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report 2005-539 prepared for Specific Plan 2005-075 and Tentative Parcel Map 33960, which was certified on January 4, 2006. No changes in circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of subsequent analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code 21 166 since this project implements Specific Plan 2005-075; and. WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on the 2nd day of November, 2007, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Project materials, staff report, staff presentation, the applicant's presentation, and the testimony and materials submitted by interested persons during the public hearing, did establish the following facts which support a recommendation for approval of Site Development Permit 2007-892: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed restaurant building is Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates November 13, 2007 consistent with the City's General Plan in that the project site is designated Regional Commercial (RC). The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element. (Chapter 2). 2. Consistency with the Specific Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Komar Desert Center Specific Plan 2005-075, in that the project design feature including building heights, complies with the development standards and design guidelines. 3. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the Regional Commercial (RC) Zoning District, in that the project meets the development standards including, but not limited to, setbacks,. architecture, building mass, exterior lighting, parking, circulation, open space and landscaping. The proposed buildings are consistent with the City's Zoning Code .in that the development standards and criteria contained in the Komar Desert Center Specific Plan 2005-075 supplements, replaces, or are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. 4. Site Design: The site design of the proposed project including, but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment, trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements such as scale, mass, appearance, solar exposure, and amount of landscaping are compatible with the quality of design prevalent in the City and compatible with development in the area. 5. Landscape Design: The landscaping for the proposed project, including but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed to provide visual relief, complement the buildings, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed landscaping is compatible with the surrounding area in that the variety of water -efficient and drought tolerant plants, trees, and shrubs, provide an aesthetically pleasing and well functioning use of landscaping space. The landscape design of the proposed project, as conditioned, complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality of desert appropriate materials. 6. Architectural Design: The architectural design of the proposed building, including, but not limited to, architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with surrounding development and quality of design prevalent in the PAReports - PC\2007\11-13-07\SDP 07-892 Souplantation\SDP 2007-892 Reso.DOC Planning Commission Resolution 2007- .Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates November 13, 2007 City. The architectural design of the project, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding commercial buildings and development in the general vicinity in that it is similar in scale; the building materials provided are a durable, aesthetically pleasing, and low maintenance, with a blend of surfaces and textures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2007-892 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the conditions attached hereto; PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 131" day of November, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California PAReports - PC\2007\11-13-07\SDP 07-892 Souplantation\SDP 2007-892 Reso.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-892 TARLOS AND ASSOCIATES (SOUPLANTATION) NOVEMBER 13, 2007 GENERAL 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 shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). All Conditions of Approval for Site Development Permit 2006-874 for the Komar Development shall apply to this Site Development Permit. The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed, on the City's Web Site at www.la-gdinta.org. 3. This Site Development Permit is valid for two years, unless an extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080.of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 4. Site Development Permit 2007-892 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following approvals: • Komar; Desert Center Specific Plan 05-075 • Tentative Parcel Map 33960 • Environmental Assessment 05-539 5. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies (if required): • Fire Marshal Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) Planning Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • Sun Line Transit Agency • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley • Caltrans The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies, if applicable. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. 7. 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). PROPERTY RIGHTS 8. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper Page 2 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. Said conferred rights shall also include grant of access easement to the City of La Quinta for the purpose of graffiti removal by City staff or assigned agent in perpetuity and agreement to the method to remove graffiti and to paint over to best match existing. The applicant shall establish the aforementioned requirements in the CC&R's for the development or other agreements as approved by the City Engineer. 9. Direct vehicular access to Highway 1 1 1 from lots with frontage along Highway 1 1 1 is restricted, except for those access points identified on Parcel Map No. 33960, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 10. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 11. The applicant shall provide reciprocal access easements necessary for the adjoining "parcel(s) for access to proposed parking and access drive associated with this Site Development Permit. Additionally, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with Costco and/or other parcel owners/occupants for the perpetual maintenance of the parking areas, drive aisles and drainage system within Parcel Map No. 33960. HARDSCAPE ACCESS TO PARKING LOTS 12. The precise grading design for this Site Development Permit shall conform to the approved Site Development Permit 2006-874 and shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). In particular, the following are conditioned with the approval of this Site Development Permit. A. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. Page 3 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. 13. ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. 14. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as signs, markings and other devices, and sidewalks. 15. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 16. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 17. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Precise Grading Plan 1 40' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal NOTE: A and B to be submitted concurrently. Page 4 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and that notes the most current California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Precise Grading Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. A "Precise Grading" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and.the City Engineer. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements, and, ADA requirements. 18. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed "Plans, Notes and Design Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la-guinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 19. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of rhylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. 20. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the mylars in order to reflect the as -built conditions. PRECISE GRADING 21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LOMC. 22. The applicant shall cooperate with the Komar Development in regards to improvements required of Site Development Permit 2006-874 and this Site Development Permit. Page 5 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 23. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 24. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A precise grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The Precise Grading Plan for this Site Development Permit shall tie to KOMAR DESERT CENTER (COSTCO REMAINDER) Precise Grading Plans..for SDP 2006-874 (Plan Set Number 07126). The applicant'shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 25. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind,and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion' control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 26. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Site Development Permit site plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with.applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Page 6 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 The pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of.the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 28. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Tentative Parcel Map No. 33960 and as modified for Site Development Permit 2006-874 for the Komar Development. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. UTILITIES 29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 30. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 31. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. CONSTRUCTION 32. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly- _ ,Page 7 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, and pavement markings. 33. All trash enclosures shall have.a color and finish consistent with the building. 34. Any building mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from view by an architectural feature, wall, or parapet of sufficient height to fully screen such equipment above its horizontal plane. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 35. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 36. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. Measures shall be taken to replace and repair any landscaping or irrigation equipment which is damaged. 37. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 38. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional, shall be reviewed by the ALRC and Public Works Director, and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of the first building permit. An application for Final Landscape Plan Check shall be submitted to the Planning Department for final landscape plan review. 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 and the Coachella Valley Water District's Landscaping and Irrigation Design Ordinance. 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 Planning Department. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Note: Final landscaping plans are not approved for construction until approved and signed by the Planning Director. 39. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the Page 8 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November. 13, 2007 requirements of the Planning Director. Spray irrigation shall be placed no closer than 24 inches to curbs along public streets. 40. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility forproper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5`" Edition or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. 41. Should any landscaping utilized for screening purposes be deemed insufficient by the Planning Director following an initial period of growth, the applicant shall replace or provide additional landscaping with significant foliage. 42. Tubular -steel "ribbon -type" or other securable, foundation -inset bicycle parking racks shall be provided, large enough to accommodate at least three bicycles, as per Section 9.150.060 of the Parking Ordinance. Bicycle racks shall be placed upon a hard surface in a shaded location out of the way of pedestrian flows. Final placement shall be approved by the Planning Department. QUALITY ASSURANCE 43. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 44. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 45. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 46. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by.the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant Page 9 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer Of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the EOR. can make site visits in support of preparing As Built drawings. However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "As -Built" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. MAINTENANCE 47. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 48. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 50. 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). OUTDOOR LIGHTING 51. Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. An exterior lighting plan with manufacturers cut sheets shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first building permit for project. FIRE DEPARTMENT 52. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering a fire flow 1500 gallons per minute for a two hours duration at 20 psi residual operating Page 10 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the construction site. 53. Approved accessible on -site fire hydrants shall be located not to exceed 330 feet apart in any direction and within any portion of the facility or of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus as measured by an approved route around the complex, exterior of the facility or building, and no portion of a building further than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Fire hydrants shall provide the required fire flow. 54. Prior to building plan approval and construction, applicant/developer shall furnish two copies of the water system fire hydrant plans to Fire Department for review and approval. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed and approved by the local water authority, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for review and approval. 55. Prior to issuance of building permits, the water system for fire protection must be provided as approved by the Fire Department and the local water authority. 56. Applicant/Developer shall mount blue dot retro-reflectors pavement markers on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicated location of the fire hydrant. It should be 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 57. Fire Apparatus access road shall be in compliance with the Riverside County Fire Department Standard number 06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.org). Access lanes will not have an up, or downgrade of more than 15 %. Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance not less than 13 feet and 6 inches. Access lanes will be designed to withstand the weight of 80 thousand pounds over 2 axles. Access will have a turning radius capable of accommodating fire apparatus. Access lane shall be constructed with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. 58. Driveway loops, fire apparatus access lanes and entrance curb radius should be designed to adequately allow access of emergency fire vehicles. The applicant or developer shall include in the building plans the required fire lanes and include the appropriate lane printing and/or signs. Page 11 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 59. An approved Fire Department access key lock box (Minimum Knox Box 3200 series model) shall be installed next to the approved Fire Department access door to the building. If the buildings are protected with an alarm system, the lock box shall be required to have tampered monitoring. Required order forms and installation standards may be obtain at the Fire Department. 60. Display street numbers in a prominent location on the address side of building(s) and/or rear access if applicable. Numbers and letters shall be a minimum of 12" in height for building(s) up to 25' in height. In complexes with alpha designations, letter size must match numbers. All addressing must be legible, of a contrasting color, and adequately illuminated to be visible from street at all hours. 61. Install a complete commercial fire sprinkler system (per NFPA 13 1999 Edition). Fire sprinkler systems) with pipe sizes in excess of 4" in diameter will require the project Structural Engineer to certify with a "wet signature", that the structural system is designed to support the seismic and gravity loads to support the additional weight of the sprinkler system. All fire sprinkler risers shall be protected from any physical damage. The PIV and FCD shall be located to the front, within 25 to 50 feet of hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s)'. Sprinkler riser room must have indicating exterior and/or interior door signs. A C-16 licensed contactor must submit plans, along with current $307.00 deposit based fee, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. Guideline handouts are available for the Fire Department. 62. Install an alarm monitoring system for fire sprinkler system(s) with 100 or more heads (20 or more in Group I, Division 1.1 and 1.2 occupancies). Valve monitoring, water -flow alarm and trouble signals shall be automatically transmitted to an approved central station, remote, station or proprietary monitoring station in accordance with 2001 CBC, Sec. 904.3.1 . An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm shall be provided on the exterior in an approved location and also in the interior in a normally occupied location. A C-10 licensed contractor must submit plans designed in accordance with NFPA 72, 1999 Edition, along with the current $192.00 deposit based fee, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. Guideline handouts are available from the Fire Department. 63. Install a portable fire extinguisher, with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC, for every 3,000 sq. ft.. and/or 75 feet of travel distance. Fire extinguishers shall be Page 12 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Conditions of Approval- Recommended Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 mounted 3.5. to 5 ft above finished floor, measured to the top of the extinguisher. Where not readily visible, signs shall be posted above all extinguishers to indicate their locations. Extinguishers must have current CSFM service tags affixed. 64. A UL 300 hood/duct fire extinguishing system must be installed over the cooking equipment. The extinguishing system must automatically shutdown gas and /or electricity to all cooking appliances upon activation. A C-16 licensed contractor must submit plans, along with the current permit fee, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. Alarm system supervision is,only required if the building has an existing fire alarm system. 65. No hazardous materials shall be stored and/or used within the building, which exceeds quantities listed in UBC Table 3-D and 3-E. No class I, II or IIIA of combustible/flammable liquid shall be used in any amount in the building. 66. Exit designs, exit signs, door hardware, exit markers, exit doors, and exit path marking shall, be installed per the 2001 California Building Code. 67. Electrical room doors if applicable shall be posted "ELECTRICAL ROOM" on outside of door. 68. Access shall be provided to all mechanical equipment located on the roof as required be the Mechanical Code. 69. Air handling systems supplying air in excess of 2000 cubic feet per minute to enclosed spaces within buildings shall be equipped with an automatic shutoff. Ref CIVIC 609.0 Page 13 of 13 - E"GII TARLOS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS DW MTML IRVIW, CA. 92614 FAX 049) 29 1N9) D 1 SOUPLANTATION 6, STAN NIGIWAY 11 TARLOS 6 ASSOCIATES j�JJ n o x z a c� O (7 m O r � z O '¢ye9 ®s3ggg ®999 ®¢y¢y ®p9e9 ®gggg 0 ®®9g9g �5C�p�55a ®®O99 ®99gg O¢9 p¢g 0gy gg®gg 555¢�¢5 9g9 fifigg5i5i5a gyg gggg 5g®5g ¢9e9 fi5 gySg® �5 9g6 gy9 a®R,, gg®gg yOi 5Yp 9y© ¢g® 5ii ¢9Q ¢®9 9O fip5555555 9y0 90y 9g0 9gp gg0 i5ifim g5g55fi aI III mII II III§ �$ aaaL�'�R� � a a� m4 a��p ��g� � 5 •� � Iq�p I I � ° 9 � � I I I • q g � � � p � I � � I a � � v g P qI 8 v° p9 5aI �� � a y I qR� 8 a9 g qY pp� pem �§ 4 F° d 9Be ¢¢� R 3 i a a Y R $A s58B 8 � a r I Y c 44GG45[ i Da C ! SOUPLANTATION ,,�qy ��nAa�d6l Dop�$U®4o. j° TARLOS - AssociATss- Awo^+^otn - ni U I LA QUW'A m fa�ednfeupn belay v • �u .m LAa GUIRTA, CWAYAU 0 1 O Cl� TARLOS A ASSOCIATES ®m 4 SOUPLANTATION ( , o e$!, » le l D / b��u� B� J��. ,; wElw �1 ! f X BLVi�MONW�Y IN �a adr wupe • bdary n.w. an wu �r wr..... ----e TARLOSuwuiI( e+ .el.dn .ouo.•bd.a SOUPLANTATION aiea D WOld di:Te.,.IA �iHi � � w � �. � � � :PJP:J://7..............:.-..-§ § RI 50UKANTATIION �..!p6 -� \ {\ ° \� a � � fl 28.2 p !k o 8 m yT § o cn N � O O r —O --0 D' L. TARL09 �waeocLwree 5 i� �� < SOUPLANTATION p b 1AQWl Burt MGWWAY ni F l��q ."J��(D IC 6lUL ����W. LA QUINtA. CA ..La.. uNe • b.b.y c 85 11 y I x $ n SOUPLANTATION uamxuracPo�Id6aYo0�'�;�ba.3 C ! TARLOS ! ASSOCIATES .wcn vcre exnoxuews ®� Ln 1 � ernre xiaxwer m ..I,d. • �„or. bak•n � LA OUINIA, CA ... rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtrrrreerrrrrr rjr r e e e e e rrrrrrrrrrrrrr a rr errrftrfreertrftreereferrrtertfifrertrfrrrertreefftffrr r Pdid f f III, tfdrerrtee?frr!e!rederdtrftetrefrrefrr ee e e r r f e e t et! eftr t4°- -mot-� rrrrr r e e e e It e e e e r e e e r f r e e r e e e e r e r e rrrr rrrr �t �f-ra rrrrrer If e e r r e r e r e e r r e r r e r e e rrrr s eery r�i errsr e o f tit tr�,lrrierea f-f�� r r i r r rrrirrrrrrrfr e e r e r er e arrftrr rr,trr -err rrtr+r�r rr nr�trirrrrrrr !Irrrerr f r y e r rr e e e e e e rr e t rrVlrl re rr p f re le -} dFr r: e f trrrrrrrrrrfre er e r[r p r rr rx -il "j'F r r rrr. r e e e e r e rr e e f r r fIf ee e� t rI+`'f'L•r " r.r'r-r.r e e r r . rrrrrt er r pp rrrr a >r.L.!....,.,.. e ari grr r,_c:.t e..r.rF r er er ee r e e e ee, r� e+ r;•I '�•'ererr kr err! 'r r r t"r r e e e r e e e r e rrr r� r C[t< e I e.. r e e e t r e f e ftrr� etrY tr r�r rrrtr- rrt eeter_ er r er er ee tftr �Y"t t r r Y �C C r ir-r r t t L .. r r r t e t f f f f r e e t r e a t t a. r f r r r r r tt ` 'r-r"r=e-" r r r r r e,1_t f_` 1-s- t t /[ r r d e r[ r e r!! f e e r r r e e e it tr ttrrrtr ee r_r eeer et rs L r rr tar r r rrrrr rrrr err rl +rr r r r td dr.r t- rt. r ttf frr tree ' -4t 4?rrrrrrY[ rf reef rt0rl rC rrY t r eYfr rrrrr re tef rffr e r r C t C C C l e + Y r e f tw zr rrYr� r rr� , [ -ks z r.errrai. r ! r r.•r r ttr r rrrrrt err- t r r- rryrrrrr ri r"r •. If If r�rdtt . '�rir rrr rrYr tr r_r r ,rrl f rtdt [rtrrrr t C' rr. I r :r re!d rtr rYrYrC a rr rear - rr ertj � err rrrrr +it t rr rrrrr Iz r 7 rr, rt• rem . r.. - Lr e r rr� r r'rrtrrrr rr `rr r rYt [rrertr rrrrr e� r Yrt rtrrrrrrrarrrrrrrrr re err r r rr. f e Y ,I e e t r ;`' rYr r rrI ![ud rrrr;t;Yprr:Yr felt[err.rtf[[L!�P[rl.f•.l{.t`tep Lr r ee rrY if trtr!fr le If reeler n• ff .. eel= :!rer:atrsrerrr:FT trr rrrr rr re r q q�[t[[ f ryrt[r fKlR ffrl`I I., S� { Y rrrrr -r[ 7-] r rrrrreerrrCf r• • " " " ! -err r Z rr sr_r=r=r=rr errerrr�rrs r_re err trt r rrrrrrrrrr .. re rr r[ r rc: r-r�r rrrPrrr;rrerrrrr{r etrrrer .�t I1 - ;drrr rerr[rr r r a". , r j.r leer rT7rr=-<1 e e rY -�; •rrrr r r:c r lr err r rt ,yl <.ca eet rre�rerY •r rr _ Ir[rr[ rr[� --t rrt: r rr re creel mr N Le Oulgte, CA 92263 ITS, LLC 247 Newport Beach, CA 92660 D 0 Z xNTATION SOUPLA i� TAiLLOS 6 ASSOOTES IAAwo..niore LA Cyypp��IA :A6CtJAD�61fPov \ � ai 0 y si�CCUM& C m J.d.•Muy.•b kM ,; •••.••••••••• v�v � awraew - ouw�ow SF ru"ine ri f k=� eaaviooeav v eowvi '� NOI1tl1NVldnos x Q qqp. wn •P°I°f inrirmigiHiivic ..�... ...,.. ..,........ 9 s} O BtlBBM�B 9,,• Blolnwonv i0 0 i eaiviooesv v ao�evi NOIIV1NV1dnos a G LOOZ 0 E 100 P9AlGOea u »2NOIIVINVidnos \\} }{} }\} \/ # LO w d E s R PH #3�\ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2007 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2007-094 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: AMEND LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 9, CHAPTER 9.60 TO MODIFY THE CITY'S DENSITY BONUS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES IN,ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW LOCATION: CITY-WIDE PROPERTY OWNER: NOT APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: SURROUNDING LAND USES: BACKGROUND: NOT APPLICABLE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA►. AND HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) AND SECTION 15282(H) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. NOT APPLICABLE The State has recently made a series of significant changes to the portion of the State Housing Law that provides density bonuses to housing projects that make a certain percentage of their units affordable to persons and families of very low-, low- and moderate -income. As a result of these changes, the City of La Quinta's current ordinance regarding density bonuses for affordable housing projects has become outdated. The proposed Code Amendment text, Attachment 1, is intended to bring the City's ordinance (LQMC Section 9.60.270) into compliance with the new State requirements. Previously, State law required a 25% increase in the density of a project when 10% to 20% of the project's total units met the low and moderate affordability requirements. The new law significantly increased incentives in a variety of ways and substantially restricts the City's discretionary authority to impose development standards and restrictions. PROPOSAL: The new legislation, SB 1818 (chaptered as Government Code Section 65915- 65918), which became effective January 1, 2005, requires cities and counties to revise their ordinances to bring them into conformity with these new State mandates. The new law significantly reduces the amount of units that a developer must provide to receive a density bonus and requires cities and counties to provide between one to three concessions, depending upon the percentage of affordable units that the developer provides. It also imposes a new land donation rule, mandatory density bonuses for qualified senior housing projects, mandatory density bonuses for affordable residential projects with a qualifying childcare facility, and State-wide parking standards that supercede local parking regulations for projects that include affordable housing components. In short, the new law imposes a number of far-reaching State mandates for projects qualifying for a density bonus. ANALYSIS The following is a breakdown of the eight areas of new requirements. 1. Primary Density Bonus Provisions In order to qualify for the density bonus program, a developer must provide a minimum level of affordable housing and must request the benefit of Section 65915. The number of affordable units that a developer must provide in order to receive a density bonus varies by level of affordability and is significantly reduced from prior law as follows: • If at least 5% of the units are affordable to very low-income households, the project is eligible for a minimum 20% density bonus. • If at least 10% of the units are affordable to low-income households, then the project is 'eligible for a minimum 20% density bonus. • If 10% of condominium or planned development units are affordable to moderate -income households, then the project is eligible to receive a 5% density bonus. In addition to these minimum thresholds, the new law enacts a "sliding scale" for additional affordable units, thus permitting developers to exceed the minimums noted above: • An additional 2.5% density bonus for each additional increase of 1 % very - low income units above the initial 5% threshold as illustrated in the following table. Percentage Very Low -Income Units Percentage . Density Bonus 5 20 6 22.5 7 25 8 27.5 9 30 10 32.5 11 35 (maximum) Sample Scenario: If a project is permitted a maximum total of 100 units per the property's zoning designation and the project proposes five (5) of those units as very low-income units, the project would receive a twenty percent (20%) density bonus over the original maximum allowed 100 units for a new total of 120 units allowed on the same property. • A density increase of 1.5% for each additional 1 % increase in low-income units above the initial 10% threshold. Percentage Low -Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 10 20 11 21.5 12 23 13 24.5 14 26 15 27.5 17 30.5 18 32 19 33.5 20 35 (maximum) • A 1 % density increase for each 1 % increase in moderate -income units above the initial 10% threshold. Percentage Moderate Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 10 5 11 6 12 7 13 8 14 9 15 10 16 11 17 12 18 13 19 14 20 15 21 16 22 17 23 18 24 19 25 20 26 21 27 22 28 23 29 24 30 25 31 26 32 27 33 28 34 29 35 30 36 31 37 32 38 33 39 34 40 35 (maximum) These bonuses reach a maximum density bonus of 35% when a project provides either 1 1 % very low-income units, 20% low-income units, or 40% moderate - income units. 2. Land Donation Additional density is available to projects that donate land for residential use. To qualify for this additional density, the land must satisfy all of the following requirements: • The applicant donates the land no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application. • The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being donated are sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to very low-income households in an amount not less than 10% of the number of residential units of the proposed development. • The donated land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units; has the appropriate General Plan designation; is appropriately zoned for development as affordable housing; is or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructure; and is zoned in a manner that makes the development of the affordable units feasible. Additionally, the land and units must be subjectto a recorded deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units. • The land is donated to the City or to a housing developer approved by the City. • The donated land shall be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if the City agrees in writing, within one -quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed -development. If these conditions are met, the applicant shall be entitled to a 15% increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan for the entire housing development. This increase shall be in addition to any increase in mandated density, up to a maximum combined mandated density increase of 35%. Sample Scenario: Using the previous scenario, if the project donates to the City enough land to yield ten very low affordable units (10% of original 100 units), the project will receive an additional bonus of 15 units (15% of original 100 units) in addition to the initial bonus of 20 units for a new overall total of 135 units. 3. Parking Standards If a project qualifies for a density bonus, the developer may request (and the City must grant) new parking standards for the entire residential development project (i.e., not just for the affordable units or the density bonus units). The new standards are: • zero to one bedroom - one onsite parking space; two to three bedrooms - two onsite parking spaces; and • four or more bedrooms - two and one-half onsite parking spaces. These ratios apply to guest parking as well as handicapped parking and may be tandem, uncovered, or located on a private street within the perimeter of the project's site plan. Parking spaces on a public street, adjacent to the project or otherwise, cannot be counted. For a comparison of these ratios, the City's standard parking ratios and those applied to a previously approved affordable housing project (Dune Palms, CVHC), please see the following table. To facilitate the comparison, the sample scenario project, which has grown to 135 units based on potential density bonuses, is used to show how the three alternative set of standards would be applied. Standard Requirements 1 covered resident space + .5 guest space per unit 1.2 covered resident spaces + .5 guest space per unit 2 covered resident spaces + .5 guest space per unit 3 covered resident spaces + .5 covered resident spaces for each bedroom over 3 + .5 guest space per unit Sample Scenario (135 units with 35 277 covered resident spaces + 68 guest spaces equaling 345 total 1BRs/65 2BRs/35 spaces (2.55 spaces per unit) Approved Affordable Housing Project (Dune Palms — based on existing CVHC Sample Scenario (135 units with 35 1 BRs/65 2BRs/35 New State Requirement (proposed 1.5 covered resident spaces + .5 guest space per unit 1.5 covered resident spaces + .5 guest space per unit 1.5 covered resident spaces + .5 guest space per unit 1.5 covered resident spaces + .5 guest space per unit 203 covered resident spaces + 68 guest spaces equaling 271 total spaces (2 spaces per unit) 1 space* 11 space* 12 spaces* 12 spaces* Sample Scenario (135 units with 35 175 total spaces* (1.75 spaces per unit) 1 BRs/65 2BRs/35 3BRs) ll * includes handicappetl spaces; uest spaces and may be tandem and uncovered 4. Continued Affordability The continued affordability requirements for very low and low-income units have not changed. However, there are new requirements for moderate -income units that are (i) for -sale, and (ii) part of a common interest development. The new law specifies that the city or county must ensure that the "initial occupants" of qualifying moderate -income units meet the income qualifications. This is done through a new mechanism of "equity sharing" agreements. Upon resale of the moderate -income units in a common interest development, the. seller retains the down payment, the value of any improvements, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. The City recaptures its proportionate share of appreciation and those funds must be used within three years to promote lower or moderate -income home ownership. .In this regard, the State law substantially differs from our existing Code provision. The proposed Ordinance meets the new requirements while maintaining the City's ability to demand a right of first refusal in the event a qualifying moderate -income unit is sold. The proposed Ordinance is drafted to retain, as much as possible consistent with State law, the affordability restrictions that presently exist in the Municipal Code for affordable units other than moderate -income units for sale in common interest developments. With respect to moderate -income units that are in common interest developments, State law imposes the conditions described above and the proposed Ordinance is consistent with those conditions. 5. Concessions or Incentives The City must grant one or more "concessions or incentives" reducing development standards, depending on the percentage of affordable units provided. "Concessions and incentives" include reductions in zoning standards, other development standards, design requirements, mixed use zoning, and any other incentive that would reduce costs for the developer. Any project that meets the minimum criteria for a density bonus is entitled, as a matter of right under State law, to one concession from the City, increasing up to a maximum of three concessions depending upon the amount of affordable housing provided. Again, the number of concessions or incentives granted takes the form of a sliding scale: For projects that provide either 5% of the units affordable to very low- income households, 10% of the units affordable to lower income households, or 10% moderate -income common interest development households, then the developer is entitled to a minimum of one concession. • When the number of affordable units is increased to 10% very low-income units, 20% lower income units, or 20% moderate -income units, then the developer is entitled to a minimum of two concessions. • When the number of affordable units is increased to 15% very low-income, 30% lower income, or 30% moderate -income units, then the number of minimum concessions is increased to three. There are some limits on concessions. The City shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the City makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of either of the following: The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs or for rents for the targeted units; or The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact, as defined in the Government Code. For instance, if the developer asks for a concession to a zoning standard, such as a height limitation, the City may deny the request if it shows that the additional height would have an adverse impact on the surrounding uses. This finding would need to be supported by evidence showing how the additional height would be detrimental. 6. Waivers and Modifications of Development Standards The City may not impose a "development standard" that makes it infeasible to construct the housing development with the proposed density bonus. In addition to requesting "incentives and concessions," applicants may request the waiver of an unlimited number of "development standards"; however, the applicant must show that the waivers are needed to make the project economically feasible. As mentioned with the general concessions, a waiver of development standards may be denied if either of the following findings is made and supported by sufficient evidence in the record: • The waiver/modification is not required to make the proposed affordable housing units feasible; or . • The waiver/modification will have a specific adverse impact. 7. Senior Citizen Projects Qualified senior citizen projects shall receive a 20% density bonus. Qualified senior developments include "senior citizen housing developments", with a minimum of 35 dwelling units or a mobile -home park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older. 8. Bonuses for Childcare Facilities A developer may qualify for a density bonus by providing a childcare center (not a family daycare home) within or adjacent to the development. Where the development otherwise qualifies for a density bonus, and the developer agrees to include a childcare facility onsite or adjacent to the site, the developer is entitled to an additional density bonus in the amount of the square footage of the childcare or an additional concession or incentive if that concession or incentive contributes to the economic feasibility of construction of the childcare facility. Where a childcare facility is provided in conjunction with the granting of a density bonus, the following, provisions apply: The childcare facility shall be operable at least as long as the affordable units are required to remain affordable; • The children attending the childcare center are required to qualify based on household income in the same percentage as the percentage of affordable housing in the development in accordance with the proportional affordability level; • The number of children at each affordability level must be the same or greater than the percentage required. If a finding can be made that there is sufficient childcare facilities in the community, no concession or density bonus is required to be given. Notably, the statute provides no guidance as to how these findings and requirements (some of which are inherently impractical, if not impossible, to enforce) are to be made or enforced. Sample Scenario Summary Through the application of the new State mandated changes, the project which started as a 100 unit development has grown to include 135 units with a 12.5% reduction of required parking from previously approved affordable housing projects. Additionally, the project may be entitled to a further bonus if providing a childcare facility onsite or adjacent to the project and the applicant may also request additional concessions such as reduced setbacks and height requirements as wall as other design standards. PUBLIC NOTICE This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 2, 2007. To date, no letters have been received. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the Planning Department. Applicable comments have been included in the proposed Amendment. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of this Amendment can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007- recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2007-094 to the City Council. Exhibits: 1. Proposed Code Amendment Text Prepared by: David Sawyer Planning Manager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2007-094, TO MODIFY THE CITY'S DENSITY BONUS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2007-094 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 13" of November, 2007, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a Zoning Code Amendment to modify the City's density bonus and affordable housing incentives in accordance with State law; and WHEREAS, said Zoning Code Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (CEQA) as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Planning Department has reviewed the Amendment under the provisions of CEQA, and has determined that the Amendment is exempt pursuant to Chapter 2.6, Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act Statutes, and Section 15061(B)(3), Review for Exemptions of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 02, 2007, as prescribed by the Municipal Code and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Amendment: 1. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, insofar as it amends the Zoning Code to be consistent with California requirements for affordable housing projects; and allows for the continued development of a wide range of housing opportunities in the City. 2. Approval of the Zoning Code Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will have no impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Zonin Ordinance Amendment 2007-094 9 Density Bonus — Affordable Housing November 13, 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 constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2007-094 as set forth in Exhibit 1 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 13`h day of November, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON,, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta EXHIBIT 1 Section 9.60.270: DENSITY BONUSES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING A. Purpose and Application B. Definitions C. Qualifications for Density Bonus and Incentives and Concessions D. Continued Affordability E. Incentives and Concessions F. Waiver/Modification of Development Standards G. Specified Density Bonus Percentages H. Land Donation I. Child Care Facilities J. Condominium Conversions K. By -Right Parking Incentives L. Application and Review Procedures A. Purpose and Application. The purpose of this Section is to (i) establish procedures for implementing State density bonus requirements, as set forth in California Government Code Section 65915, as amended, (ii) increase the production of affordable housing, consistent with the City's, goals, objectives, and policies and (iii) implement the provisions of the City's General Plan Housing Element policies and programs relating to the provision of affordable housing. When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development, or for the donation of land for housing, within the City's jurisdiction, the City shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for the production of housing units and child care facilities as prescribed in this Section 9.60.270. B. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Section: 1. "Affordable housing cost" bears the same meaning as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. 2. "Affordable housing unit" means a dwelling unit within a housing development which will be rented or sold to and reserved for very low- income households, low-income households, moderate -income households (where qualified) and/or senior citizens at an affordable housing cost for the respective group(s) in accordance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code and this Section 9.60.270. 3. "Affordable rent" means that level of rent defined in Section 50053 of the California Health and Safety Code. 4. "Applicant" means a developer or applicant for a density bonus pursuant to Government Code Section '65915, subdivision (b), of the Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 California Government Code and Subsection C of this Section 9.60.270. 5. "Child care facility" means a child day care facility other than a family day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and schoolage child care centers. 6. "Common interest development" bears the same meaning as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code. 7. "Density bonus" means a density increase. over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element of the General Plan as of the date of application by the applicant to the City. 8. "Development standard" means site or construction conditions that apply to a housing development pursuant to any ordinance, General Plan Element, Specific Plan, Charter Amendment, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. 9. "Housing development," means one or more groups of projects for residential units in the planned development of the City. "Housing development" also includes a subdivision or common interest development, as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code, approved by the City and consisting of residential units or unimproved residential lots and either a project to substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use or the substantial rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 65863.4, where the result of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential units. 10. "Lower -income households" bears the same meaning as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. 11. "Maximum allowable residential density" means the density allowed under applicable Zoning Ordinances, or if a, range of density is permitted, means the maximum allowable density for the specific zoning range applicable to the subject project. Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 12. "Moderate -Income" or "persons and families of moderate -income" means those middle -income families as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code. 13. "Qualified mobilehome park" means a mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the California Civil Code. 14. "Senior citizen housing development' means senior citizen housing as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the California Civil Code. 15. "Specific adverse impact" means any adverse impact as defined in Paragraph (2), Subdivision (d), of Government Code Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to low- and moderate -income households. 16. "Very low-income households" bears the same meaning as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. C. Qualifications for Density Bonus and Incentives and Concessions. 1. The City shall grant one density bonus as specified in Subsection G of this Section, and incentives or concessions as described in Subsection E, when an applicant seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this Section 9.60.270, that will contain at least any one of the following: a. Ten percent (10%) of the total units of the housing development as affordable housing units affordable to lower - income households; or b. Five percent (5%) of the total units of the housing development as affordable housing units affordable to very low-income households; or C. A senior citizen housing development; or d. A qualified mobilehome park; or Planning Commission Resolution 2007-' Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 e. Ten percent (10%) of the total units of a common interest development as affordable housing '.units affordable to moderate -income households, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase subject to the restrictions specified in this Section. 2. As used in Subsection (C)(1) of this Section, the term "total units" does not include units permitted by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this Section or any other local law granting a greater density bonus. 3. Election of Density Bonus Category. Each applicant who requests a density bonus pursuant to this Section 9.60.270 shall elect whether the bonus shall be awarded on the basis of Subparagraph a, b, c, d or e of Subsection C(1)• Each housing development is entitled to only one density bonus, which may be selected based on the percentage of either very low affordable housing units, low-income affordable housing units or moderate -income affordable housing units, or the development's status as a senior citizen housing development or qualified mobilehome park. Density bonuses from more than one category may not be combined. 4. Previous Density Bonuses. The density bonus provisions shall not apply to any parcel or project area which has previously been granted increased density through a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change or other permit to facilitate affordable housing. D. Continued Affordability. 1. Prior,to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling unit, an applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the City to ensure and guarantee the continued affordability of all low- and very low- income units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus for a period of 30 years or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. Rents for affordable housing units for lower -income households shall be set at an affordable rent. Owner -occupied affordable housing units shall be available at an affordable housing cost. a. The terms and conditions of the agreement shall run with the land, shall be binding upon all successors in interest of the applicant, and shall be recorded in the office of the Riverside County Recorder. Planning Commission Resolution 2007-_ Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 b. The agreement shall also include the following provisions: i. The applicant shall grant the City the continuing right of refusal to purchase or lease any or all of the designated units at fair market value; ii. The deeds to the designated units shall contain a covenant stating that the applicant or the applicant's successor in interest shall not sell, rent, lease, sublet, assign, or otherwise transfer (whether voluntarily, involuntarily or by operation of law) any interest in such unit without written approval of the City, confirming that the sales price or lease/rent amount of the unit is consistent with the limits established for low- and very low-income households as adjusted by the Consumer Price Index; and iii. The City shall also_ have the authority to enter into other agreements with the applicant or purchases or lessees of the dwelling units as may be necessary to assume that the designated dwelling units are continuously occupied by eligible households. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling unit, an applicant shall agree to, and the City shall ensure, that the initial occupant of moderate -income units that are related to the receipt of the density bonus in a common interest development, are persons and families of moderate -income and that the units are offered at an affordable housing cost. With respect to moderate -income units in a common interest development, the City shall require the applicant to enter and shall enforce an equity -sharing agreement, unless it is in conflict with the requirements of another public funding source or law. The following shall apply to the equity -sharing agreement: a. Upon resale, the seller of the moderate -income unit in a common interest development unit shall retain the value of any improvements, the down payment, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. The City shall recapture any initial subsidy and its proportionate share of appreciation, which shall then be used within three years for any of the purposes that promote homeownership as described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the California Health and Safety Code. Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 b. For purposes of this Subsection D(2), the City's initial subsidy shall be equal to the fair market value of the moderate -income unit in a common interest development at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate -income household, plus the amount of any down payment assistance or mortgage assistance. If upon resale the market value is lower than the initial market value, then the value at the time of the resale shall be used as the initial market value. C. For purposes of this Subsection D(2), the City's proportionate share of appreciation shall be equal to the ratio of the initial subsidy to the fair market value of the moderate -income unit in a common interest development at the time of initial sale. d. The applicant shall grant the City a right of first refusal to purchase any or all of the designated units at fair market value, which right of first refusal shall apply to subsequent sellers: E. Incentives and Concessions. 1. An applicant for a density bonus may also submit to the City a proposal for specific incentives or concessions in exchange for the provision of affordable housing units in accordance with this Section 9.60.270. The applicant may also request a meeting with the City to discuss such proposal. The City shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the City makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of either of the following: a. The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in Subsection D hereof (i.e., the applicant is unable to demonstrate that the waiver or modification is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible); or b. iThe concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact. 2. If the conditions of Subsection C and Subparagraph 1 of this Subsection E are met by an applicant, the City may grant an applicant applying for incentives or concessions the following number of incentives or concessions: Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 a. One incentive or concession for housing developments that include: At least ten percent (10%) of the total units affordable to lower -income households; or at least five percent (5%) of the total units affordable to very low-income households; or at least ten percent (10%) of the total units affordable to persons and families of moderate -income in a common interest development. b. Two incentives or concessions for housing developments that include: At least twenty percent (20%) of the total units affordable to lower -income households; or at least ten percent (10%) of the total units affordable to very low-income households; or at least twenty percent (20%) of the total units affordable to persons and families of moderate -income in a common interest development. C. Three incentives or concessions for housing developments that include: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total units for lower -income households; or at least fifteen percent (15%) for very low-income households; or at least thirty percent (30%) for persons and families of moderate -income in a common interest development. 3. For the purposes of this Section 9.60.270, available concessions or incentives may include any of the following: a. A reduction in site development standards or a modification of Zoning Code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the California Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. b. Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing development if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing development will be located. Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Aff orclable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 . c. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the applicant or the City that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. d. For purposes of this Section 9.60.270, the parking ratios _set forth in Government Code section 65915 (and Subsection K of this Section 9.60.270) for qualified affordable housing projects shall be deemed a concession or incentive available to the applicant. 4. This Subsection E does not limit or require the provision of direct financial incentives for the housing development, including the provision of publicly -owned land, by the City or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. Nor does any provision of this Subsection require the City to grant an incentive or concession found to have a specific adverse impact. 5. The granting of a concession or incentive shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, or other discretionary approval. 6. The application and review process for a proposal of incentives and concessions is set forth in Subsection L hereof. F. Waiver/Modification of Development Standards. 1. Applicants may, by application, seek a waiver, modification or reduction of development standards that will otherwise preclude or inhibit the use of density bonus units in a housing development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this Section 9.60.270. The applicant may also request a meeting with the City to discuss such request for waiver/modification. In order to obtain a waiver/modification of development standards, the applicant shall show that (i) the waiver or modification is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible, and (ii) that the development standards will have the effect of precluding the construction of a housing development meeting the criteria of Subsection C(1), at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this Section 9.60.270. 2. Nothing in this Subsection F shall be interpreted to require the City to waive, modify or reduce development standards if the wavier, modification or reduction would have a specific adverse impact. Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 3. The application and review process for a waiver/modification of development standards is set forth in Subsection L hereof. G. Specified Density Bonus Percentages. Only housing developments consisting of five (5) or more dwelling units are eligible for the density bonus percentages provided by this Subsection G. The amount of density bonus to which the applicant is entitled shall vary according to the amount by which the percentage of affordable housing units exceeds the percentage established in Subsection C(1). 1. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Subsection C(1), Subparagraph a, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: Percentage Low- Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 10 20 11 21.5 12 23 13 24.5 14 26 15 27.5 17 30.5, 18 32 19 33.5 20 35 (maximum) 2. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Subsection CM, Subparagraph b, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density. Bonus 5 20 6 22.5 7 25 8 27.5 9 30 10 32'.5 11 35 (maximum) Planning Commission Resolution 2007-_ Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 3. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Subsection C(1), Subparagraphs c and d, the density bonus shall be twenty percent (20%). 4. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Subsection CO), Subparagraph e, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: Percentage Moderate Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 10 5 11 6 12 7 13 8 14 9 15 10 16 11 17 12 18 13 19 14 20 15 21 16 22 17 23 18 24 19 25 20 26 21 27 22 28 23 29 24 30 25 31 26 32 27 33 28 34 29 35 30 36 ; . 31 37 32 38 33 39 34 40 35 (maximum) Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 5. An applicant may elect to accept a lesser percentage of density bonus than that to which the applicant is entitled under this Section 9.60.270. All density bonus calculations resulting in a fractional number shall be rounded upwards to the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Change, or other discretionary approval. 6. For the purpose of calculating a density bonus, the residential units do not have to be based upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. The density: bonus shall be permitted in geographic areas of the. housing development other than the areas where the units for the lower - income households are located. 7. The application and review process for a density bonus as provided by this section is set forth in Subsection L hereof. H. Land Donation. When a developer of a housing development donates land to the City as provided for in this Subsection H, the applicant shall be entitled to a fifteen percent (15%) increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan for the entire housing development, as follows: Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 10 15 11 16 12 17 13 18 14 19 15 20 16 21 17 22 18 23 19 24 20 25 21 26 22 27. 23 28 24 29 25 30 Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 26 31 27 32 28 33 29 134 30 35 (maximum) This increase shall be in addition to any increase in density mandated by Subsection C, up to, a maximum combined mandated density increase of thirty-five percent (35%), if an applicant seeks both the increase required pursuant to this Subsection I and Subsection C. All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. Nothing in this Subsection shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the city's authority to require an applicant to donate land as a condition of development. 1. An applicant shall be eligible for the increased density bonus described in this section if the city is able to make all the following findings: a. The applicant donates and transfers the land no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application. b. The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to very low income households in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the number of residential units of the proposed development. C. The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least forty (40) units, has the appropriate general plan designation, is appropriately zoned for development as affordable housing, and is or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructure. The land shall have appropriate zoning and development standards to make the development of the affordable units feasible. No later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or development application for the housing development, the transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than building permits, necessary for the development of Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 very low-income housing units on the transferred land, except that the City may subject the proposed development to subsequent design review to the extent authorized by subdivision (i) of Government Code Section 65583.2 if the design is not reviewed by the local government prior to the time of transfer. d. The transferred land and the very low-income units constructed on the land will be subject to a deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units consistent with this Section 9.60.270, which restriction will be recorded on the property at the time of dedication. e. The land is transferred to the City or to a housing developer approved by the City. The City may require the applicant to identify and transfer the land to such City -approved developer. f. The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the 'proposed development or, if the City agrees in writing, within one -quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development. 2. The application and review process for a donation of land and related density bonus is set forth in Subsection L hereof. I. Child Care Facilities. 1. When an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that includes affordable units as specified in Subsection C and includes a child care facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to such housing development, the City shall grant either of the following if requested by the developer. a. An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of ,residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the child care facility. b. An additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility. 2. A housing development shall be eligible for the density bonus or concession described in this Subsection if the City, as a condition of Planning Commission Resolution 2007-_ Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 approving the housing development, requires all of the following to occur: a. The child care facility will remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the affordable housing units are required to remain affordable pursuant to Subsection D. b. Of the children who attend the child care facility, the percentage of children of very low-income households, low- income households, or moderate -income households shall be equal to or greater than the percentage of affordable housing units that are proposed to be affordable to very low-income households, low-income households, or moderate -income households. C. Notwithstanding any requirement of this Subsection I, the City shall not be required to provide a density bonus or concession for a child care facility if it finds, based 'upon substantial evidence, that the community already has adequate child care facilities. 3. The application and review process for the provision of child care facilities and related density bonus or concessions or incentives is set forth in Subsection L hereof. J. Condominium Conversions. Any developer converting condominiums of a Housing Development of five units or more who seeks a density bonus, shall make such application in conjunction with its tract map application pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 9.60.260 of this Code and consistent with Government Code Section 65915.5. Any appeal of any concession or incentive or review by the Planning Commission or City Council shall automatically require an appeal of the underlying map to that body. An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other incentives under this Section if the apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus or other incentives were provided under Government Code Section 65915. K. By -Right Parking Incentives. Housing developments meeting any of the criteria of Subsection CM, shall be granted the following maximum parking ratios, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, which shall apply to the entire development, not just the restricted affordable units, when requested by a developer: Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 Zero to one bedroom dwelling unit: one onsite parking space; ii. Two to three bedrooms dwelling unit: two onsite parking spaces; iii. Four or more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces. If the total number of spaces required results in a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this Subsection K, a development may provide "onsite parking" through tandem parking or uncovered parking or on streets within the perimeter of the project's site plan, but not through on -street parking on a public street that is not part of a project's site plan. L. Application and Review Procedures 1. A written application for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or modification pursuant to this. Section 9.60.270 shall be submitted with the first application that is submitted for approval of a housing development and processed concurrently with all other applications required for the housing development. Notwithstanding any other requirements, affordable housing projects processed under this Section shall require approval of a conditional use permit, subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 65589.5(d). The application shall be submitted on a form prescribed by the City and shall include at least the following information:.; a. Site plan showing total number of units, number and location of affordable housing units, and number and location of proposed density bonus units. b. Level of affordability of affordable housing units and proposals for ensuring affordability. c. A specific description of any requested incentives, concessions, waivers or modifications of development standards, or modified parking standards. The application shall include evidence that the requested incentives and concessions are required for the provision of affordable housing costs and/or affordable rents, as well as evidence relating to any other factual findings required under Subsection E. d. If a density bonus or concession is requested in connection with a land donation, the application shall show the location of the Planning Commission Resolution 2007- Exhibit 1 Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives November 13, 2007 land to be dedicated and provide evidence that each of the findings included in Subsection H can be made. e. If a density bonus or concession/incentive is requested for a childcare facility, the application shall show the location and square footage of the child care facilities and provide evidence that each of the findings included Subsection I can be made. 2. An application for a density bonus, incentive or concession pursuant to this Section 9.60.270 shall be considered by and acted upon by the approval body with authority to approve the housing development and subject to the same administrative appeal procedure, if any. In accordance with State law, neither the granting of . a concession, incentive, waiver, or modification nor the granting of a density bonus shall be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Variance, or other discretionary approval. 3. For housing developments requesting a waiver, modification or reduction of a development standard, an application pursuant to this subdivision shall be heard by the Planning Commission. A public hearing shall be held by the Planning Commission and the Commission shall issue a determination. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, the Planning Commission shall approve the requested waiver/modification or reduction of development standards, unless one of the following conditions applies: a. The waiver/modification is not required to make the proposed affordable housing units feasible; or b. The waiver/modification will have a specific adverse impact. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in the manner provided in Section 9.200.120 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 4. Notice of any City determination pursuant to this Section shall be provided to the same extent as required for the underlying development approval