1984 03 13 PCAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting to be held at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado,
La Quinta, California
March 13, 1984 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Flag Salute
2. ROLL CALL
SPECIAL REPORT
Report fran City Attorney Regarding Development Processing
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3. HEARINGS
A. General Plan Amendment No. 84-002, a request to amend the Open Space
and Conservation Element fran Agriculture to Urban and to amend the
Circulation Element deleting Jefferson Street between Avenues 54 and
58 and deleting Airport Boulevard (Avenue 56) between Jefferson and
Madison Street.
1. Report fran Principal Planner.
2. Notion for Adoption.
B. Specific Plan No. 83-002, a request by LML Development Corporation
of California to construct a private ccnvunity on 1,665± acres with
5,000 residential dwellings, four 18-hole golf courses, 35 acres of
office and retail general commercial and a 65-acre resort village.
The resort village will contain 400 hotel units, 250 apartment/
condcminium-units and a major fitness and recreation center. 'Total
buildout is projected to occur in ten phases over a fifteen -year to
twenty-year period.
1. Report from Principal Planner.
2. Motion for Adoption-
C. Change of Zone Case No. 84-007, a request by LML Development Corporation
to change the existing zoning fran A-1-10, A-1-20 and w-2-20 to R-2,
R-3, R-3 (75' height limit), R-5 and CPS.
1. Report from Principal Planner.
2. Motion for Adoption-
D. Request for Certification of the EnvirOmlental I"Pact Report prepared
by UU, Development Corporation of California for Specific Plan No.
83-002.
1. Report from Principal Planner. I „
2. Notion for Adoption.
AGENDA - PLANNING COMMISSION
March 13, 1984
Page Two.
E. Request for approval of a Development Agreanent proposed by LML
Development Corporation of California for Specific Pic/No. 83-002.
1. Report from Principal Planner. py r
2. Motion for Adoption. 4
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of minutes
fran regular meeting of February
14,
1984
5. BUSINESS
A. Tentative Tract Map No. 14496 - Revised, a request for an extension
of time in which to file the final map; Anden Corporation, Applicant.
1. Report fran Principal Planner.
2. Motion for Adoption.
C� _)� B. Tentative Tract Map No. 13640 - Amended No. 2, a request for an
extension of time in which to file a final map; M. B. Johnson
Properties, Applicant.
1. Report fran Principal Planner.
2. Motion for Adoption.
C. Plot Plan No. 84-042, a request to construct a single-family house
along the west side of Avenida Diaz, south of Calle Madrid; Michael
Head, Applicant.
1. Report from Principal Planner.
2. Motion for Adoption.
D. Plot Plan No. 84-054, a request to construct a single-family house
along the west side of Avenida Madero, south of Calle Chillon; Flick
and Laurie Johnson, Applicants.
1. Report from Principal Planner.
2. Motion for Adoption.
E. Communication from the La Quinta City Council regarding the appointment
of a representative to the Downtown Advisory Planning Cocmittee.
1. Motion for Adoption.
ITEM NO. / �•
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS
THORNBURGH
SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SAIAS
THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL
CO'•iffSSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN
ABSENT PRESENT
v
GOETCHEUS
/
IMKAMP
-✓
THORNBURGH -
-
SALAS -
KLIMKIEWICZ
-
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES
NO
ITEM NO. �. A
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
I*
MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SAI.AS THORNBURGH }
.�
SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ THORNBURGH
ROLL CALL VOTE:
COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
GOETCHEUS -
IMKAMP -
THORNBURGH -
SANS -
KLTIIKIEWICZ
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
MEMORANDUM
4� CITY OF LA QUINTA
w
0FTtff�wS
To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Sandra Bonner, Principal Planner
Date: March 13, 1984
Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT No. 84-002, a request to amend the La Quinta General
Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements, and to amend the Riverside County
Ccanprehensive General Plan open Space and Conservation Element and
Circulation Element (on that portion of the site to be annexed) to allow
for the proposed development of Specific Plan No. 83-002, 'Oak Tree West;"
LML Development Corporation of California, Applicant.
The 1665± acre site is generally bounded by 54th Avenue on the north, 58th Avenue
on the south, the Coachella Canal and Lake Cahuilla on the west and Madison Street
on the east. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with a major residential,
recreational and resort project oriented around four 18-hole golf courses, one of
which will be specifically designed for tournments. The project will contain 5000
single-family dwellings, a 65-acre resort village and a 35-acre general ccnu ercial
center. The resort village area will contain 250 apartments/condominiums, a 400
room hotel and a major recreation center. The La Quinta city limits currently
divide the site along Jefferson Street, with 438 acres being within the city and
1227 acres being within the unincorporated county area.
Amenchnent to the La Quinta General Plan
The La Quinta General Plan, as adopted from the Riverside County Coachella -Thermal -
Indio General Plan, designates the land use of the incorporated portion of the -site
as Very Low Density Residential Q or less units/acre). The Applicant requests that
the Land Use Element designation be amended to Low Density Residential (3 to 5 units/
acre) to allow for the proposed project's density of 3.2 units per acre.
In addition, the Applicant requests an amendrrent.to the Circulation Element deleting
Jefferson Street between 54th Avenue and 58th Avenue. If this is approved, it would
allow the applicant to apply to the City for the abandonment of this road section.
Pre -Annexation Amendment to the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan
As stated in the City Attorney's legal analysis of the proposed development, since
the major portion of the site is located in unincorporated territory, a pre -annex-
ation amendment to the county plan is necessary. This amendment will automatically
become the city's general plan upon annexation of the site.
'_�1 6 ( � �
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING OONAIISSION
March 13, 1984
Page Two
At the time that this application was submitted to the City, the unincorporated
Portion of the site was governed by the Coachella -Thermal -Indio General Plan, the
same plan which was adopted by La Quinta. The Land Use Element designation of the
site was Very Low Density Residential (3 or less units/acre), Agricultural Estate -
Non -Urban (1 unit/2h acres) and Agricultural Reserve (1 unit/20 acres). The Appli-
cant requested an amendment to 1192 acres of Law Density Residential and 35 acres
Of General Comiercial. In addition, the Applicant requested that the Open Space
and Conservation Element designation on the site, which was Urban and Agricultural
Areas, be amended to Urban Area for the entire site. Lastly, the Applicant request-
ed that the Circulation Element be amended deleting both Jefferson Street between
54th Avenue and 58th Avenue and Airport Boulevard (56th Avenue) between Jefferson
Street and Madison street.
On March 6, 1984 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted a major amendment
to the co nty's general plan. In place of the large number of comnmity plans, such
as the Coachella -Thermal -Indio General Plan, the newly adopted plan is a single
comprehensive document establishing uniform designations and standards for the unin-
corporated areas throughout the entire county. This plan has no map designating
general land uses for areas; instead, the Open Space and Conservation Element map
designates areas within the county with those important resources and natural hazards
which are to be preserved as open space or to be conserved for resource development.
In the case of this site, the element designates the area as Agricultural Area with
a mininnun parcel size of 10 acres. Obviously, this designation prohibits the develop-
ment of the proposed project.
Therefore, the first step is to amend the Open Space and Conservation Element from
Agricultural Area to Urban Area. Then the determination of both the type and the
intensity of the allowed land uses is based upon the review of the environmental
hazards and resources, consideration of the camunity policies as stated for the
Coachella Valley, and analysis of the Land Use Element's standards and locational
policies for land use categories and specific land uses (see attachment). In this
case, the criteria for Category II - Urban apply to the site. These standards will
determine if the proposed uses and residential densities are allowed under the
general plan. There has been no change to the process for amending the Circulation
Element as requested by the Applicant.
••••• M9 • 171 11 loll9 NO 081 91••
An important point to remember during the amendment process is that while the plan
is intended to provide long-range guidelines for the future development of the city,
it is also intended to be a dynamic plan which responds to changes in the c.-orunity.
The amendment process recognizes that the physical, social and economic conditions
constantly change. It is the responsibility of the Planning Comussion and City
Council to review and analyse these changes in light of the cm minity's goals and
it is the City Council's responsibility to adopt those amendments which, based upon
the Council's reasonable discretion, are in the best interests of the city.
'.,J 1.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CSSION
March 13, 1984
Page Three
The format of this section will be as follows: First, the amendment to the
Riverside County open Space Element will be discussed. Secondly, the project
will be reviewed with respect to the Land Use Element criteria to determine its
ampliance. Next, the amendment to the La Quinta Land Use Element will be
reviewed. Lastly, the amendments to the Circulation Elements will be discussed.
Proposed Amendment to the Riverside County Open Space and Conservation Element
There are several important factors which support an amendment from Agricultural
Area to Urban Area.
First, it would be logical to designate the area adjacent to the City limits as
urban since it is reasonable to assume the City will grow in the future. The
primary reason for Riverside County designating this area as Agricultural Area is
that La Quinta currently has no Sphere of Influence showing the area of future
growth of the City.
The second and most important reason is that although the area is still in agri-
cultural production, the land ownership pattern and land costs strongly indicate
that this area along Jefferson Street is already committed to future urban develop-
ment. Following Coachella Valley Water District's designation of the future site
of a major wastewater treatment facility near Madison Street and 60th Avenue, land
speculators began purchasing property in the area of Jefferson and Madison Streets
in anticipation of the sewer lines which would be extended northward from the plant.
The price paid for land by these non -farming interests was and is significantly
higher than the lands value for agricultural use. As a general rule of thumb,
when the price for row crop land in this area exceeds $3,000, it becomes increasingly
difficult for the land to be farmed and earn enough money to cover the costs of loans
on land and equipment, farming expenses and still earn a reasonable return on the
investment.
The process described above has the following impacts which directly affect the
future use of the land for agriculture. First, farmers who wish to purchase the
land have been priced out of the market. Secondly, the non -farming interests
who own the property are not committed to the continued long-term farming of the
land because they,like the farmers, cannot farm the higher priced land at a
profit. Even renting the land to farmers at the current rate of $100-$200 per
acre will not cover the cost of the loans on this land. Thus, the land is
omTnitted to future urbanization.
Please note that the process described above began prior to the Applicant purchasing
the Oak Tree West site. In fact, almost all the property included in the project
had already been bought and sold by other non -farming interests prior to the
Applicant's purchase of the site.
The last factor supporting the amendment from Agricultural Area to Urban Area
is that it would make a uniform designation on both the City and County portions
of the site.
Determination of the Riverside County Land Use Element Designation
Following review of the environment characteristic and constraints on the site
as described in the project Environmental Impact Report, staff determined that
March
113, 11984 PLANNING C QISSION
Page Four �Y
Category II (Urban) land uses can be located on the site. As discussed in the
attached excerpt from the Riverside County General Plan, this category includes
a broad mix of land uses including residential (2-8 units/acre) and �rcial.
This category is appropriate for land with incorporated areas and within the City's
sphere of influence. The project complies with the Water and Sewer policies;
Coachella Valley Water District has stated in writing that water and sewer service
Will be available to the development. The project also complies with the circu-
lation policies; the site is located adjacent to arterial, major and secondary
highways, and the conditions of approval will ensure that the level of service
on the affected streets will meet or be higher than the minimum service level "Co.
Regarding residential density, the project is within the density of two to eight
units per acre as defined for this land use category.
The question may arise whether the density would be limited to 3 units per
acre as has been designated for the other outlying areas within the City. The
3.2 overall density would allow for 333 more units than under the 3 unit per acre
designation. Staff supports the requested 3.2 density on the following grounds:
future development of the site will require the development of wide parkways
along the public streets, and therefore a larger setback of walls and structures
from the rights of way. The extra .2 units per acre is a reasonable concession
to the developer to help off -set the costs of the land and improvements required
by the larger parkway areas.
Regarding the proposed 35 acre community commercial center, the project does not
comply with the land use standards. The plan states that this type of commercial
center must have a minummn population of 35,000 within a 2 mile radius to support
the facilities. Obviously, there is insufficient population in this area, even
with the build -out of the proposed project, to support a community commercial
center. However, the General Plan allows for neighborhood commercial uses providing
a close at hand source of convenience shopping to serve the local market. An
example of such a center is Plaza La Quinta.
The plan limits the size of neighborhood commercial centers to 5 acres. As a point
of reference, the Plaza La Quinta center is located on a site of approximately
10 acres. Staff recamiends that the maximum size of the site be a maximmm of 15
acres to allow for adequate area for parking and for a wide landscaped area between
54th Avenue and the development.
Several additional points must be made supporting this downsizing of the proposed
commercial area from a community center to a neighborhood commercial center. First,
the City recently annexed a substantial amount of commercially zoned land along
Highway 111 which will be developed with community and regional types of
commercial uses. The success of this future development depends much on the
ability to draw its market from the entire City. Secondly, both the physical size
and population of La Quinta do not support the creation of a third commercial mode
within the City. Lastly, approval of a community commercial ranter in an outlying
area would set a precedent for other future developments. Aside from land use
concerns, this would seriously hinder any effort by the City to create a cwrnkercial
and social focal point within the community. Although the project is desirable
from the developer's point of view, approval of the commercial request would
fragment the City into separate self-contained and self -focused developments.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COWSSION
March 13, 1984 �/
Page Five
IN CONCLUSION STAFF REXa4EZMS an amendment to the Riverside County General Plan
Open Space and Conservation Element from Agricultural Area to Urban Area. In
addition, staff recommends classification of the site for Category II (Urban)
development, in accordance with the criteria contained in the Land Use Element,
with the following standards: residential development shall have a maximmun
density of 3.2 units per acre, and a maximum 15 acre neighborhood commercial
center shall be permitted .
PLEASE NOTE: Under the new County plan, the approved land use designations are
tied to specific projects rather than to the land, as is the case with the
City's General Plan. Therefore, the approved specific plan acts as the map for
the Land Use Element designation on this site.
Proposed Amendment to the La Quinta Land Use Element
The Applicant requests an amendment from Very Low Density Residential (3 or less
units per acre) to Low Density Residential (3 to 5 units per acre. Staff supports
the proposed density of 3.2 units per acre for the reason stated in the above
section.
Staff RECONIDNIDS approval of an amendment to Low Density Residential -Maximum Density
3.2 units per acre.
PROPOSED AMM)MENTS TO THE LA QUINTA AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY CIRCULATION ELEMENTS
The Applicant is requesting a significant amendment to the Circulation Element by
the deletion of Jefferson Street, between 54th and 58th Avenues and the deletion
of Airport Boulevard, between Jefferson and Madison Streets. Both of those
streets are currently designated as Arterials (110' rights of way, four travel
lanes, center median) .
This section will first address the impacts of the closure of Jefferson Street
on area wide circulation, on the Riverside County gravel pit located south of
Lake Cahuilla, and on the Lake Cahuilla Regional Park. Then, the impacts on the
closure of Airport Boulevard will be discussed.
Current Circulation Element
As shown on the attached exhibit, Jefferson Street and Airport Boulevard are
designated as Arterial Highways (110' rights of way, four travel lanes, center
median) while 54th Avenue, 58th Avenue and Madison Street are designated as
Major Highways (100' rights of way, four tra-el lanes, continuous center left
turn lane) .
Jefferson Street now serves as a major access route to Highway 111, and as a
minor access route to Interstate 10. Motorists travelling northward from the
western edge of the Coachella Valley to the highway or freeway use Jefferson
Street, Monroe Street or Jackson Street; the last two streets mentioned have
improved freeway interchanges. Madison Street is shown as terminating at 50th
Avenue. Although the City of Indio has a Specific Plan under study proposing
the possible extension of Madison Street to Highway 111, the City Council at
its meeting on March 7, 1984, stated that they did not support the construction
of the street between 48th and 50th Avenues. The basis for this determination
I v I, )"
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING WUSSION
March 13, 1984
Page Six
is that the property in the vicinity north of 50th Avenue is now in large parcel
rural residential uses. Extension of Madison street as a Secondary Highway, as
shown on their current General Plan, would adversely affect the existing character
of the area and possibly induce more intensive residential uses. The City of
Indio also does not anticipate the extension of Madison between Highway 111 and
Indio Boulevard due to the extremely high costs resulting from crossings over the
Coachella Canal and the Whitewater River and the purchase of structures within the
right of way.
Impacts on Areawide Circulation Plan
As shown on exhibit featuring a topographic map of the area, the mountains located
to the south of the site prohibits the future extension of Jefferson Street south
of 58th Avenue. In addition, a major flood dike located in this area also makes
the extension of Jefferson Street along a different alignment unreasonable.
The deletion of Jefferson Street from the Circulation Element allowing the eventual
closure of this section of roadway would have the most direct impacts on the pro-
perty located to the west of Madison Street south of the project site. Motorists
travelling to and from those areas would be diverted eastwardly to Madison Street,
thereby increasing trip distance. The specific impacts on Lake Cahuilla Regional
County Park and the Riverside County gravel pit will be discussed in later
sections. The impacts on the other property located immediately south of the
project site cannot be mitigated.
Viewing the proposed iamenchnent in light of the circulation of the westerly
Coachella Valley, closure of Jefferson Street will increase the amount of traffic
on Madison Street. This will be due to both the diversion of the traffic to
Madison Street which would otherwise use Jefferson Street, and the extension and
improvements to Madison Street north of 54th Avenue.
In addition, westbound traffic on Airport Boulevard and 58th Avenue travelling
to Highway 111 would be required to run onto Madison Street and then make two
other turns to get onto Jefferson Street. As a result, traffic levels may increase
on 50th, 52nd and 54 Avenues, between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street. The
traffic report contained in the Environmental Impact Report for the project states
that this increase in traffic is within the existing and anticipated capacities of
these roadways due in part to the fact that the areas to the east of the project
will remain in agriculture or other low intensity residential uses. Although the
closure of Jefferson Street will not add to the trip length for the above described
eastbound traffic, it will add to the travel time due to increased turn
movements.
acts on the Riverside Countv Gravel Pit
Riverside County Roads Department currently operates a gravel pit on property
located immediately sough of Lake Cahuilla. Materials from this site are trucked
to road construction and repair sites located throughout the Coachella Valley.
The pit receives its heaviest usage during the period between October and April
when 11 to 15 trucks carry a total of between 60 to 70 loads per day. During the
remainder of the year there is at least one load per day taken from the site.
Currently the trucks use Jefferson Street to Highway 111. The closure of
Jefferson will result in increased trip distance and time for the trucks, resulting
i_: i o
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CWSSION
March 13, 1984 �1
Page Seven
in an estimated $5,000 to $6,000 per year increase in costs to the Riverside
County Road Department.
There are several factors which must be considered when viewing the impact of
the project on the gravel pit operation. First and most important is the expected
lifetime of this operation. Over the course of time, the pit will be depleted
and closed. The Road Department has stated that the productive lifetime of the
pit is less than 25 years. But there are other factors which will most likely
shorten the lifetime of the pit. First, the increase in property values on the
site and the surrounding land will most likely determine the time when the County
will close the site and sell the land. Secondly, the County has considered relo-
cating the gravel pit operations to property located along Dillon Road north of
Interstate 10. While the new site would require the rock to be crushed rather
than just screened as at the current site, the County would experience a decrease
in travel costs since the majority of their road work done is steadily shifting
to the Desert Hot Springs and Sky Valley areas.
In conclusion, the Riverside County gravel pit operation is a short-term interim
use of the land. Minimization of the impacts (and associated costs) to the County
operation can be reduced by the City requiring Jefferson Street to remain open as
long as possible. The conditions of approval for Specific Plan No. 83-002 require
City Council approval of the timing of the street closure.
Impacts on Lake Cahuilla County Regional Park
The closure of Jefferson Street, which currently is the major access for people
visiting the park from the west and northwest directions, will have long-term
impacts on the park. The closure will require traffic travelling to and from the
facility to be directed 2.1 miles along 58th Avenue, Madison Street and 54th Avenue.
Survey Results: The Park User Survey contained within the final EIR (summary
attached) described the number of park visitors affected by the proposed closure.
The visitors were asked two questions: Where did your trip originate and did you
travel Jefferson Street. In addition to these survey results, city staff reviewed
the survey form which lists the city of trip origin. The purpose of this was to
determine how many of the visitors travelled to the park from outside the Coachella
Valley. The results are as follows:
° On a Peak Weekend:
76% of the vehicles with 74% of the visitors would be affected by the
closure. 58% of the total cars and visitors affected were from outside
the Coachella Valley. Therefore, 18% of the total affected cars with 16%
of the visitors were from cities within the Coachella Valley and would be
impacted.
° A breakdown of day use visitors indicates that 65% of the day use vehicles
with 62% of the visitors would be impacted. 29% of the total day use
vehicles and 31% of the respective visitors were from outside the Coachella
Valley. Therefore, 36% of the total affected day use vehicles, with 31% of
the total respective visitors, were from cities within the Coachella Valley
and would be impacted.
0
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
March 13, 1984
Page Eight
° A breakdown of overnight users indicates that 85% of the overnight
vehicles and visitors would be impacted. 99% of the affected vehicles
and visitors were from outside the Coachella Valley. Therefore, 1% of
overnight vehicles and visitors were fran cities within the Coachella
Valley and would be impacted.
On a Weekday:
° 740 of the combined day use and overnight vehicles with 850 of the total
park visitors would be impacted. 21% of the total vehicles with 14% of
the total visitors were from outside the Coachella Valley. Therefore,
53% of the total vehicles with 71% of the total park visitors were from
cities within the Coachella Valley which would be impacted.
° A breakdown of day use figures indicates that 74% of the day use vehicles
with 85% of the same visitors would be impacted. 210 of the total affected
vehicles and 14% of the total affected visitors are from areas outside the
Coachella Valley. Therefore, 53% of the total vehicles and 71% of the
total visitors were from cities within the Coachella Valley and would be
impacted.
° A breakdown of overnight use figures indicates that 100% of the vehicles
and users would be impacted; all the vehicles and users were from outside
the Coachella Valley.
The survey also indicates that no resident fran Indio, Coachella, Thermal or
Oasis would be affected by the closure of Jefferson Street.
Affect on Park Demand
Lake Cahuilla is a regional park which draws from a wide range throughout the
valley and outside the desert areas. As stated in the traffic report contained
with the EIR, because of the seasonal temperature variation, heavy cmping and
fishing activities typically occur on a daily basis during the winter months
(October to April) while the summer activities usually include heavier weekend
usage. According to information supplied by the lake supervisor (Telcoms with
Lilly Cory, June 27 and July 19, 1983), the winter lake usage attracts a large
majority of people from outside the desert areas. The summer usage, however,
is primarily generated from the nearby desert coTrunities of Palm Desert,
Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage, Indio and Coachella.
While the amount of use a small neighborhood park receives is greatly dependent
on the location and convenience of the facility, the effect of a minor increase
in distance does not have as significant effects on a regional park. It would
be unlikely that the visitors from out of the Coachella Valley would stop or
reduce their number of trips to Lake Cahuilla because of the trip distance
being increased by 2.1 miles. Concerning visitors from within the Coachella
Valley, specifically from the cities to the northwest and west, the added
inconvenience of the detour may affect usage. In general, the further the
distance the visitor's trip originates, the less significant the 2.1 mile
increase becomes.
0
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CODMIISSION
March 13, 1984
Page Nine.
While the detour may not result in a significant reduction of the number of
visitors to the park, these visitors will be inconvenienced. In order to
coapensate for this inconvenience, the Applicant has agreed to provide
funding for additional public services and facilities within the park. This
increase in the level of facilities will balance out the increase in trip
distance and time for the visitors.
A concern of staff is that because of the shortage of park facilities within
La Quanta, Lake Cahuilla has been used as a city park. The main attraction
of the park is the swimming lake (because of the small lot sizes in the cove
area, very few houses have swimming pools). The closure of Jefferson Street
would seriously impact the residents of La Quinta. As an alternative to
providing direct vehicular access to the park, the Applicant should donate
land and construct a ccmTunity swimming pool facility in the area north of
Avenue 52. This would mitigate some of the imapcts of the closure of
Jefferson Street on the residents of La Quinta.
Proposed Deletion of Airport Boulevard West of Madison Street
The major impact would be that vehicles travelling westward on Airport
Boulevard towards Highway 111 would be required to turn onto Madison Street
and then make two more turns to get onto Jefferson Street. As stated in the
previous section on areawide circulation, this amendment would not result in
a longer trip distance, but would result in a longer trip time due to the
increase in required turn movements.
Riverside County Roads Department did not object to the proposed amendment
deleting Airport Boulevard between Jefferson and Madison Streets.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
The Planning Connission recommends to the City Council approval of the
following amendments:
° An amendment to the La Quinta General Plan's Land Use Element from Very
Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential (maximum 3.2 units/acre
density) and an amendment to the Circulation Element deleting Jefferson
Street between 54th Avenue and 58th Avenue.
° An amen&aent to the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan's Open
Space and Conservation Element from Agricultural Area to Urban Area,
and an amendment to the Circulation Element deleting Jefferson Street
between 54th Avenue and 58th Avenue, and deleting Airport Boulevard
between Jefferson Street and Madison Street.
ITEM NO.
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
RE:
MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS THORNBURGH
SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SAIAS THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
CO'•!MISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
GOETCHEUS -
IMKAMP -
THORNBURGH -
KLU.IKIEWICZ -
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
L/ u
04 Q MEMORANDUM �• �'
CITY OF LA QUINTA
----
To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Sandra L. Bonner, Principal Planner
Date: March 13, 1984
Subject: SPDCIFIC PLAN NO. 83-002, "Oak Tree West;" LML Development Corporation
of California, Applicant.
The 1665± acre site is generally bounded by 54th Avenue on the north, 58th Avenue
on the south, the Coachella Canal and Lake Cahuilla on the west and Madison Street
on the east. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with a major residential,
recreational and resort project oriented around four 18-hole golf courses, one of
which will be specifically designed for tournaments. The project will contain 5000
single-family dwellings, a 65-acre resort village and a 35-acre general commercial
center. The resort village area will contain 250 apartments/condominiums, a 400
room hotel and a major recreation center. The La Quinta city limits currently
divide the site along Jefferson Street, with 438 acres being within the City and
1227 acres being within the unincorporated County area.
The proposed specific plan is a master development plan for the Oak Tree West
project. It is intended to provide a comprehensive analysis and development
criteria governing the orderly development Of this project in conformance with
the La Quinta General Plan, as amended. It will control and regulate the
manner in which the subject property is planned, developed and maintained. The
subject Specific Plan is intended to be in conformity with the La Quinta General
Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 84-002.
The following report is intended to call the attention of the Commission to
several elements of the Specific Plan which the staff believe to be of particular
importance. The conditions which follow are those which are recommended by the
staff in a reco[mmandation of approval of the project. Commission review of
the Specific Plan, which has previously been submitted, is recommended.
CIRCULATION
A significant aspect of the circulation element of the specific plan involves
the closure of Jefferson Street two miles north of its present tenninusat
entry to Lake Cahuilla. Jefferson will continue to serve the subject property
and areas to the north. However, those persons who use Lake Cahuilla who omne
from the north, would be required to use Madison Street and 58th Avenue for
access to the Lake area. Because of this, and as a part of the development
project, it is proposed that the perimeter streets of 54th Avenue, 58th Avenue,
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING SSION
Specific Plan No. 83-00
March 13, 1984
Page Two
Airport Boulevard and Madison Street, contiguous to the property, be developed in
accordance with the General Plan designations. It is also proposed that Madison
Street from the northerly boundary of the project to 50th Avenue be constructed,
and that Madison Street and 58th Avenue to the southeast of the project boundary
in accordance with County and/or City standards. It is also proposed that a time
schedule be submitted to and approved by the City Council relative to the closure
of Jefferson Street.
With respect to on -site circulation, it is proposed that a combination bicycle
and pedestrian path be established, providing a direct route from the intersection
of Jefferson Street and Avenue 54 to Lake Cahuilla.
After initial indications of support for this circulation plan, the Riverside
County Parks Department has asked for a direct access to the north shore of
Lake Cahuilla. This is not proposed, however a mitigation measure of a park site
and a ccmmmity pool in the City of La Quinta is proposed.
PARK MITIGATION
As discussed above, the closure of Jefferson Street will cause additional travel
time in reaching Lake Cahuilla. With respect to the County Road Department's
use of the gravel pit south of the Lake, it is proposed that the closure of
Jefferson Street be delayed until the planning of the Oak Tree West project
necessitates it.
With respect to the use of Lake Cahuilla, the closure of Jefferson Street will
not significantly affect the travel times or patterns of persons coming from or
going to Indio, Coachella, Thermal or other locations to the east or south. Travel
times of persons caning from or going to the north or west will be increased by
approximately three minutes. For longer distance trips, this is not considered
significant. For shorter trips, such as from the central part of La Quinta, this
is more significant. For this reason, as discussed above, a ten acre park site
with a community pool to be within the City of La Quinta is proposed.
LAND USE
It is proposed that a buffer area be established between the Lake Cahuilla Park
boundary and the development of any structures in the Oak Tree West project,
for the mutual benefit of park users and residents.
It is proposed that height limitations shall be as shown in the specific plan,
except that the residential height limit on one story structures shall be 17
feet. It is also proposed that the portion of the area designated for six -story
(or 72 feet) height south of the Airport Boulevard alignment be deleted, in order
to reduce the visual impact from Lake Cahuilla.
It is proposed that the commercial area shall be reduced to a maximum of 15 acres
for the future development of a neighborhood cc miercial center, which is closer
to the standard established in the County General Plan.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
It is proposed that the developer provide a fire station, including the donation
of land, construction of the station and provision of two pieces of equipment.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNIN SSIONAM
Specific Plan No. 83-00
March 13, 1984
Page Three
Two sites have been discussed: the southwest corner of 54th Avenue and
Jefferson Street and the southwest corner of 54th Avenue and Madison Street.
It is the goal of the: Riverside County Fire Department to provide a 3 mile or 5
minute response range. The 54th/Madison intersection appears to more closely
meet this need. one of our concerns will be that the majority of the service
area of this station will be within the City of La Quinta. Also, direct access
from the station to the Oak Tree West project will be required.
a
It is respectfully reco mended that the Planning Commission reanmend to the City
Council approval of Specific Plan No. 83-002, and its related envirormental impact
report, subject to the acccapanying conditions.
The following are TENTATIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL for Specific Plan
No. 83-002.
The Applicant shall c0rrPly with Exhibit "A", the plan document for Specific
Plan No. 83-002, unless otherwise amended or modified by the following
conditions.
Soils/Geology
1. The Applicant shall comply with the latest Uniform Building Code, as
adopted by the City of La Quinta, and state-of-the-art recamiendations
of the Structural Engineers Association of California for seismic
considerations in the design of structures. The appropriate seismic
design criteria will depend upon the type and use of the proposed
structure and the underlying geologic conditions.
2. Adequate design of onsite drainage facilities, protective dikes or
berms, and other similar devices shall serve to reduce or eliminate
flood control improvements to augment the onsite facilities will be
determined during precise development plan review.
3. A more detailed geotechnical study will be conducted to establish
site -specific geotechnical parameters for engineering design of the
planned structure locations at the time tentative subdivision or
parcel maps are prepared. The recommendations of this report, as
well as those of the structural engineer (for mid -rise development
sites) and city engineer shall be cczrplied with prior to preparation
of the precise development plan.
Hydrology/Water Conservation
4. Prior to the approval of final tract maps, issuance of building permits,
or preparation of precise development plans, the Applicant shall prepare
a hydrological analysis for approval by the city engineer which will
indicate the method and design to protect the proposed development from
the 100-year flood. This plan shall be consistent with the purposes of
any similar plans of the Redevelopment Agency and the Coachella Valley
Water District then in effect for flood protection.
5. Prior to the approval of tentative maps or development plans, the Applicant
shall rpovide information demonstrating that should there be a breach in
the embankment of either Lake Cahuilla or the Coachella Canal, the
development design will provide for the channelization or dispersal of the
waters in such a way so as to prevent a serious safety threat to the
residents of the nearby structures.
6. Prior to approval of building permits, the Applicant shall prepare a water
conservation plan which will indicate:
a. Methods to minimize the consumption of onsite water usage, including
water saving fixtures, drought -tolerant and native landscaping, and
programs to minimize landscape irrigation.
b. Methods for minimizing the effects of increased onsite runoff and
increased groundwater recharge, including the construction of onsite
collection and groundwater retention basins.
TENTATIVE CCNDITICNS OF APPFOVAL - SPDCIFIC PLAN 83-002
March 13, 1984
Page 2.
c. Methods for minimizing the amount of groundwater pumped out for
onsite irrigation, including the use of reclaimed water from the
new sewage treatment plant to be constructed and the use of
irrigation water from the Coachella Canal.
Wildlife
7. Cottonwoods, sycamore (Plantanus racemosa), mesquite, and/or palms
(Washingtonia filifera) are intended to be planted at the margins of
the lakes proposed as part of the golf course layouts. Plantings of
this type would be beneficial to wildlife habitat values and could
offset loss of prairie falcon foraging habitat.
8. Wherever possible, native, drought -tolerant, desert plant species will
be incorporated into the landscaping plan for the entire project area.
The landscape architect who produces the development (site) plan should
have experience in landscaping with desert species. The Living Desert
Reserve, the Horticultural Department of the College of the Desert in
Palm Desert and Desert Water Agency can provide valuable assistance in:
a) recommending experienced experts in desert species; b) identifying
nurseries that have been successful in large-scale propagation of the
type necessary for this project; c) reco miending appropriate trees,
shrubs, and annual and perennial herbaceous species; or d) providing
contacted experts to the developer's landscape architect.
9. Drip irrigation will be used wherever possible to irrigate plantings
to reduce the demand for water in landscaping and to m;n;m;ze the
need to eliminate unwanted weedy species that become established from
wind-borne seed.
10. In April or May 1984, the Applicant will engage a qualified consultant
to determine the activity of the prairie falcon eyrie located 1/4 mile
north of the project site. Considering current activity and next
orientation, appropriate measures shall be developed to allow enhance-
ment of habitat on the project site within 1/4 mile of the next,
coruaatible with golf course development.
11. If buried remains are encountered during development, a qualified
archaeologist shall be contacted immediately so that appropriate
mitigation measures can be taken.
Air Quality
12. To the extent practical, major earth movement for each of the golf
courses should be planned to occur before adjacent residential
construction is completed.
13. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in accordance with
the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code and subject to the
approval of the city engineer.
TENTATIVE CONDITIONS OF APPIDUAL - SPECIFIC PIAN 83-002
March 13, 1984
Page 3.
14. At the time of submittal of precise development plans, the Applicant
shall demonstrate that the proposed uses include provisions for non -
automotive means of transportation within the project site as a means
of reducing dependence on private autambiles. This should include
golf cart path systems, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and other
similar systems consistent with the Specific Plan.
15. Specific project designs will encourage the use of public transit by
providing for bus shelters, consistent with the requirements of local
transit districts and the Specific Plan.
16. The Applicant will encourage and support the use of Sunline van/bus
service /Dial -A -Ride/ jitneys between the project site, local airports
(e.g., Palm Springs, Thermal), and other regional land uses.
Traffic and Circulation
17. 54th Avenue, 58th Avenue, Airport Boulevard and Madison Street contiguous
to the project shall be developed in accordance with their General Plan
designations and the La Quinta and/or Riverside County design and
structural standards in effect at the time of tentative tract or develop-
ment approval in conjunction with the phased implementation of the
specific plan.
18. The Applicant shall develop all roads internal to the project in accordance
with the design standards specified in the specific plan and the structural
standards in effect at the time of tentative tract or development approval area
in conjunction with the phased implementation of the specific plan. All
roadways within the specific plan area shall remain private.
19. The Applicant shall assume the costs associated with abandonment of
Jefferson Street and Airport Boulevard within the Specific Plan area.
20. Prior to tract map or development approval, the Applicant shall submit
a tentative time schedule for the closure of Jefferson as it relates to
the phased implementation of the general plan. This schedule shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City Council.
21. Prior to the closure of Jefferson Street, the Applicant shall fund and
install the necessary off -site improvements to Madison Street between
the project's southerly boundary and 58th Avenue, and to 58th Avenue
between the project's easterly boundary and Madison Street in accordance
with the requirements of the city engineer and the applicable County
and/or City standards. The Applicant shall install appropriate
directional signage for the park access route in accordance with City
and Riverside County Parks Department requirements.
The following measure will be undertaken by the City, or by the City in
cooperation with other interested local agencies, to facilitate mitigation
of cumulative traffic impacts of this and other area projects.
TENTATIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002
March 13, 1984
Page 4.
22. The City shall establish a traffic improvement needs monitoring program.
This program will undertake biannual traffic count studies to determine
if warrants are met for major roadway improvements. Upon determination
of needs, the City may initiate projects to meet those needs. Funding
of this program may be by fee programs that assess new development and/or
users on a pro-rata or fair -share basis, formation of assessment districts,
acquisition of State or Federal road funds, or other means that fairly
allocate costs to those generating the need.
23. The Applicant shall agree in the Development Agreement to participate
in such pro-rata funds, as assessment or improvement districts that the
City may establish to fund off -site roadway improvements and traffic
signalization on an "as warranted" basis.
24 The Applicant shall agree to fund improvements to Madison Street north of
the project site to 50th Avenue in conjunction with the phased implemen-
tation of the specific plan.
25. Prior to the closure of Jefferson Street, the Applicant shall fund and
install a combination bicycle and pedestrian path which provides a direct
route fran the intersection of Jefferson Street and 54th Avenue to Lake
Cahuilla.
Noise
26. Prior to building permit approval, building setbacks, engineering design,
orientation of buildings, and noise barriers will be considered to reduce
noise impacts fron nearby existing and future roadways to within State
standards.
27. Prior to approval of precise development plans or tentative tract naps,
the Applicant will demonstrate that residential structures satisfy the
State's indoor criterion of 45 CNEL. Where exposed to noise levels of
60 CNEL, this will be attained by special design features such as double -
glazed windows, mechanical ventilation, special roof venting, increased
insulation, weatherstripping, or combinations of these measures.
28. Prior to approval of building permits for the commercial center, the
Applicant shall demonstrate that the structures will meet State interior
noise standards for commercial uses as defined in the State guidelines.
�• All dwellings, commercial and hotel buildings and coamnumity pools shall
have passive solar water heaters. Installation of active solar conversion
systems shall be encouraged by the developer.
30. All tentative maps and development plans shall be reviewed by the City
Community Development Department to ensure compliance with the State
laws regarding solar accessibility. To the extent possible, all structures
shall be sited, oriented and designed so as to minimize the energy needs
for cooling.
_:i , I e; J
TENTATIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002
March 13, 1984
Page 5.
Use
31. The project will be subject to normal staff review for conformance
to established City land use ordinances and policies, and will be
subject to public review at hearings of the Planning CCRmissicn and
City Council. That portion of the project site proposed for annexa-
tion to the City will be subject to hearings before the County Local
Agency Fonnation Commission which will review the annexation in terms
of its land use and infrastructure effects.
32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, construction of the golf course
or approval of tentative maps or development plans within 1/8 mile of
the park, the Applicant shall submit plans showing the buffer area
between any structure and the property boundary of the Lake Cahuilla
County Regional Park. These plans shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Riverside County Parks Department and the City of La
Quinta.
33. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits or approval of any tentative
maps or development plans, the Applicant shall submit plans to the
Community Development Department for review and approval dcoonstrating
that there is adequate setback of proposed future golf course, street,
utility and structural improvements to provide for the setback of project
perimeter walls along public roadways in accordance with the City's
adopted parkway standards.
34. Height limitations shall be as shown within the specific plan with the
following amendments: the residential height limit on one-story
structures is 17 feet, the oomiercial height limits shall be as shown
in the Commercial Element of plan, and that portion of the area designated
for six -story (72 foot) height south of the Airport Boulevard alignment
shall be deleted.
35. The area east of Madison Street shall be developed at a maximum density
�y �� of 3 units per acre.
*{36.� The commercial area shall be reduced to a maximum total of 15 acres for
�J the future development of "neighborhood commercial center". y-v�
Public Services and Utilities
C37. The developer will be expected to/ land, construct a✓f_irae 'station,
�, and purchase a 1,250 gpm fire engian ne a telesquirt engine with a
60-foot boon. An assessment district is to be set up to finance upkeep,
maintenance, and manpower costs. The assessed value of land improvements
is to be deducted from fire mitigation fees.
38. Proposed phasing of the construction of the fire station and the equipting
of the facility in conjunction with the phased implementation of the
specific plan shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Department and
the City Community Safety Department.
. ,s.
TENTATIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002
March 13, 1984
Page 6.
39. The Applicant shall incorporate the reccnmendations of the Riverside County
Sheriff's Department and the City Comnmity Safety Department regarding
crime prevention design considerations.
40. The Applicant shall pay a per -unit school fee as determined by the Desert
Sands and Coachella Valley Unified School Districts and in accordance
with the school mitigation agreements as approved by the La Quinta City
Council and in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits.
41. The Applicant shall work closely with the City and the County Parks
Department to minimize conflicts that may arise at the precise development
planning stage for developments within Oak Tree West adjoining or signifi-
cantly affecting the adjacent County Park. Issues to be considered in this
coordination shall include the upgrading of utilities at the park, a land-
scaped buffer area adjacent to the park providing adequate aesthetic and
functional separation between the two land uses and the expansion and
upgrading of the park's recreational and caging facilities.
42. The Applicant shall donate a minimum ten -acre parcel north of Avenue 52
at a location approved by the City and fund the construction of a public
ccrwuni.ty switnning pool facility.
43. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Coachella Valley
Water District for the provision of domestic water and sanitation service.
The Applicant shall annex the project site to improvement District No. 55
to obtain adequate permanent wastewater treatment services.
44. All overhead utility lines, located along the perimeter public roadways,
with the exception of high voltage power lines, shall be installed under-
ground.
MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS
SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
CO*24ISSIONERS:
GOETCHEUS
IMKAMP
THORNBURGH
SALAS
KLIf 7KIEWICZ
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED
ITEM NO. v
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS
IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS
THORNBURGH
THORNBURGH
AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
YES NO
ITEM NO. �.
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION
BY:
GOETCHEUS
IMKAMP
KLIMKIEWICZ SALES
SECOND
BY:
GOETCHEUS
IMKAMP
KLIMKIEWICZ SALES
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
THORNBURGH
THORNBURGH
COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
GOETCHEUS -
IMKAMP -
THORNBURGH -
SANS -
Ki IKIEWICZ -
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES
NO
ITEM NO. 3•
DATE J-13- 7'
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION
BY:
GOETCHEUS
IMKAMP
KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS
SECOND
BY:
GOETCHEUS
IMyJm
KLIMKIEWICZ SAIFS
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
THORNBURGH
THORNBURGH
CO'•9IISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
GOETCHEUS -
IMKAMP -
THORNBURGH -
SAI,AS -
KL IKIEWICZ -
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES
NO
I.�
ITEM NO.
DATE
t3—/3 -8�/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
RE:
MOTION
BY:
GOETCHEUS
IMKAMP
KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS
SECOND
BY:
GOETCHEUS
IMKAMP
KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
THORNBURGH
THORNBURGH
COi,MISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
GOETCHEUS -
IMKAMP -
THORNBURGH -
SALAS -
K1 ,lKIZllICZ -
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES
NO
Ell
i{
M I N U T E S
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta
City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California
February 14, 1984 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Klimkiewicz called the Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:15 p.m. He then called upon City Manager Frank Usher
to lead the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Klimkiewicz requested the roll call. The Secretary called
the roll:
Present: Commissioners Goetcheus, Imkamp, Thornburgh, Salas and
Chairman Klimkiewicz
Absent: None
Also present were City Manager Frank Usher, Principal Planner Sandra
Bonner and Secretary Donna Velotta.
A. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the first public hearing regarding
Tentative Tract Map No. 18766, Amended No. 1, a request to divide
15.5+ acres into three lots for the purpose of constructing 28
statutory condominium units located at the southeasterly corner of
Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50; Lamm -ark Land Company, Applicant.
He called for the report from staff.
1. Principal Plaruier Boruier stated that c.•onsiderativn of this case
was continued from the December hearing at the request of the
Applicant. However, the Applicant has withdrawn this request.
In the future, the Applicant may submit a new tract map on the
entire corner of property rather than only the rear portion
adjacent to the La Quinta Stornwater Channel that Tentative
Tract Map No. 18766 covered.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Motion made by Comnissioner Goetcheus, seconded by Commissioner Salas
to adopt the Consent Calendar approving the minutes of January 10, 1984.
1. The minutes of the regular meeting of January 10, 1984 were approved
as submitted. Unanimously adopted.
B. Motion made by Commissioner Goetcheus, seconded by Commissioner Salas
to adopt the Consent Calendar approving the minutes of January 20, 1984.
1. The minutes of the adjourned meeting of January 20, 1984 were approved
as submitted. Unanimously adopted.
MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION
February 14, 1984
Page UX-o.
5. BUSINESS
A. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the first item of business as a
request for extension of time for Tentative Tract Map No. 16449,
Amended No. 1, located at the southwesterly corner of Miles Avenue
and Adams Street alignment; LQD, Inc., Applicant. In conjunction
with this request, he introduced the next item of business as
follows.
B. A request for extension of time for Tentative Tract Map No. 16650,
Amended No. 1, located at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive
and Adams Street alignment, LQD, Inc., Applicant. Cha=kn Klimkiewicz
then called for the report fran staff.
1. Principal Planner Bonner noted that consideration of the two noted
cases was continued fran the December 13, 1983 and the January 10,
1984 Planning Comnission hearings. At the January hearing, the
continuance was granted with the stipulation that the extension of
time requests would be acted upon at the February meeting. There-
fore, staff recemnends that the Planning Crnnission forward
recommendations for denials of the extension of time requests for
Tentative Tract Map No. 16449, Amended No. 1 and TTM No. 16650,
Amended No. 1, in accordance with the information presented in the
December 13, 1983 staff report.
Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Imkamp made a motion to deny the request for extension
of time for Tentative Tract Map No. 16649, Amended No. 1, and
Tentative Tract Map No. 16650, Amended No. 1, based on the findings
of the staff report presented at the December 13, 1983 Planning
Camission meeting. Cam[aissioner Thornburgh seconded the motion.
Unanimously adopted.
C. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next item of business as Plot Plan
No. 84-042, a request to construct a single-family house along the west
side of Avenida Diaz, south of Calle Madrid; Michael Head, Applicant.
He called for the staff report.
1. Principal Planner Bonner stated that the Applicant is requesting
to construct a pueblo -style, single-family house on a 50-foot
wide lot along the west side of Avenida Diaz, 250 feet north of
Calle Temecula. She noted that a concern of staff is the issue of
corpatibility. The immediate area is developed with a wide range
of housing types; however, there are no pueblo -style hones within
over a five block radius of this site. Staff is therefore hesitant
to recammend approval of yet another different style of hone. It
is felt that to start some consistency, it is important to encourage
designs which already exist within the vicinity as, while variety is
desirable, a large degree of variety creates the appearance of chaos.
Staff is therefore requesting that the Planning Commission continue
consideration of Plot Plan No. 84-042 to the March 13, 1984 meeting
to allow time for a study session to discuss the policies regarding
what constitutes carpatibility.
MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION
February 14, 1984
Page Three.
After a brief discussion, the Planning Cb mtission agreed to meet
on Friday, February 24, 1984, at 3:30 p.m., for a study session
regarding design criteria.
Chairman Klimkiewicz then called for a Lotion.
2. Commissioner Thornburgh made a motion to continue consideration of
Plot Plan No. 84-042 to the March 13, 1984 meeting to allow the
Ccnvission time to discuss design criteria. Commissioner Goetcheus
seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted.
D. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next item as Plot Plan No. 84-045,
a request to construct a single-family house along the east side of
Avenida Juarez, south of Calle Ensenada; Earle Krepelin, Applicant.
He called for the staff report.
1. Principal Planner Bonner stated that the request is consistent
with the zoning, the proposed house is conmprztible with the
surrounding develogcment and if the house is constructed in
accordance with the conditions of approval, the design will be
in ccnpliance with the City's adopted standards. Therefore,
staff recoLmends that the Planning COfniLission approve this
request.
It was noted that three additional conditions were added to the
standard set of conditions to which the Applicant must comply:
1. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete with asphalt
connecting pavement.
2. All bedrooms shall have a minimum 10-foot width and depth
dimensions.
3. The exterior walls shall be covered with stucco.
Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Thornburgh made a motion, based upon findings in the
staff report, to approve Plot Plan No. 84-045 in accordance with
Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions.
Commissioner Imkamp seconded the notion. Unanicmusly adopted-
E. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next item as plot Plan No. 84-046,
a request to construct a single-family house along the west side of
Avenida Madero, south of Calle Madrid; Thomas Baker, Applicant. He
then called for the staff report.
1. Ms. Bonner stated that the request is consistent with the zoning,
the proposed house is compatible with the surrounding development
and if the house is constructed in accordance with the conditions
of approval, the design will be in compliance with the City's
adopted standards. Therefore, staff is recommending that the
Planning Caaaission approve this request. I �
NUNUTES - PIANNING CONAIISSION
February 14, 1984
Page Four.
Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Imkamp made a motion based upon findings in the staff
report recommending approval of Plot Plan No. 84-046 in accordance
with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions.
Commissioner Thornburgh seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted.
F. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next item of business as Plot Plan
No. 84-048, a request to construct a single-family house on Cameo Dunes
Place; Dennis Spates, Applicant. He called for the staff report.
1. Principal Planner Bonner stated that this request is consistent with
the zoning, is compatible with the surrounding development and if it
is constructed in accordance with the conditions of approval, the
design will be in compliance with the City's adopted standards. It
was noted that the rear yard setback must be increased to a minimum
of 10 feet in accordance with the zoning requirements. Therefore,
staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this
request.
Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a notion.
2. Commissioner Imkamp made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 84-048
in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached
conditions, based on findings in the staff report. Com issioner
Salas seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted.
G. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next item of business as Plot Plan
No. 84-050, a request to construct a single-family house along the east
side of Avenida Madero, 200' north of Calle Temecula; Tan Kennedy,
Applicant. He called for the staff report.
1. Principal Planner Bonner stated that this request is consistent with
the zoning, the house is in compliance with the City's adopted standards
and the proposed house is compatible with the surrounding development.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve
this request.
Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a motion.
2. Chairman Klimkiewicz made a motion based on findings in the staff
report recommending approval of Plot Plan No. 84-050 in accordance
with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions.
Commissioner Goetcheus seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted.
H. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next item of business as Plot Plan
No. 84-051, a request to construct a single-family house along the east
side of Avenida Villa, north of Calle Sinaloa; Desert Affordable Housing,
Applicant. He called for the staff report.
MINQTES - PLANNING CaNgUSSION
February 14, 1984
Page Five.
1. Nis. Bonner stated that the request is consistent with the zoning,
the house is compatible with the surrounding development and if
the house is constructed in accordance with the conditions of
approval, the design will be in compliance with the City's adopted
standards. Therefore, staff is recamtiending that the Planning
Commission approve this request.
Commissioner Klimnkieaicz called for a motion.
2. Conndssioner Thornburgh made a motion based on findings in the staff
report recommending approval of Plot Plan No. 84-051 in accordance
with Exhibits A, B and C and subject the attached conditions.
Commissioner Imkamp seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted.
I. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next item of business as Plot Plan
No. 84-052, a request to construct a single family house along the west
side of Avenida Ramirez, south of Calle Monterey; Rick and Laurie
Johnson, Applicants. He called for the staff report.
1. Ms. Bonner stated that the request is consistent with the zoning,
is in canpliance with the city's adopted standards and is compatible
with the surrounding development. Therefore, staff is reccnmending
that the planning Commission approve this request.
Coninissioner Klimkiewicz called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Imkamp made a motion based upon findings in the staff
report recam ending approval of Plot Plan No. 84-052 in accordance
with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions.
Commissioner Thornburgh seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted.
J. Chairnv-an Klimkiewicz introduced the next item of business as a pre-
sentation of Specific Plan No. 83-002, Oak Tree West, a proposed
private community on 1,665± acres with 5,250 residential units, four (4)
18-hole golf courses, 35 acres of retail co viercial and office uses and
a 400-room hotel; LML Development Corporation of California, Applicant.
He noted that this presentation is for information only. The Planning
Commission would not be ruling on this project at this meeting.
Kay Chandler, LML Development Corporation of California, by the display
of renderings and slides, explained the development criteria governing
the orderly development of this project. He further explained items
such as circulation elements, land use showing where the residential,
hotel and cammercial areas would be constructed and the construction
of a fire station for the City of Ia Quinta.
K. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next item of business as a report
from staff with regard to hearing dates for Duna 1a Q inta and Oak
Tree West.
MINVPES - PLANNING CCMISSION
February 14, 1984
Page Six.
Staff reported that Duna La Quinta and Oak Tree West proposed
Specific Plans are scheduled for their first hearings before
the Planning Commission on March 13, 1984 and that no date has
been scheduled for their hearings before the City Council. It
was noted that copies of the proposed Duna La Quinta Specific
Plan are being distributed for review at this time. The items
of most contraversy at this time are the proposed 100-unit motel
and office complex at the southwest corner of Washington Street
and 50th Avenue and the addition of six acres of new commercial
at the northeast corner of Calle Tampioo and Desert Club Drive.
L. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the last item of business as Plot Plan
No. 84-049, a request to construct a single-family house along the east
side of Avenida Mendoza, 300' south of Calle Chillon; Rod Taylor,
Applicant. He called for the staff report.
1. Principal Planner Bonner stated that staff has several concerns
with regard to this request. The proposed house has a flat roof,
parapet walls and a tile -covered porch covering the entryway area.
Almost all of the ornamentation is on the front of the house. All
houses in the surrounding area are conventional California Ranch
style with wood siding and peaked roofs which gives a continuity
of design. Staff feels that it would be appropriate that the design
of this proposed house be generally consistent, expecially with
respect to the roof design. Also, both the adopted City policies
and the Planning Commission's past actions have established criteria
for houses with pitched roofs. However, no standards have been
established for houses such as this with a flat roof and parapet
walls. Staff feels that without special design treatment, this
general type of housing can appear plain and boxy. Therefore,
staff recrnmends that the Planning CoTmassion continue consideration
of Plot Plan No. 84-049 to allow time to discuss these general con-
cerns at a study session.
After a discussion between the Commissioners and the Applicant,
the Applicant agreed to comply with a request to add ornamentation
and a peaked roof with 18" eaves. Therefore, Chairman Klimkiewicz
called for a motion.
2. Ccnmissioner Thornburgh made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 84-049
in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the standard
set of conditions, as amended. Comaissioner Goetcheus seconded the
motion. Unanimously adopted.
• • 1 is
There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning Camdssion,
Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a notion to adjourn.
Commissioner Salas made a notion to adjourn to the regular meeting of March 13,
1984, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA.
The regular meeting of the Planning Conmission of the City of La Quinta,
California was adjourned at 9:25 p.m., February 14, 1984, at La Quinta City
Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA.
ITEM NO. �. �•
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
J- //JA . _ . --;V- /tI[L o i� -
RE:
MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS CHORNBURGH
SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION
ROLL CALL VOTE:
CO7,MISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
GOETCHEUS -
IMKAMP -
THORNBURGH -- -
SANS -
KLIPIKIEWICZ -
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Camdssion
From: Sandra L. Bonner, Principal Planner
Date: March 13, 1984
54.
Subject: EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE A FINAL MAP FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 14496, Anden Corporation, Applicant
That the Planning Comraission reco mend to the City Council approval of the last
extension of time in which to file a final map for Tentative Tract Map No. 14496
to November 20, 1984.
The Applicant, Anden Corporation, is requesting the last extension of time in which
to record the final map for Tentative Tract Map No. 14496 (Santa Rosa Cove). The
Applicant has received approval on four (4) of the seven (7) tract phases. Two
additional phases are currently in plan check with the City Engineer. If this
extension of time is approved, the Applicant will have until November 20, 1984 to
record the final three phases.
The request is consistent with the Municipal land Division Ordinance, which allows
the City to approve a one-year extension of time. It is also in compliance with
State law which provides for five years from date of original approval to file a
final subdivision map.
Findings
1. The Applicant has made substantial progress in c.-emplying with the requirements
of approval necessary to file the final subdivision maps.
2. The request is in compliance with the Municipal Land Division Ordinance and
State law.
SLB:dmv
( ,i
ITEM NO. 7 s 3
DATE �7 ` 13 O 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
�- f4-4-- � /-�4-elo
RE:
MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS cTHORNBURGHJ
SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS_ -) IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS THORNBURGH
12
DISCUSSION:/ p
ROLL CALL VOTE:
COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
GOETCHEUS —
IMKAMP —
THORNBURGH —
SALAS —
KLIl-lKIEWICZ —
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
MEMORANDUM �• 3.
CITY OF LA OUINTA
To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Sandra L. Bonner, Principal Planner
Date: March 13, 1984
Subject: EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE A FINAL MAP FOR TENTATIVE TRACP
MAP NO. 13640, AMENDED NO. 2; M. B. Johnson, Applicant
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Cacmai.ssion recommend to the City Council approval of an extension
of time for Tentative Tract Map No. 13640, Amended No. 2, to August 14, 1984.
Background
The Applicant is requesting an extension of time in which to record the final map
for Tentative Tract Map No. 13640, Amended No. 2, (Laguna de la Paz). The project
first received approval by Riverside County Board of Supervisors on August 14, 1979.
The Applicant has recorded three (3) of the eleven (11) phases of the project.
Four (4) additional phases are currently in plan check with the City Engineer.
The request is consistent with the Municipal Land Division Ordinance, which allows
the City to approve a one-year extension of time. It is also in compliance with
State law which provides for five years from date of original approval to file a
final subdivision map.
Findings
1. The Applicant has made substantial progress in complying with the requirements
of approval necessary to file the final subdivision maps.
2. The request is in compliance with the Municipal Land Division ordinance and
State law.
0
ITEM NO. 57
DATE N -1
PLANNINC COMMISSION MEETING
RE:
MOTION
BY:
GOETCHEUS
IMKAMP
KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS
HORNBURGH
SECOND
BY:
GOETCHEUS
IMKAMP
KLIMKIEWICZ
THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN
GOETCHEUS -
IMKAMP -
THORNBURGH -
SALAS -
KLTMKIEWICZ -
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES
NO_
ABSENT PRESENT
ITEM NO. .
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
RE:
MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS THORNBURGH
SECOND BY:�GOETCHEUS� IMUIV KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
COP!LISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
GOETCHEUS -
IMKAMP -
THORNBURGH -
SALAS -
KT TRiKIEWICZ -
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
e.
' MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Sandra L. Bonner, Principal Planner
Date: March 13, 1984
Subject: PLOT PLAN No. 84-054, a request to construct a single-family house
along the west side of Avenida Madero, south of Calle Chillon;
Rick and Laurie Johnson, Applicants.
Background and Analysis
The Applicant is requesting approval to construct a single-family house on a
50-foot wide lot located along the west side of Avenida Ramirez, 100 feet south
of Calle Chillon. The Applicant is a contractor and will sell the house. The
Applicant has obtained three (3) plot plan approvals for single-family houses in
the cove area; two houses are finished and sold, and the third house was approved
in February and is now in plan check with the Building Department.
Siting
The siting of the house is consistent with the other homes in the area and is in
compliance with the setback requirements. The Home will have the same general
appearance of size and bulk as the surrounding homes.
Floor Plan
The proposed house is consistent with the existing zoning and City requirements.
It will have 1592 square feet of living area. The design includes three (3)
bedroans with clear dimensions greater than 10 feet, 1-3/4 bathrooms, and an
attached, double garage with a connecting door into the house.
Exterior Design
The house will have stucco exterior walls with a rough sawn wood trim. The roof
will have a 4 and 12 pitch and will be covered with asphalt shingles. The design
also has a stucco covered chimney.
The eaves will be 24-inches wide, which exceeds the minimum required 18 inches.
The overall height of the building is approximately 16; feet, which is below the
17-foot height limitation of the zoning.
The general design and style of the building is consistent with the existing hones
in the area. The roof pitch is also camparable to the other homes which have
pitches ranging from 2 and 12 to 5 and 12, with one A -frame house located south
of the site. The roofs of the surrounding houses are covered with gravel, asphalt
shingle or spanish tile; no single roofing material is predominate. All the houses
have stucco siding. The houses across Avenida Madero also have stucco covered
chiirneys very similar to that proposed by the Applicant. ( :��
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CODMUSSION
PLOT PLAN NO. 84-054
Page Two.
Additional Coninmts
A detailed landscaping plan will be required prior to the issuance of a building
permit. This plan will indicate the three (3) outdoor spigots and two (2),
15-gallon street trees which are required by the City.
Staff has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA
and a Notice of Exenption has been filed.
Findings
1. The request is consistent with the zoning.
2. The house is in compliance with the City's adopted standards.
3. The proposed house is compatible with the surrounding development.
RECOPMENDED MOTION
Based upon the findings, the Planning C mnission reeds approval of Plot Plan
No. 84-054 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached
conditions.
SLB:dmv
THIS APPRCNAL IS sUBJDCP To THE FOLLowim CofIDmms:
1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the EXhibits A, B and
C contained in the file for plot plan No. 84-054 unless otherwise amended by
the following conditions.
2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date;
otherwise, it shall became null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By
"use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading,
contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is
thereafter diligently pursued to completion.
3. water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
requirements of the Riverside County Health Department.
. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the
Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta.
5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit
and have approved a detailed landscape plan for the front yarn showing the
species, size, location and spacing of all planting materials, including a
miniman of two (2) , 15-gallon street trees. The plan shall indicate the irri-
gation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots.
All trees and plants shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of
the approved use.
6. The Applicant will be required to post a cash bond, performance bond or other
financial arrangement acceptable to the City Attorney and City Engineer with
the City community Development Department for the installation of the required
street improvements along Avenida Madero including curb, gutter and
connect ing pave ment. The amount of this bond shall be $1,000.00 ,which shall
be submitted to and accepted by the City of La Quinta Comnumity Development
Director and City Manager prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted.
B. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be_ooncealed by fencing or
landscaping.
9.
All roof eaves
shall be a minimum width of 18
inches.
10.
The Applicant
shall obtain clearances and/or
permits from the following agencies:
° City Engineer/public Works
° Riverside County Health Department
° City Fire Marshall
° Community Development Department
11. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete with asphalt connecting Pavement.
SIB:dmv
ITEM NO. �•
DATE `3 -1 3 -
PLANNI11C COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SALAS
SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS'�IPKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SAS
DISCUSSION:_ Q `
ROLL CALL VOTE:
COMMISSIONERS:
GOETCH_ _----
EUS
IMKAMP
THORNBURGH
SALAS
XIXT KIEWICZ
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED
AYE NO
YES
ABSTAIN
NO
ABSENT
THORNBURGH
THORNBURGH
62
PRESENT
f
'J
T4hf 4 a Qgmrcv
78-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246
March 7, 1984
Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners
La Quinta Planning Commission
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Ladies and Gentlemen:
At their meeting held March 6, 1984, the La Quinta City Council
established a Downtown Planning Advisory Committee, intended to rep-
resent a cross-section of the community, as follows:
Two representatives from the Property Owners Association
(selected by the Association).
Two representatives from the Chamber of Commerce (selected by
the Chamber).
Two representatives of the La Quinta Business Association
(selected by the Association).
One member each from the City Council and the Planning
Commission.
The City Planning Director.
It would be appreciated if the Commission could meet and appoint
a representative to serve on this Committee. A copy of the City's
proposal is attached for your informa+-ion and review.
Please advise the City Council of your selection at the
earliest possible date. Hopefully, your selection will be completed
by March 16th so the Council can be apprised at their meeting of
March 20, 1984.
We look forward to working with the Planning Commission towards
the development and planning of downtown La Quinta.
sincerely,{
Robert L. Baier
Mayor
RLB/aj
cc: City Council
MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
0
1
2
'lll
Tit,/ U a Qumz
78-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246
PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
Establish a DOWNTOWN PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE with
representation from a cross-section of the community:
1.1. Two representatives from the Property Owners
Association (selected by the organization).
1.2. Two representatives from the Chamber of Commerce
(selected by the Chamber).
1.3. Two representatives of the La Quinta Business
Association (selected by the Association).
1.4. One member each from the City Council and the
Planning Commission.
1.5. The City Planning Director.
Once the members are identified, the Committee will be
appointed by, and be advisory to, the City Council.
3. City staff will be provided to the Committee when
considered appropriate by the Planning Director and
the Committee.
4. The D.P.A.C. will develop broad and specific concepts
for the development of downtown, including:
4.1.. A theme
An architectural motif
Identification of initial geographic area
Recommendations for types of enterprises in the
area
4.2. The work of the D.P.A.C. shall be based on a time-
line developed by them and approved by the City
Council. This time -line shall be their first effort.
4.3. As products are developed by the D.P.A.C., they shall
be presented to their constituent groups_ for_.discussions
and reaction.
4.4. The City Council shall have the final adoption authority
for these plans, and take appropriate actions for com-
pliance and implementation.
1 470
MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
Plan for Downtown&velopment
March 7, 1984
Page 2.
5. The Redevelopment Agency shall agree NOT to use eminent
domain until the plan is adopted, or the time for
finalizing the plan (according to the adopted time -line)
has expired, whichever happens sooner.
5.1. At that time, the Agency will only use eminent
domain at the recommendation of the D.P.A.C. in
order to assure that no one individual or group
will stop the development agreed to by the rest.
5.2. Eminent domain shall not be used for other purposes.
i.
.t
f
LEGAL ANALYSIS OF
PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT
(OAK TREE WEST PROJECT)
MARCH, 1984
By
JAMES LONGTIN
City Attorney
City of La Quinta
LEGAL CITAIIONS. Fi1RTHER REFERENCES.
t
1. In General.
The text of this paper contains references to legal citations of
various types. The citations refer to legal authority for the general
statement or proposition cited in the text. Although the citations
are readily understandable to attorneys, they can be somewhat perplex-
ing to the general reader. Accordingly, a brief explanation of legal
citations appears to be in order.
The legal citations listed herein are generally of two types. The
first type consists of statutes (laws) enacted by Congress and the
State Legislature by reference to a "Code" section. The second type
consists of interpretation of such code sections and the law gener-
ally by Federal and State court decisions and opinions of the State
Attorney General.
2.List of Abbreviations.
Abbreviation
Reference
USC
United States
Code
Calif. Const.
California
State Constitution
California
Code of Civil Procedure
CCP
California
Government Code
Gov.C.
Health 6 Safety C.
California
Health 6 Safety Code
California
Public Resources Code•
Pub. Revs. C.
. Cal.3d
California
Supreme Court Reports
3d Series
Cal.App.3d -'
California
Appellate Court Reports
3d Series
ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.
opinion of
the California Attorney
General
-Cal.Admin.C. California Administrative Code
TAOLL ur
Page
-
+ I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF REPORT
A. BACKGROUND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- 1
B. PURPOSE OF REPORT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
II. UNDERSTANDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
A. THE PARTIES IN INTEREST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4
-1. The Regulator (City of.La-Quinta)-- - - -.- - --
4
2. The Developer - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - -
- 5
3, The Preservationist - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- 6
B. TWO STEP APPROACH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-6
III. NATURE & TYPES OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
A. INTRODUCTION. LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CONTROL LAND
DEVELOPMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7
B. GENERAL PLAN (AMENDMENT)- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S
1. Authority,Function, and Purpose - - - - - - - - -
- S
2. Consistency Requirement - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- 9
3. Procedure for Amending Elements of a General Plan
- 10
4. Criteria (Factors) to Consider in Amendment of
General Plan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10
5. Potential City Liability - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11
C. SPECIFIC PLAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12
1. Authority, Function and Purpose - - - - - - - - -
- 12
2. Procedure for Adoption of a Specific Plan - - - - - 13
3. Criteria (Factors) to Consider in Adoption of
Specific Plan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14
4. Potential City Liability - - - - - - - - - - - 14
D. RE-ZONING/PRE--ZONING - - - - - - - - -
14
1. Authority, Function and Purpose - - - - - - -
14
- - - - - - -
15
2. Procedure - - - - - - - - - - -
3. Criteria.Factors to be Considered in Re -Zoning
16
4. Potential City Liability - - - - - - - - - - -
17
E. ANNEXATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
17
1. Introduction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
17
2. LAFCO- Authority - - - - - - - -. - - - - - -
18
3. Factors to be Considered by LAFCO - - - - - -
19
4. Annexation Procedure - MORGA - - - - - - - -
20
a. Initiation of Proceedings - - - - - -.- -
20
b. LAFCO Proceedings - - - - - - - - - - - -
29
c. Proceedings by Conducting Authority (City)
21
5. Potential Liability - - - - - - - - - - - -
22
F. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONTROLS - - - - - - - - - -
22
- - - - - - - -
22
1. Introduction - - - - - - --
2. Subdivision Approvals - - - -- - - - - - -
22
a. Authority and Purpose - - - - - - - - - -
22
- - - - - - -
24
b. Procedure - - - - - - - - -
c. Criteria. Factors to be Considered - - - -
25
d. Effect of Subdivision Approval.
Potential Vested Rights - - - - - -
27
e. Potential Liability - - - - - - - - - - -
- 28
3. Zoning Control (Development Permits) - - - -
- 29
G. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
30
1. Authority, Purpose and Procedure - - - - - -
- 30
2. Projects Subject to Environmental Review - -
- 32
3. What is an EIR? - - - - - - - - - - -
32
4. Use of the EIR in the Decision -Making Process
-33
5. Potential Adverse Impacts Identifiedin the
- -
34
EIR.- - -- - - - - - - - - -
H. CONDITIONS AND EXACTIONS (DEDICATIONS,IMPROVEMENTS -35
AND FEES) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1: Introduction, Authority, Reasonable Relationship
Tests - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35
i.
2. Types of Exactions - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37
i'
3. Timing of Construction of Improvements.Security -38
I. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39
1. Background of Vested Rights Frustration - - - - 39
2. Reason for Development .Agreement Legislation - - 39
3. What is a Development Agreement? - - - - - - 40
IV. PUBLIC INPUT OPPORTUNITIES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF REPORT
^' A.BACKGROUND
The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982 and has a current
population of approximately 5000 residents. During its short history,
the city has, received applications for proposed developments that are
in excess of 5700 units (over.15000.additional residents) as shown.on.
the following listing of cumulative developments:
Development Approx.Location
Santa Rose Cove Eisenhower Dr.
(Anden Corp.) 50th .Ave.
LaQuinta Hotel Eisenhower Dr. �?
Tennis Club LaQuinta Hotel
Laguna dela Paz Eisenhower Dr. �?
Washington St.
Pr000sed
Residential/
recreational
Residential/
recreational
General
Development
Density
550 condominium
108 townhomes
Residential/ 396 single -
recreational family units
Figgie Bounded by Washington St.Residential/ 2049 Condomin--
International 50th Ave.Jefferson St. recreational iums
& 48th Ave.
f1.B.Johnson Washington St.,North Residential/ 750 Condominium
of 48th Ave. recreational
Ridgway,Ltd. Jefferson ST @ Hotel/retreat- 100 Rm.hotel,
Desert Gardens 52nd Ave. ional spa,& 600
condominiums
Duna LaQuinta Washington ST. @ Residential 900 Condcmin-
50th Ave. recreational iums,320 single
family units,
motor lodge
In addition to the foregoing cumulative area project developments
the city has now received a project application for an additional 5000
residential units, entitled Oak Tree West. The project consists of a
1 IJ
1665 acre planned community including a 65 acre resort village, four
18 hole golf courses, and 35 acres of community commercial uses. Be-
cause of the size of the project, its concept as a planned community,
and the fact that the major portion of the project is located in
unincorporated territory adjacent to the city, the project will run
the gamut of potential development controls, including annexation,
prezoning, amendment to the general plan, adoption of a specific
plan, yoning development controls, subdivision controls and environ-
mental review. Additionally., because of the size and timing of build
out of the project over a period of 15 years, in 5 phases, the develop-
er is requesting a development agreement to assure a degree of certain-
ty in the approval of future project phases. Both the city and the
developer should have a real concern for the timing and phasing aspects
of the project to assure that the necessary infrastructure and project
facilities will accommodate the new residents as the build out pro-
gresses.
B. PURPOSE OF REPORT .
The cumulative impact of Oak Tree West, together with all other
future development projects, will bring about permanent physical envir-
onmental and socio-economic changes in the city including air quality,
traffic, school and park facilities, and other services such as sewers,
water supply and drainage. Clearly, the city in'its short history is
very rapidly determining its future growth and development and major
land use decisions have been and will be made that forever shape the
future destiny of La Quints relative to physical growth and amenities
of life. Since the City of La Quints, including its city council,
planning commission and staff is relatively new as far as its political
existence, it seems appropriate to review the nature and types of
development controls available to the city. Inasmuch as the Oak Tree
v
West project is the single bigvy„est planned development submitted to the
city, and inasmuch as it runs the gamut of land use controls, it seems
appropriate that this project be selected as the catalyst for this re-
view prior to its-consideration,by the cit.y., As will be revealed later
in this report, ideally, the first step in the land development process
is to "have a plan". It might also be said that it is also necessary
for the city, including its governing bodies, planning commission and
staff, to have an understanding of the legal aspects of land develop-
ment process, including the parameters of authority of various agenc-
ies at various stages; an understanding of legal procedures at the
various stages; and an understanding of the roles of the various actors
in the land development process. Such is the purpose of this report.
It is intended that this report will provide city officials and the
general public with an understanding of the total land use planning and
development process, as it applies to the Oak Tree West project, and
all future projects considered by the City of La Quints.
II. UNDERSTANDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
` A. THE PARTIES IN INTEREST.
Perhaps the first step in understanding the land development
process is to understand the nature and motivations of the three
parties in interest to a land development project, to wit: the regul-
ator, the developer and the preservationist..
1. The Regulator (City of La Quinta)
The municipal corporation (City of La Quinta) is the regulator
of all land development projects within the city. As regulator, the
city has a two fold role: (1) It makes the development rules by en-
acting ordinances which establish regulations governing development,
(for example, zoning, subdivision and environmental ordinances) and
other regulations; and (2) the city acts as the discretionary decis-
ion maker to approve or disapprove particular projects and decides the
nature and extent of conditions to be imposed upon approval for the
purposes of environmental mitigation and to assure construction of
public works, streets and utilities so that the future cost and
maintenance thereof will not be a burden on the general public.
In making the development rules and making discretionary decis-
ions, the city has certain fairness limitations imposed on its land
use power, including the requirement that all parties be accorded "due
process" which usually involves the right of the developer and the
opposition to have notice of the action and the opportunity to be
heard. In exercising its discretionary decision making power, the city
should act with the purpose and intent of protecting the total commun-
ity interest and to do what is best for the common benefit. Unless
the decision is arbitrary and 'capricious, the courts will not
overturn it or interfere with the local process. The city council,
as the governing body of the city, is the discretionary decision maker
on most development projects. In making its decisions, it is amply
provided with consultants and advisors, including the city planning
commission, city manager, planning director, city attorney, various
professional and technical consultants and other agencies involved
with a secondary role in the development process (schooI district
and special purpose districts).
2. The Developer
The developer is the land owner and/or agents thereof who are
proposing a project that will permanently alter the physical design and
use of the land. The cumulative effect of all developments constitutes
the "build out" of the community. The purpose and intent of the devel-
oper is to construct a land project that will be economically success-
ful, considering the dynamics of the market place as the determinant of
the qualities and amenities of the project. It should be noted that
although the purpose and intent of the regulator and the developer in a
land development project are different, the result or end product may
frequently be the same. That is, the project that is most economically
feasible for the developer considering the dynamics of the market place
as determining the quality and amenities of the project may well be
what the city considers to be in the best interest of the general
public of the community.
0
3.The preservationist
Not all land development projects have opposition. However,
those projects that do engender opposition are usually opposed by
groups or individuals which will be generally referred to as
"preservationists", which term includes neighbors, homeowners
associations, environmental and historical preservation groups and
etc. The purpose and intent of the preservationist in opposing a land
development project,is generally to preserve the "status quo" of the
community and/or to protect certain species or amenities that will be
endangered as a result of the development. In lesser cases, the pur-
poses may be to obtain certain exactions as a condition of development
approval, including such matters as lower density, design changes, and
the construction of certain public improvements and amenities.
B.TWO STEP APPROACH. PLANNING STAGE AND IMPLEMENTATION STAGE.
Ideally, the municipal control,of land development is accomplished
in a two-step approach, to wit: (1) a planning process by which the
community goals and policies are determined and (2) implementation
process by which individual development projects are approved in
accordance with the established community plan (community goals and
policies). The implementation process includes development permit
controls whereby individual projects are considered for approval and
the imposition of conditions, all in accordance with the plan develop-
ed through the planning process. Additionally, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it is also required that
both during the planning and implementation process the city must
consider long term protection of the environment as a guiding criteria,
which is carried out through the process of environmental review.
f-
I
I:J�.
The next section of this report will review the individual dev-
r
elopment controls (both planning and implementation types). As the
" report is reviewed, the reader should keep in mind that each type of
land use control is not an island unto itself. The controls are to
be used together as comprehensive set of tools, for the purpose of
allowing a community to improve the quality'of life therein by
establishing and implementing its goals and policies.
III.NATURE AND TYPES OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
A. INTRODUCTION. LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CONTROL LAND DEVELOPMENT.
The legal basis for planning and land use regulations is the
police power of the city to protect the public health, safety and
welfare of its residents. The police power flows from the California
Constitution which gives cities the power to make and enforce all local
police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict
with general laws. (Article X1, Section 7, California Constitution.)
a city may exercise its police power to provide a "modern, enlightened
progressive community."Rancho v. Co. of San Diego(1980) III Ca1.App.
3d 54,60. From this general police power derives various statutory
schemes of regulation allowing cities to implement this power, each of
which will be discussed below.
In exercising its planning and land use powers, the city must act
within certain statutory guidelines and operate within reason so there
will not be an improper exercise of the power, and thus no violation of
constitutional principles of equal protection and due process.
However, the courts have been supportive of cities in exercising a
judicial deference to local police power, recognizing it is not the
courts role to substitute its wisdom for that of the city and only
invalidating regulations that are 7 arbitrary and capricious.
The following sections discuss the various land use controls
applicable to the Oak Tree West project. The controls begin with
planning controls, progress to permit -controls, with a concluding
section on environmental review which affects both types of con-
trol. The report also includes sections on conditions and exactions
and development agreements.
B.GENERAL PLAN (AMENDMENT)
1. Authority Function and Purpose
The cornerstone of land use planning is the General Plan, which is
a comprehensive, long-term plan for the physical development of the
city. It consists of development policies setting forth objectives,
principles, standards, and plan proposals. The General Plan applies
to all land within the boundaries of the city and to any land outside
its boundaries which bears relation to its planning. Gov.C.65300. All
cities and counties are mandated to enact General Plans and all future
zoning, subdivisions, and other permit approvals must be consistent
with the plan. There are nine mandatory elements, including (1) land
use, (2) circulation, (3) housing, (4) conservation, (5) open space,
(6) seismic safety, (7) noise, (8) scenic highway, and (9) general
safety. Gov. C.65302. In addition to the nine elements mandated to
be included in a General Plan, there are certain further elements that
may be included. These are called "permitted elements" and they in-
clude (1) recreation, (2) supplemental circulation, (3) transportation,
(4) transit, (5) public services and facilities, (6) public buildings,
(7) community design, (8) supplemental housing, (9) redevelopment, and
(10) historical. preservation. Gov.C.65303. Consideration of the enumer-
ated elements is intended to provide an integrated, internally consist-
ent statement of policies to guide local land use and development.
Gov.C.65300.5. 8
The General Plan has been described as a declaration of public
purpose setting forth the kind of a city the community wants and the
physical form and character the city is to assume; it is a constitut-
ion for all future developments within the city; zoning regulations,
subdivision proposals, or other development proposals should be
interpreted in part by its fidelity to the General Plan and such
consideration is frequently a sufficient legislative guide to exercise
of such discretion; the General Plan is a long-term general outline of
projected development; zoning and subdivision controls are but two of
the many tools which may be used to implement the plan. O'Loane v.
O'Rourke (1965) 213 Cal. App.2d.774.
2.Consistency Requirement.
The General Plan should be utilized by the various City Depart-
ments, Planning Commission, and City Council as a general guide to the
future development of the city, and as a basis for making land use per-
mit decisions, especially in the areas of zoning, subdivision, and the
location and design of public facilities. Since 1974, all zoning
ordinances are required to be consistent with the General Plan. Gov.C.
65860 and 65910 (Open Space). A zoning ordinance is deemed consistent
if the land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the
objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the
plan. Gov. C.65860(a). Also, all subdivisions, together with provis-
ions for its design and improvement, must be consistent with the
General Plan and any specific plans applicable thereto. Gov.0 66473.5
and 66474(a) and (b). Consistency means that the proposed subdivision
or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies,general land
uses and programs specified in the plan
Gov. C. 66473.5.
Q
3.Procedure for Amending Elements of -a General Plan
The city has adopted the county general plan for the La Quinta
area as the'3citi.es general plan. The Oak Tree West project, as
submitted, will require an amendment to at least the land use and
circulation elements. .Additionally, since the major portion of the
property is located in unincorporated territory, a pre -annexation
county amendment: will be necessary, which amendment will automat.i-
tally become the, general plan designation upon annexation to the city.
The various elements of a city or county adopted General Plan are
amended by the following procedure. After a proposed amendment to an
element of the plan has been formulated (normally by the Planning
Department), the Planning Commission is required to hold at least one
noticed public hearing thereon. Gov.C.65351. Following the public
hearing, the Planning Commission may approve the amendment by resolut-
ion by affirmative vote of a majority of its total voting members.
Gov. C.65352. upon approval by the Commission, the amendment is re-
quired to be transmitted to the City Council, Gov.C.65354. Before
adopting the amendment, the City Council shall hold at least one
noticed public hearing thereon. Gov. C.65355. Following the public
hearing, the City Council may adopt the amendment to the General Plan
by resolution. Gov. C.65357.
4.Criteria. Factors to Consider in Amendment of General Plan
The adoption or amendment of an element of the General Plan is a
legislative act and, as such, is entitled to the strongest presumption
of validity and allows the City Council the widest range of discretion
in its enactment.Selby Realty Co v City of San Buenayentura(1973)
10 Ca1.3d 110,118. In such a case, the City Council is generally
_.; l v i
10
governed solely by its discretion as to what the members believe
is in the best interests of the city and such determinations will
not be overturned unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or
in excess of its jurisdiction. Wilson v Hidden Valley Municipal
Water District (1967) 256 Cal. App. 2d 271,286. With the exception
of the housing element, neither the State Legislature in enacting the
State Planning Act nor the courts in interpreting sections thereof
have set forth any specific criteria or factors to.be considered by
the city in adopting, amending or implementing its General Plan. In
the absence of such criteria, the City Council is governed solely
by its own reasonable discretion as to what it believes to be in the
best interests of the city and such discretion may be based upon
generally accepted land use planning, environmental, social, and
economic criteria.
5.Potential City Liability
As previously stated, the amendment of a General Plan is a
legislative act and the city has broad discretion in rendering its
decision. The determination of the city will not be overturned unless
the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or in excess of its jurisdict-
ion. In the event the city renders a determination that is determined
to be legally improper, the sole remedy of the land-owner/developer
is traditional mandamus (invalidation). CCP 1085. It has been clearly
held that the adoption or amendment of a general plan does not give
rise to a cause of action for inverse condemnation damages. Selby
Realty Co v City of San Buena Ventura (1973) 10 Cal. 3d 110 and
Dale v. City of Mountain View (1976) 55 Ca1.App.3d 101,108.
Inasmuch as zoning is required to be consistent with the general
plan, the potential city liability for pre -zoning should be considered
conjunction herewith. See page 14.
C. SPECIFIC PLAN
1. Authority Function and Purpose.
General plans are normally implemented through the use of
several tools, including specific plans, zoning ordinances and subdiv-
ision regulations. Specific plans, although considered a planning
control, are designed to apply the policies of the general plan to
specific planned areas. A city or county planning agency (Planning
Department and Planning Commission) has the authority to prepare
specific plans based on the general plan and drafts of such regul-
ations, programs and legislation as may in its judgment be required
for the systematic execution of the general plan. Gov.C.65450.
Specific plans shall include all detailed regulations, conditions,
programs and proposed legislation which shall be necessary or conven-
ient for the systematic implementation of each mandatory element of the
general plan. Gov. C. 65451. The regulations, conditions, programs and
proposed legislation may include the following:
a. Location of various types of land use.Gov.C.65451(a)
b. Location and extent of existing or proposed streets and
roads.Gov. C.65451(b)
c. Standards for population and building density.Gov.C.
65451(c)
17
d. Standards for the conservation,_ development and
utilization of natural resources. Gov.C.65451(d).
e,. Implementation of the open space element of the general
r plan. Gov. C.65451(e).
f. other additional measures as may be necessary or conven-
ient to insure the.execution of the general plan. Gov. C
65451(f).
In many cities, specific plans are being used as master devel-
opment plans for large land holdings with staged development. They set
forth the various land uses, circulation and utility systems, park
sites, school sites, open space areas, etc. This allows consideration
of tract maps and development permit applications within a specific
framework (with which they must be consistent) rather than on a piece-
meal basis.
2.Procedure For Adoption of a Specific Plan
The developer has submitted a specific plan for adoption by the
city. Following a staff review of the plan, the Planning Commission
holds at least one noticed public hearing before recommending to the
City Council that it adopt or reject the plan. Gov.C.65500. The recom-
mendation shall. be by majority vote resolution of the Planning Commis-
sion. Gov. C.65501. Upon receipt of the proposed specific plan, the
City Council may adopt the plan by resolution, following at least one
noticed public hearing. Gov. C. 65503.
13 -") ij
3. Criteria (Factors) to Consider in Adoption of Specific
Plan.
other than the provisions relative to the content of.
specific plans, discussed in (1) above, neither the state enabling
legislation nor the courts have established any factors, standards, or
criteria that the city must obey in its determination relative to
adoption of a specific plan. Although. no court has specifically so
held, it seems apparent that the adoption of a specific plan is a
legislative act, similar to the adoption or amendment of a general
plan and the City Council is governed solely by its discretion as to
what its members believe to be in the best interests of the city and
its determination will not be overturned unless the decision is
arbitrary, capricious, or in excess of its jurisdiction.
4.Potential City Liability
The potential city liability for. adoption of a specific plan
is the same as potential city liability for amendment of general plan.
No inverse condemnation damages. The only available remedy is mandamus
to invalidate all or part of the plan to the extent it is determined
that the city decision is arbitrary, capricious or in excess of its
jurisdiction.
D.RE-ZONING/PRE-ZONING.
1. Authority Function and Purpose
Zoning is the separation of a city into various districts or
zones, and the regulation of buildings and yards and the nature and
extent of uses of land, within each district or zone. In contrai;t to
r
14
general plans,_zoning ordinances set more detailed standards relative
to the use of particular parcels of land. Zoning must be consistent
with general and specific plans. Gov. C.65860.
A city is authorized to pre -zone unincorporated territory
adjoining the city for the purpose of determining toning that will
apply to such property in the event of subsequent annexation to the
city. Pre-zon.ing.becomes effective. at the.same, time the annexation
becomes effective. Gov. C.65859.
2. Procedure
The method of accomplishing re -zoning and pre -zoning is by the
same general procedure. A re -zoning proposal must be submitted to the
Planning Commission, which body must hold a noticed public hearing.
Gov. c.65854. After the hearing, the Planning Commission renders its
decision in the form of a written recommendation to the City Council,
which recommendation shall include the reasons therefore, and the
relationship of the proposed zoning to applicable general and specific
plans. Gov. C.65855. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, the City Council holds a public hearing on the
proposed pre -zoning. Gov. C.65856. Following a noticed hearing, the
City Council may approve, modify or disapprove the Planning Commission
recommendation. Gov. C.65857. If the City Council approves, or
approves as modified, the proposed re -zoning, it must introduce and
adopt an ordinance formalizing the action. Gov. C.65850.
15 t7
3.Criteria Factors to be Considered to Ke-zoning.
The re -zoning of property is a discretionary legislative act of
the City Council. As such, the wisdom of the zoning regulation is a
matter for legislative determination, and even though a court may not
agree with that determination, it will not substitute its judgment for
that of the zoning authority if there is some reasonable justification
for their action. The legislative power must be upheld unless .
manifestly abused so as to infringe on constitutional guarantees. If
there is a reaonable basis for the action of the zoning authorities
and, if the reasonableness of the ordinance is fairly debatable, the
legislative determination will not be disturbed. Carty v. City of
Ojai (1970) 77 Cal. App.3d.333,339.
The only mandated criteria which must be considered by the city
in rezoning is (.a) re -zoning be consistent with applicable general and
specific plans (Gov.C.65860 and 65910), and (b) consideration of the
environmental effect of the proposed re -zoning (Pub. Res. C. 21080 and
14 Cal. Admin. C.15037 (a) ( M . It has been held, in re -zoning
matters, that a city or county must comply with the provisions of CEQA;
and that if an environmental impact report is required, it must be
prepared and considered before the ordinance is adopted. Rosenthal v.
Board of Supervisors(1975) 44 Cal. App. 3d.815,821. There is one
further limiting criterion. If the effect of the re -zoning is to
deprive the landowner of substantially all reasonable use of his
property, the zoning ordinance is subject to invalidation. See section
4, below.
16
4.Potential City Liability.
As previously stated, a City Council has broad discretion in
re -zoning property. Only in the event that the effect of the re -zoning
is to deprive the landowner of substantially all reasonable use of his
propetty, would the re -zoning ordinance be deemed invalid. Agins v.
City of Tiburon (1979) 23 Ca1.3d.605,612. Mere diminution in value
resulting from the re-zoning.is insufficient to invalidate the action
and/or render,the city otherwise liable. HFH Ltd. v. Superior
Court(1975) 15 Cal. 3d. 508, 515. The issue of exactly how much
regulation constitutes an unlawful taking and what is the proper remedy
(invalidation opr money damages) for such a taking is somewhat
uncertain. In 1980, when the U.S. Supreme Court considered Agins
(24 C.3d.266), it expressly reserved the question of whether damages
could be an appropriate remedy in the event a zoning regulation con-
stituted a taking. Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) 447 U.S. 255, 100
S. Ct. 2138, 2143. More recently, however, the Supreme Court gave an
indication that the application of a zoning ordinance which denied the
owner the economically viable use of his land give rise to a constitut-
ional cause of action for money damages. San Diego Gas S Elec. Co. v.
City of San Diego (1981) 450 U.S. 621, 101 S. Ct. 1287.
E.ANNEXATION
1. Introduction
The extension of the boundaries of a city by attachment of un-
incorporated territory is known as annexation. The proposed develop-
ment (Oak Tree West) is presently located partly in county unincorpor-
ated territory adjacent to the City. It is normal local government
17
_, 1.off.
.practice to require that property proposed for•large scale
development, adjacent to an incorporated city, annex to the city for
development purposes (as opposed to approval of development within
the county unincorporated territory). The developer has also re-
quested annexation. Although, it would appear, at first blush,
that annexation would be the first logical step in the development
process; in practice it is the second step, inasmuch as LAFCO requires
pre -zoning by the City prior to annexation and inasmuch as
determination of pre -zoning will necessarily involve amendment of the
General Plan and/or preparation of a Specific Plan. Thus annexation
is the second step in the development process for this project.
2.LAFCO Authorit
In order to discourage urban sprawl and to encourage the
orderly formation and development of local government agencies, based
upon local conditions and circumstances, the state legislature enacted
the Knox -Nisbet Act in 1965 establishing regional (county wide) control
of annexations by a Local Agency Formation Commission (herein LAFCO).
The commission (LAFCO) consists of five members selected as follows:
(a) two members representing the county, appointed by the Board of
Supervisors from its own membership, (b) two members representing the
cities in the county, each of whom shall be a city officer, appointed
by a city selection committee, and (c) one member representing the
general public, appointed by the other four members of the commission.
Gov. C. 54780.
LAFCO has the authority to review and approve or disapprove
the annexation of territory to cities. However, it may not impose any
conditions which would directly regulate land use or subdivision
requirements; nor may it specify how or in what manner the territory
to be annexed shall be pre -zoned. Gov. C.54790. Proceedings for
annexation may not be initiated until application is made to LAFCO
and LAFCO approval is obtained. Gov. C.54791. If LAFCO disapproves
the proposal, no further proceedings may be taken thereon nor shall an
application for a subsequent proposal involving any of the same
territory be filed with the commission for at least one year after the
date of disapproval without consent of the commission. Gov.C. 54799.
3.Factors to be Considered by LAFCO.
In considering and deciding an annexation proposal, LAFCO is
required to consider many factors, including population density, land
use, natural conditions, proximity to other populated areas, projected
growth, governmental services, conformity with LAFCO policies on
orderly development, conformity with city and county general and
specific plans, and the city's "sphere of influence". Gov.C.54796 and
54790.2. LAFCO's decision is final and conclusive in the absence of
fraud or prejudicial abuse of discretion. Gov. C.35006. LAFCO proceed-
ings are considered quasi -legislative in nature and the scope of any
court review of its decision is limited to determining whether LAFCO'S
action was arbitrary or capricious or that it failed to follow proper
procedures and give notices required by law. City of Santa Cruz v.
Local Agency Formation Com. (1978) 76 Cal. App.3d.381. I am also
aware of no case wherein a LAFCO substantive decision approving or
denying annexation has been overturned by the courts.
19
4. AnnexationProcedure- MORGA.
The Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA, Gov. C.35000
et.sec. ) repealed all prior annexation acts and recodified the pro-
cedures into a single act. The procedures under MORGA basically
involve three steps, to wit: (1) initiation of proceedings; 0 )
LAFCO proceedings; and (3) proceedings by the conducting authority
(city)..
a.Initiation of Proceedi
Annexation proceedings may be initiated by either (a)
petition of the landowner or (b) a resolution of application by the
city. Gov. C.35100(b). As of this date, annexation proceedings have
not been formally initiated and the two options of initiating
annexation are still open to the city and the developer. It the City
initiates proceedings by.resolution, it must also submit a "plan for
providing services" within the proposed territory. This plan is
required to include the level and range of proposed services, when the
services will be provided, the proposed improvements (structures,
roads, sewer and water facilities, etc.) and a plan for financing,
services. Gov. C.35102.
b.LAFCO Proceedings .
LAFCO proceedings commence when either the petition or
resolution initiating proceedings is filed with the executive officer
of LAFCO. Gov. C.35117 and 35141. LAFCO consideration of the
proposals is subject to CEQA environmental review inasmuch as its
_:i I 1,�/ l
9n
consideration will involve zoning and land use plans. People ex. Tel•
Younger v Local Agency Formation Com. (1978) 81 Cal. App.3d 464,477.
The city is the 'lead agency's for purposes of CEQA and it has already
prepared a draft FIR for purposes of the annexation proposal combined
with general plan amendments, specific plan and rezoning purposes.
otice in accordance
LAFCO sets the proposals for hearing and gives n
with certain procedures. Gov. C. 35152-35155. At the hearing,LAFCO
ear protests, evidence, the report of its executive
is required to h-
officer, and the plan for municipal services. Gov. C.35156. The
commission then has authority to approve, disapprove or condition-
ally approve the proposal.. Gov. C.35150(a) and 54790.1. Provisions
are specifically made for input and requests from all interested
parties. Gov. C.35162.
c. Proceedings by Conducting Authority (City)*
If LAFCO approves or conditionally approves the proposal,
the city is required to initiate proceedings, by adoption of a resol-
ution, within 35 days of LAFCO decision. Gov. C. 35161 and 35201. If
the city fails to initiate within 35 days, or fails to conduct or
complete the proceedings, or abide by the LAFCO conditions, the county
assumes jurisdiction to complete the proceedings. Gov. C.35202 and
35203. The proceedings by the city involve a noticed hearing to deter-
mine whether there are landowner protests to the annexation. If 507
protest, the city shall terminate the proceedings. If less than 50%
protest, the city must order the annexation. Gov. C.35229. Thus, the
city has no discretionary authority to either refuse to conduct the
annexation proceedings or to disapprove the annexation. Following the
completion of proceedings by the city, LAFCO certifies completion of
the annexation and makes certain filings with the city clerk, county
• surveyor, county recorder and secretary of state. Gov. C.35350, 35352,
and 35357. The annexation is complete from the date of execution of
the certificate of completion. Goz+. C. 35353-35355.
r
5.Potential Liability*
Under normal cir'cumAtances, the regulation of, unincorporated
territory is solely within the jurisdiction of the county and a city
has no extra territorial power to regulate the land until annexation is
rmally have no exposure to liability
complete. Thus, a city would no
for improper land use regulation in county territory. Further, the
governmental exposure for potential liability for over regulation in
this area is minimal compared to the exercise of the zoning and
subdivision controls.
F.DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONTROLS
1.Introduction.
Assuming that the proposed annexation is completed; that the
territory is re -zoned consistent with the general plan, as amended; and
the city adopts a specific plan for the area in question (optional);
the city will next be in a posture to consider and determine applicat-
ions for physical development of any or all portions of the subject
properties through the use of development permit controls, to wit:
zoning and subdivision permit approvals.
2.Subdivision Approvals.
a.Authority and Purpose.
Assuming one or more of the projects in question have been
annexed to the city and zoning designations have been established, the
_ail t. iv
79
next logical step for the landowner/developer is to request approval
to subdivide a part of the property. This application (subdivision)
is frequently in conjunction with a request for a zoning development r
permit. Subdivision regulations are established pursuant to the Sub-
division map Act (Gov.C.66410-66499.37) and local (city) ordinance
(Riverside Co..Ord. 460.).
The Subdivision Map Act is promised on the exercise of local (city
and county) regulatory power operating within a general statewide pro-
cedural framework. The S.M.A. prohibits the sale, lease or financing
of a parcel of land, or any construction thereon, or occupancy thereof,
until a subdivision map has been recorded. Gov.C.66499.30. Such a sub-
division map cannot be recorded without the express approval of the
local agency (city).
The purpose of subdivision regulations is "(1) to encourage orderly
community development by providing for the regulation and control of the
design and improvement of a subdivision with a proper consideration of its
relation to adjoining areas; (2) to insure that the areas within the sub-
division that are dedicated for public purposes will be properly improved
by the subdivider so that they will not become an undue burden on the
community; and (3) to protect the public and individual transferees from
fraud and exploitation." 61 ops. Cal.Atty. Gen. 299,301 (1978)_
J
C11,
73
Y
b, Procedure.
The first formal step in the subdivision process is the fil-
ing of a tentative map with the city. GOv.C.66452. The tentative map is
first reviewed by the Planning Commission which makes recommendations
to the City Council on matters of approval or disapproval and conditions
of approval. The Commission is required to hold a noticed public hearing
on the tentative map and renders a decisibnlin the, form of a recommendat-
ion. The recommendation of the Planning Commission is transmitted to the
City Council, which body is required to hold a noticed public hearing on
the map and render its decision. The City is required to take action on
a subdivision map within 50 days after filing (and completion of an EIR).
Gov.C.66452.1(b). If no action is taken within the required time, the
map is deemed approved. Gov. C.66452.4. Following approval of condition-
al approval of a tentative map, the tentative map has a period of validity
of 18 months,(with potential extension for additional 3 years), during
which time a subdivider may cause the subdivision to be surveyed and a
final map to be prepared in accordance with the tentative map as approved.
Gov.C.66452.6(a). If the final map "conforms" to all applicable require-
ments of the *lap Act and local ordinance, the approval becomes ministerial
and mandatory. Gov.C.66473 and Youngblood v Board of Supervisors (1978)
22 Cal. 3d 644,656. Prior to final map approval, bonded public improve-
ments agreements arc C,cOCJred to provide for the construction of all public
improvements by the subdivider. Gov.C.66462(a) (1) and (2).
24
r
c.Criteria. Factors to be Considered.
In hearing and deciding whether a subdivision tentative map
shall be approved or disapproved, the Planning Commission and the City
Council are granted broad discretion. However, there., are certain policy
criteria which the Commission and Ccuncil must consider in making its
decision, including:
1. The decision maker (Planning Commission or City
Council) must make a positive finding that the .proposed
subdivision, together with provisions for design and
improvement, are consistent with applicable general and
specific plans. Gov. C.66473.5. The city must deny
approval if it finds inconsistency. Gov.C.66474(a) 6 (b).
The consistency requirement is not limited to physical
criteria of general and specific plans, but it includes
ali social and economic criteria permissible under the
plans. 58 Cps. Atty.Gerf.41-43 (1975). Consistency does
not require exact identity; rather, the subdivision map
must be harmonious with the adopted general and specific
plans; must integrate the three land use controls
(general plan, zoning, and subdivision) of basic impact
on the land development process; and requires that the
proposed subdivision be judged with an eye toward future
generations land use requirements in recognition of the
deleterious effect of premature land development. 59 Ops.
Cal.Atty. Gen.129,131-132 (1976).
2. In addition to the mandatory finding that the proposed
subdivision mustbe consistent with all applicable general
and specific plans, the City is required to deny approval
of a tentative map if it makes any of the following
2b
Ci.
findings,. to wit: (I.) The site is -not physically suit-
able for the type of development proposed:(2)The site
is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development; (3)The subdivision is likely to cause sub-
stantial environmental damage (although interrelated with
CEQA, this finding is in addition to the requirements for
preparation of an EIR);(4)The proposed subdivision is
likely to cause serious public health problems;(5)waste
discharge from the proposed subdivision will result in or
add to violations of requirements of the regional quality
control board; (6)The proposed subdivision is in conflict
with public easements for access through or use of pro-
perty within the subdivision.Gov.C.66474(c) through
66474(g) and 66474.6.
3.Although the above criteria (items 1 and 2 immediately
above) are statutorily frames as grounds for subdivision
map denial, a city has the authority to impose conditions
on subdivision map approval based on the same criteria
because "inherent in the power to disapprove is the power
conditionally, so long as such conditions are a reasonable
consequence of the city's factual findings." The power to
deny approval likewise authorizes a city to impose con-
ditions based upon criteria of adopted general plans or
other areas of authorized local regulation. See 56 Ops.
Cal.Atty.Gen.274,277 (1973) and 58 Ops. Ca1.Atty.Gen.41,
43 (1975).
4.The control of design and improvement of a subdivision
is vested in the city by adoption of an ordinance which
contains detailed provisions relative to the required de-
signs and improvement of subdivisions within the city.The
26
i
city is empowered to deny asubdivision map for failure
to meet the requirements imposed by local ordinance.
Gov.C.66473. Thus a city has the power to deny individ-
ual tentative map requests for failure to meet design
and improvement standards imposed by the city.
d.Fffect of Subdivision Approval Potential Vested Rights.
Under normal circumstances, a landowner/developer has no
"vested rights" in the use of real property until he has obtain-
ed a building permit and has incurred substantial expenditures
in reliance thereon. 4VC0 Community Developers Inc. v. South
Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 785. However, in
another case the California Supreme Court has held that the
"crucial date" when a city should decide to permit a proposed
subdivision is the tentative map approval; and that approving
a final map is a ministerial act which must be approved if it
conforms to the tentative. Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors
(1978) 22 Cal. 3d 644,655. Because of this language, it may
now be the rule (although no court has directly so held) that
once a subdivider obtains a tentative map and diligently there-
after proceeds to obtain the final map, and diligently there-
after proceeds to obtain the building permit, the issuance of
building permits is also a ministerial and mandatory act and
their issuance must be approved if everything is in compliance
with the approved tentative map. This would mean that the city
is not allowed to change any development rules following
approval of a tentative map, such as lowering the densities,
imposing additional improvement conditions, and charging
additional fees.
27
e. Potential Liability.
Decisions involving the approval and disapproval of
subdivision map and the validity of conditions thereto are
quasi-judicial (adjudicatory) actions, and normally are
subject to judicial review in administrative mandamus
(CCP 1094.5). Youngblood v Board of Superevisors(1978)
22 Cal. 3d 644,651. This is normally the exclusive remedy
for actions involving approval or disapproval of maps and
actions attacking the validity of conditions. This means
that an award of damages is not a proper remedy for invalid
action on a subdivision map. Rather, a court may on invali-
date the city's action. See Myers v. Board of Supervisors
(1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 413,428.
The usual type of administrative mandamus action alleges
"prejudicial abuse of discretion" by the city. CCP 1094.5(b).
Abuse of discretion is established only if the city has not
proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not
supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported
by the evidence. CCP 1094.5(b),It is difficult to establish
"prejudicial abuse of discretion" in view of the general
reluctance of courts to substitute the judgment for that of
the city. The disapproval of a tentative subdivision map has
been held not to involve a "fundamental 'vested right" requir-
ing a court to exercise its independent judgment in review.
Carmel Valley View Ltd v. Board of Supervisors(1976) 58 Cal.
App. 3d 817.
28 I '�
Generally, the only potential money damages liability or
a city involved in the approval of a subdivision involves
the acceptance of public improvements. once such improv-
ments are accepted, the city, and not the subdivider, is
liable in subsequent inverse condemnation actions for
damages resulting from the faulty design the.reo£.Blau
v City of Los Angeles (1973) 32 Cal App3d.77,87-91. It
is normal practice for the city to. require the subdivider
to indemnify the city from liability resulting from design
or construction of public improvements. However, such
indemnification agreements are very narrowly construed and,
as a practical matter, it is almost impossible to "bond"
them for future indemnification. City of Los Angeles v.
Japan Airlines Co., Ltd. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d
416,430-431.
3.Zoning Controls.(Development Permits).
The matter of establishing the zoning designation for the
properties in question has previously been discussed under the
section on re -zoning (see page 14)_ with minor exceptions, the
mere fact that a zoning designation has been established for a
parcel of land does not give the developer/landowner a right to
develop the property without first obtaining a development per-
mit from the city. Residentially zoned property usually cont-
ains a subdesignation establishing the gross density in terms
of number of units allowed per acre. The specific plan, adopted
concurrently, would specify which areas of the property would
be developed with various densities (or non-residential land
uses), and which areas would remain undeveloped. The city has
29 f.
or will have a required procedure to obtain zoning
development permits, in conjunction with subdivision
approvals, for each submitted application for residential
development. In addition, the city will require discre-
tionary permit reviews for commercial and industrial.
development proposals. The purpose of such zoning permit
approval process is to review design and architectural
matters. and compliance with zoning development standards
(such as set backs, lot size, etc.).
The procedure, criteria, and potential liability of the city
for zoning permit actions is substantially similar to those
set forth for subdivision approvals (page 22).
C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
1.Authority Purpose and Procedure.
In 1970,.the California Legislature enacted the Environmen-
tal Quality Act (herein "CEQA)
basic purposes of CEQA are to:
Pub.Res. C 21000-21174. The
a. Inform governmental decision makers and the public about
the potential significant environmental effects of proposed
activities;
b. Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided
or significantly reduced;
2r)
c. Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environ-
ment by requiring changes in projects through the use of
alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental
agency finds the changes to be feasible; and
d. Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental
agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose.
Pub.Res. C 21001.E 14 Cal.Adm.C. 15006.
The CEQA mandates that before a public agency (city) approves
a project, certain. decisions must be made with respect to the
environment. Generally, the city must conduct an "initial
study" of the project to determine whether it may have a
significant effect on the environment, which is a substantial
adverse change in the physical conditions in the area affected
by the project. 14 Cal. Adm. C. 15382. If it is found as a
result of the initial study that the project will not have
a significant effect on the environment, the city prepares and
files a negative declaration, which contains a description of
the project and a statement that the project will have no sign-
ificant effect on the environment. If all proper procedures
are followed relative to the negative declaration, the city is
free to approve the project. If, on the other hand, the city
determines that the project may have a significant effect on
the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be
prepared. Pub. Res. C.21151.
f 82
31
2.Pro'ects Subject to Environmental Review.
CEQA only applies to discretionary projects proposed
to be approved by the G,ity and does not apply to ministerial
projeets. Pub. Res. C.21080. It has been determined, through
CEQA itself, the administrative guidelines., and judicial
decisions, that most all land use controls (general and
specific plans, re -zoning, annexation, zoning development
permits, and subdivision approvals) are discretionary
projects subject to CEQA. In this particular case, a draft
EIR has already been prepared for the projects, relative to
re -zoning, general plan amendment, specific plans, annexat-
ion, and development agreement. This draft EIR, if finally
certified by the City, will constitute the EIR for all
future subdivision and zoning approvals undertaken pursuant
to the approved specific plan, unless future changes occur,
which may necessitate the preparation of a supplemental
EIR. Gov. C.65453 (b).
3. What i_ san EIR?
An EIR is an informational document which will inform
public agency decision makers and the public generally of
the significant environmental effect of a project, identify
possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and des-
cribe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public
agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with
other information which may be presented to the agency.
14 Cal. Adm. C. 15121.
32 1 8 ::
4. Use of the EIR in the Decision Making Process..
The final EIR will be presented to the decision making
body of the City (to LAFCO in the case of annexation) which
body shall certify that the final EIR has been completed in
compliance with CEQA and that the decision making body
having final approval authority over the project has review-
ed and considered the information contained in the EIR,
prior to approval of the project. 14 Cal.Admin.C. 15090.
Actually, the decision -making body of the agency must do
more than "consider" the EIR. It must evalute it, espec-
ially where the decision -making body overrides any adverse
environmental impacts contained in the EIR and proceeds with
the project. Burger V. County of Mendicino(1975) 45 Cal.
App.3d 322,326. The primary focus should be identifying and
analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways
in which the significant effects of the project might be
avoided or.mitigated. 14 Cal.Adm.Code 15204.
Following certification of the final EIR, the decision -
making body is free to make a decision approving or disap-
proving the project. However, a city may not decide to
approve a project for which an EIR was prepared unless
either:
(1) The project as approved will not have a signifi-
cant effect on the environment, or
33 (;Si
(2) The City has:
(a) Eliminated or substantially lessened all
significant effects on the environment where
feasible as shown in written findings with
rationale for each finding; and
(b) Determined that any remaining significant
effects are acceptable due to overriding socio-
economic benefits. 14 Cal. Adm. C.15092.
In summary, the EIR rules seem to recognize a "balanc-
ing test", in that CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance the
benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental
risk, in determining whether to approve the project. Thus, while an
EIR does not require the City to act in any particular manner, it con-
stitutes evidence which must be considered by the public agency along
with other evidence which may be presented to the agency, in arriving
at its final decision. City of Carmel -By -The -Sea v. Board of
Supervisors (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 84, 94.
5.Potential Adverse impacts Identified in the EIR.
The draft environmental impact report prepared for the Oak
Tree West project contains an environmental analysis of the project as
proposed by the developer. Among other things, the EIR identifies
certain substantial impacts involving land use, traffic circulation,
air quality, and public services and facilities. Other impacts are
identified but appear to be of lesser importance. The Planning COmmis-
sion and City Council are required to evaluate these impacts prior to
34
rendering any,decision relative to the projects. However, the draft
• EIR also indicates that implementation of mitigation measures will
reduce potential impacts to acceptable or insignificant levels, with
the exception of the land use conversion of agricultural to urban use,
which will be a permanent physical change. If the city decides to
r
approve the project, it will be necessary to make required mitigation
findings and a statement of overriding benefits as to the land use
conversion impact.
H.CONDITIONS AND EXACTIONS iDEDICATIONS,IMPROVEMENTS AND
1. Introduction Authority. Reasonable Relationship Test.
There is probably no issue in land development law which has
generated more controversy than that of required dedications, improve-
ments, fees and other exactions as a condition of development approval.
The concept is quite simple in theory. The developer, in return for
the privilege of developing his land, is required to dedicate land to
public use, make public improvements, or pay required fees, all needed
to mitigate the impact of the development on the community, provide
governmental services to new residents, and implement the requirements
of the local general plan. The position of the city is that this ar-
rangement is only fair. The developer has created a new, and cumul-
atively overwhelming burden on local government facilities, and there-
fore he should offset the additional responsibilities required of the
public agency by the dedication of land, construction of improvements,
or payment of fees, all needed to provide improvements and services
required by the new development, The developer on the other hand, may
contend that he, or his predecessors in interest, have been paying
property taxes on the undeveloped land for years which has benefited
39
the developed land in the community but not his own; and, he claims
the beneficiaries of those years of taxes, the public, is now dis-
claiming any responsibility to reciprocate. This argument now falls
on deaf legislative and judicial ears. This part discusses the legal
aspects of requiring dedications, improvements, fees, and other exact-
ions as a condition of approval of a subdivision map.
The legal ,authority for the power of a municipality to
impose exactions as a condition of development is the constitutional
police power to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its
citizens. California Constitutions Article XI, Sect.7. Additionally,
certain state statutes provide enabling legislation for municipal im-
position of specific types of exactions (eg.Subdivision Map Act.).
The power of a city to impose exactions as a condition of
development is no longer in question. The issue is how far can the
city go in imposing exactions? The primary limitation is that the
condition imposed must bear a reasonable relationship to the public
needs created by the development. Scrutton v. Co. of Sacramento(1969)
275 Cal. App.2d 412,422. However, it is not required that there be a
direct relationship between the particular project and the particular
needs and solutions generated by the project. Thus, a condition is
not invalid only because -the required improvement also benefits the
city as a whole. For example, a developer may be required to pay fees
into a fund for future park, road, and sewer improvements required by
the cumulative impact of new development, even though the funds may not
be expended for several years and the improvements will not be located
on the project property. Associated Home Builders v. City of Walnut
Creek (1971) 4.Cal.3d 633,640.
36
.2.Types of Exactions.
The developers submittal for the Oak Tree West project in-
cludes requests for annexation, general and specific plan considerat-
ions and prezoning. It does not include submittal for specific sub-
division or zoning permit approvals, which are usually the proper time
for imposition of conditions and exactions (eg. subdivision tentative
map approval). However, the developer has also requested a develop-
ment agreement (discussed in next section) which may include a request
that the nature and extent of future conditions and exactions be
determined at this time. That does not mean the city must accede to
such request. It may be more judicious to be very general about exact-
ions, at this time. However, it is appropriate for the city to begin
consideration of exaction policies. In the near future the City
Attorney, City Manager, and Planning Director expect to undertake a
study of the available type of dedication, improvements and fees avail-
able to the city and the appropriateness of their local application.
The general and usual types of exactions include:
(a) Local streets, utilities and drainage (dedication of
land and construction of improvements);
(b)Major thoroughfares and bridges, plant and facilities for
sewer, drainage and other public works (pro-rata fee contri-
bution to special funds);
(c)Parks and school lands and facilities (dedication and/or
in lieu fees); and
37
1 81-
0 (d) Other design and improvement conditions to mitigate
environmental damage and/or assure compliance with
general and specific plans.
3.Timing of Construction of Improvements. Security.
Dedication of land and payment of fees is generally complet-
ed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. The fees paid
into special funds are accummulated in accordance with a plan or
formula and will be expended by the city at some future date for
impacted major thoroughfares, sewer plants and other public facilities,
as the need arises. As to the required construction of streets,utility
and drainage improvements by the developer, the city and developer sign
a subdivision improvement agreement prior to approval of the final map,
which agreement requires completion in accordance with specified plans
and designs, and is secured in the form of corporate surety bonds,
deposits of money, or other specified security. Gov. c-66462-66499.10.
Although most conditions and exactions are imposed at the
time of tentative map approval and required to be completed or secured
by the time of final map approval, it is not inappropriate or unusual
to impose conditions and exactions at an earlier time (eg.specific
plan approval) for infrastructure improvements and amenities for a
large scale; phased residential development.
38 ( i
I.DEVELOPMENT'AGREEMENTS.
• .1. Background of Vested Rights Frustration.
Development agreeement legislation is a result of over thirty
years of dispute and litigation concerning vested rights, which
may best be defined as the legal doctrine that determines when
in the development process. a developer has the right to proceed
with a project despite any changed regulations imposed by govern-
mental agencies. Extensive case law exists relative to the vested
rights question. The majority of this case law is a result of
developer initiated suits that have attempted to gain relief
from new governmental regulations by claiming a vested right
to develop under previous approvals granted by the governing
agency. only in a very few instances have developers succeed-
ed with this argument. Although frequently frustrating and ex-
pensive to developers, the clear rule in California is that a
vested right to develop does not exist until the issuance of a
building permit, no matter how much has been expended in prior
planning, design, grading, and/or construction costs. AVCO
Community Developers Inc v South Coast Regional Comm.(1976)
76 C.3d. 785.
2. Reason for Development Agreement Legislation.
When undertaking a large multi -phase land development project,
the developer is required to commit a substantial investment in
"up -front" costs. Typically, a return on this investment may not
be received until several years of construction have been under-
taken. This initial investment may be lost entirely or in part
39 i('9f)
when and if the local governmental agency changes the
development regulations prior to project completion. Such
changes may include general plan and/or zoning amendments,
growth control policies, more restrictive development polic-
ies, or amendments to other development regulations within
the local agency's police power.
To minimize the developer's risk and establish a better basis
for vested rights, the State of California has enacted legis-
lation authorizing local governments to enter into binding
development agreements. These agreements provide the develop-
er with assurance that the necessary development permits will
be issued regardless of changes to applicable regulations.
These agreements also provide an opportunity for the local
agency to gain certain assurances about the implementation
of a project. Development agreements often, therefore, serve
as a basis for negotiating project approvals.
3. What is a Development Agreement?
A development agreement does not take the place of any of
the existing land use approval requirements. It is like
planned unit development, which is used for complex develop-
ment proposals to set forth the basic outline of the project.
The difference is that under a development agreement both
the city and the developer are committing themselves to
proceed in accordance with the terms of the agreement. In
effect, the city promises not to change its planning or zon-
ing laws applicable to this development for a specified period
40
of time. Thus, future land use decisions are not made
according to the cities' laws and policies in effect at
that time, but are made according to the laws in effect
when the agreement was entered into. In return, the develop-
er may agree to construct specific improvements, provide public
facilities and services, develop according to a specified time
schedule, pay the city certain fees, or make other commitments
which the city might otherwise have no authority to compel a
developer to perform. There are no precise requirements set-
ting forth exactly what must be contained in a development
agreement or exactly at what stage of the approval process a
development agreement may be entered into. The law applicable
to development agreements (Gov. Code Section 65864 et. seq.)
was deliberately written to be flexible. It is designed to
allow the public agency and the developer to enter into an
agreement corresponding to the specific problems that are
raised by a particular development. Statutory requirements
state that a development agreement must specify the time dur-
ing which the city agrees not to change its regulations, the
permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of
uses, the size of buildings, and provisions for dedication or
reservation of land for public purposes. The agreement may
also include any other terms and conditions including time
schedules for development or additional public services and
facilities to be provided by the developer. The law is also
clear that entering into a development agreement does not
prevent a local agency from subsequently denying or condition-
ing the project so long as such decisions are not based upon a
zoning change or plan amendment which occurred after entering
into the agreement.
I
41
In addition, once an agreement has been entered into, a local
agency must periodically review the progress made by the developer
to comply with the agreement at least every twelve months. If a local
agency finds that the developer is not complying with the terms of the
agreement, it may terminate or modify the agreement.
IV. PUBLIC INPUT OPPORTUNITIES.
California law provides many opportunities for public input in the
land development decision making process. Most such opportunities take
the form of a public hearing at which time any interested citizen may
comment on the project and the proposed action. The following is a
check list of required public input opportunities for the Oak Tree West
Project:
Type of Control Public Body Purpose Est. Date
General Plan Plan. Comm. Amend land use land from March -June
Amendment d agriculture to urban use. 1984
City Council Related circulation 6
public facility changes.
*
Specific Plan
PIan . Comm .
Adopt specific development
Adoption
5
plan of use,density and
March -June
City Council
circulation and phasing
1984
for project area.
Pre -zoning
P1an.Comm.
Amend zoning from agricul-
March -June
6
ture to urban uses.
1984
City Council
r
*Combined hearing ('� ^
42
n Type of Control Public Body Purpose Est.Date.
' Development City Council Approval of develop- June 1984
Agreement ment agreement.
Annexation
County Local
Agency
Formation Comm.
Annexation City Council
(Protest hearing)
Approval of annnex-
ation proposal. July 1984
Consider landowner Aug. 1984
tests to annexation,
if any.
Subdivision Plan. Comm. Approve subdivision Timing depend -
Permits 6 tentative map. ent on develop -
City Council er submittal of
individual pro-
ject proposals.
Zoning Permits P1an.Comm.
5
city council
Approve Zoning
entitlements.
Same as subdiv-
ision permits
a .
l
A
In addition to the above required public hearings, the California
0 Environmental Quality Act provides additional opportunities for public
input. Following completion of a draft EIR, the City is required to
provide opportunity for comments from the general public. The purpose
of the review and comment procedure is to provide the opportunity for
citizens, professional disciplines, and other public agencies to
critically evalute the environmental document and the manner in which
technical data is used. 14 Cal. Adm. Code 15087. The public comment
procedures are now complete and the city is required to respond to
the comments, as appropriate, prior to certification of a final E.I.R..
While CEQA itself does not require public hearings, it encourages public
participation, both through E.I.R. written comments and comments at the
required planning, zoning and subdivision hearings, to assist the de-
cision maker in evaluating public reaction to environmental issues
raised by the project. .14 Cal. Adm. Code 15201 and 15202.
(197