Loading...
2009 09 22 PC�a,o City of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org 5 c�M OF rt9� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2009-026 Beginning Minute Motion 2009-008 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call lil11�13R[SK616]JiI1h140kI This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 8, 2009. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item ................. Applicant.......... Location........... Request ............. Action ............... B. Item .................. Applicant........... Location............ Request ............. Action ............... l9�RIb9I�T��Yi➢�JiF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-601, SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT 7, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2008-907 Pyramid Project Management, LLC PGA West; West Side of PGA Boulevard, South of Avenue 54 Consideration of Plans to Subdivide the Project Site and Construct the PGA West Golf Villas; a 54-Unit Residential Development Consisting of Single -Family Attached Duplex Units and Community Center. Resolution 2009- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2009-911 Pyramid Project Management, LLC 56-140 PGA Boulevard; PGA West; West of PGA Boulevard Consideration of Plans for the Remodel and Expansion of the PGA West Private Clubhouse. Resolution 2009- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council meeting of September 15, 2009, by Chairman Alderson (instead of Commissioner Wilkinson). B. Chairman Alderson is scheduled to attend the October 6, 2009, City Council meeting. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Joint Council Meeting Discussion Items X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 13, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, September 22, 2009 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on Friday, September 18, 2009. DATED: September 18, 2009 CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty- four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 8, 2009 7:03 P.M. V CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Ed Alderson who asked Commissioner Barrows to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie B Wilkinson, and Chairman Ed Aid Staff present: Planning Director Les. J Jenson, Planning Manager David Sawy Franco, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Walker. PUBLIC COM CONFIRMATION OF CON None AGENDA: None Quill, Mark Weber, Robert son, City Attorney Kathy Assistant Planner Yvonne ecutive Secretary Carolyn Chairman Alderson askedvif there were any changes to the minutes of July 28,, 2009. There being,, no`comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2007-879, Time Extension No. 1; a request by The Foundation Group for consideration of a one-year time extension for a 6,200 square foot retail building located within the La Quinta Village Shopping Center located on the northwest corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico. P:\Reports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber commented on the staff, report notation that the applicant was working with the adjacent; -property owners regarding the fountain. He asked if anything new';had developed. Staff said the applicant had been working with the property owner on landscaping of the retention basin. Commissioner Weber asked if ,that included landscaping around the fountain. Staff said yes. Commissioner Weber asked for clarification of the location of the waste receptacles. Staff responded it was just off to the west and noted the location on "' he exhibit. Commissioner Weber said he wanted to make sure the trash,? receptacle would not be placed near the bus stop that was a part of this parcel. Commissioner Weber askedif the parcel was actually larger than the drawing the . Commission. received'` (A-5). Staff said yes. Commissioner Weber commented on the parking and asked if it was sufficient for the project. Staff,replied it was. Chairmman Alderson asked if the highlighted items were new conditions and primarily procedural issues and with nothing major having to do with construction 'of the building and/or any grade elevation changes. Staff said it was correct. 'Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant was there. Staff responded the,, applicant was not present. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant had agreed to all the Conditions of Approval. Staff said they had. Commissioner Weber had several comments on the parking lot lighting. He was specifically concerned about two items; 1). Some of the existing lighting is placed close to the bus stop and buried in a tree, causing the standard to be visibly moved and creating a hazard, which could be a Code Enforcement issue, and, 2). other lights are P:\Reports- PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 also buried in the overgrown mesquite trees, particularly one west of the corner of the building, near the bus stop, on that site. Chairman Alderson asked if Commissioner Weber was suggesting that, in the interest of public safety, Code Enforcement should look into these situations. Commissioner Weber said yes. Commissioner Weber said he assumed the other parcel owner was taking care of all the parking lot lighting, including this parcel since the lighting was already there. He wondered if there were any issues, with that, since it was a separate ownership. Planning Director Johnson responded it was a separate ownership but he understood there was a reciprocal agreement with regards to the use of the parking lot; includi'ng,thi lighting,.and the trash receptacles. He gave a brief background on the,history''of the site and how it became separate from the rest of the parcel, as well as the information on the reciprocal agreement. ,,He then said staff would make sure Code Enforcement addressed, the --issue of the proper maintenance of the trees,with both property owners. Commissioner Weber thankedistaff and encouraged them to take care of this as soon as.possible because it was definitely a problem. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant" was.. available and would like to address the .Commission., The applicant was.not:`present and Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Weber to approve Resolution 2009-023 approving Site Development Permit 2007-879, Time Extension No. 1 as submitted. Unanimously approved. P:\Reports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 B. Conditional Use Permit 2009-085, Amendment No. 1; a request by Royal Street Communications for consideration to allow for the co - location of six panel antennas on an existing telecommunication monopalm tower located at 54-001 Madison Street; Riverside County Fire Station #70. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Quill commented on the !Fire Station being owned by the City of La Quinta, and asked if any additional ground leases or equipment from another, company provided, revenue to the City of La Quinta. Staff said yes. . Commissioner Weber asked if ;there was a picture, or any other detailed renderings of the actual array, provided. Staff said no. The applicant`/was not doing additional antenna arrays. The new antennas would'be,attached in the radius around the pole. Commissior "what was i pending�tov Commissior fact that it since this \n ;r.Webersaid._he-was hoping to see an actual picture of ready approved. -since there was an existing tower, and a er that.was proposed at 55 feet. ;r. Webercommented on the pending ground lease and the would have been helpful to actually see the final plans is such a prominent corner and a real visual issue. Planning Director Johnson responded by explaining what was being placed,at that site; including how the arrays would be placed. He also said one of the conditions of approval included the possibility of some screening options that staff would work on, with the applicant. He went over the possible options and their impact. He said the Code encourages the use of co -location sites and staff felt that, at a PAReports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 minimum, the cables should be painted to match and, since they were tightly placed against the pole, there was no need for a full rendering to be submitted. Commissioner Weber asked if the color was going to be the same as the base so it would blend in with the trunk. Staff said yes. Commissioner Weber asked if this was going-; to be similar to something proposed recently at another location. Planning Director Johnson responded there was a similar proposal in North La Quinta, north of Corporate Center and Adams. - Commissioner Barrows asked ,for confirmation 'of the language regarding screening in condition #33 where it identified that the proposed equipment on the ground would not "be visible above the surrounding wall". Assistant Planner Ceja said that was correct. Commissioner Barrows, ,asked if staff was suggesting that an additional condition, or,statement, be added to that. Staff said no. It was just referencing the`fact-that"they would, not be visible, since the plans show they are visible,.Staff recommended this condition so that the equipment would be completely screened from view. Comrissioner Barrows just wanted to clarify that where the condition states "shall not be visible above"'the surrounding wall"; the intent was it could include screening. Staff said yes. Chairman Alderson commented on the fact there would have to be a lease in pl'ece, signed, and activated prior to this becoming a functional `'tower. Planning Director Johnson responded that the property owner (City of La Quinta) had given consent to allow this to be':presented to the Commission and, if it is approved, the City would then'enter into negotiations to secure a lease prior to a building permit There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Veronica Arvizu, 29-504 Masters Drive, Murrieta CA 92563 introduced herself and gave some background information on condition #36, where it mentions the cables need to be placed inside P:\Reports- PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 the tower. She said she had a structural analysis of the tower performed, by TowerCo, which is the owner of the tower and the analysis showed that the cables cannot fit inside the tower due to the tower's width. She gave anecdotal information on a similar situation regarding a tower in the City of Riverside and how they resolved it. She said the outcome looked really good and offered to bring samples of the materials used to the Planning Director.. She was requesting that the condition be changed to read "to be -disguised" or words to that effect. Commissioner Weber asked if the cable was 7/8's diameter. Ms. Arvizu said yes. Commissioner Weber asked why�they could not fit three such cables in the tower. Ms. Arvizu said' ~that was, what the structural report stated. Chairman Alderson asked if she meant the cables would not physically fit. She said that was correct because there'were currently 12 cables in the trunk, and the additionalthree would not fit inside. They would have to be placed on the outside per the structural calculations. Chairman Alderson asked if placing the cables on the outside of the tower.,was a standard of the industry. Ms. Arvizu said if they were renting'from, orco-locating, with Sprint they were not allowed to place any cables on the inside,of the towers. However, this tower is ,',owned --by TowerCo and they intended to place the cables inside until they saw the structural report and realized it was not possible. Commissioner Weber asked about the diameter of the tower and said his sketch showed the cables would fit. He wondered why they wouldn't fit and if it was based on being attached in the interior. Ms. Arvizu responded the cables did not have to be attached, as they would,'be "free -hanging". She added the tower is tapered and it gets smaller at the top; therefore they could not get to the exit port, at the 50-foot mark, because the diameter gets too skinny up at the top. They have their cables pulled all the way up to the palm fronds. So, at the 50-foot height, which is where they would have to be pulled out, there's just not enough space to actually pull them through. PAReports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Commissioner Weber asked if there was a punch out, or a way to bore into that, would the structure be compromised. Ms. Arvizu said yes. Commissioner Wilkinson asked how far up the column they could go before they lost their space. Ms. Arvizu said she believed it was about half -way, or approximately 25 feet. Commissioner Wilkinson suggested it might be -less obtrusive if the cables could be inside half -way up and then outside from that point on. He commented that, from a visual standpoint, the farther away it was from people looking at it the less obtrusive it would be. Ms. Arvizu said they had to c she was not sure, structurally,, into it. holes at the 25 foot height and was possible but she would look Chairman Alderson said there was an; existing tower there and asked how it was wired. Ms. Arvizu said this",tower has had several owners with their cables still present which was why there was not adequate space to add new cables. Chairman .Alderson asked if these were coaxial cables. Ms. Arvizu said yes:. Commissioner Wilkinson asked, if she knew of a location where this had been doneso.the Commission, or staff, could see it. Ms. Arvizu refe11 renced back to the previous discussion about the tower in the City of Riverside. Planning Director Johnson asked if the structural report stated that all 'three cables',jcould not fit inside, or was there the potential that two of the,three could possibly be placed inside the tower. Ms. Arvizu said the. report stated they have to be outside, but she would check into that possibility. Planning Director Johnson said one option, to help from an aesthetic standpoint and minimize the affect, would be to place as many cables as possible inside the tower. If the Commission was supportive of this, staff could work with the applicant on the placement. He suggested they be placed more towards the south west side. Even though there were homes there, the views would be very limited from P:\Reports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 those residences as well as what would be seen from either Madison or Avenue 54. At a minimum, they should be required to put as many cables as possible inside the tower. Ms. Arvizu said there was also a cluster of trees in that area and they could put them facing the trees so they would not be seen from the residential side. Discussion followed of what was located in the area and the advantages to staff's suggestions. Chairman Alderson asked if there was;anyEpublic comment. There being no public comment, Chairman Alderson,closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened `th(`-,.matter for Commission discussion. Chairman Alderson asked if the Commissioners wanted to discuss staff's suggestions. Commissioner Weber wanted' -'',to comment on Commissioner Wilkinson's comment regarding .-app oying.,the application and leaving it up to staff and the Planning Director`to-come up with a solution. He thought<th6'soluiions that needed to be explored were to 1). keeping the cables interior as far up as possible, 2). going up 20 feet or so and then popping out," if possible, and3). putting as many as possible in then minimizingwhat had to be placed on the exterior. irther discussion and it was moved and seconded by Weber/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2009-024 approval of Conditional Use Permit 2009-085, 1, with the following suggestion: per 36 will be left to the discretion of the Planning he strong recommendation to find a way to minimize les being viewed from the exterior and having them go interior for as long as they can up the pole and then popping out, or getting the cables interior and minimizing the amount of cables that have to be place on the exterior. Unanimously approved. P:\Reports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Street Name Change 2009-019; a request by East of Madison, LLC for consideration of adoption of a resolution of intention to change a street name from Fremont Way to Happy Place Lane, located north of Baffin Avenue, west of Pike Place; within the Madison Club. Chairman Alderson advised the Commissioners this was a business item, not a public hearing, for consideration of adoption of a Resolution of Intention to change a street name. He added the Commission was not ruling on the actual street name, but rather the minimal requirements for public hearing: He then asked staff for confirmation of that statement. Planning Manager David Sawyer responded`it was correct. The action by the Commission was to set the,aaring date. The item would then come back to the Planning Commission, as a public hearing, for recommendation and then would be forwarded to the City Council for their public hearing. Chairman Alderson then asked for Commissioner comments Commissioner,! illkinson asked if there was any conflict with the names Happy Point and Happy Place. Chairman Alderson reaffirmed this was not therforum in which to discuss this as it would come back as a public, kealhmgartem. The intent of this meeting was to approve the passing of the resolution. Commissioner Weboil said there were ten parcels with nine owners and only six signatures on the request. He asked if there was any issue with the, signatures; especially since two of the parcels had one owner. He asked if there were any legalities they needed to be concerned about because of the 60% of signatures. Planning Manager Sawyer said they looked at this as 60% of the properties and not the individual owners, therefore, the multiple ownership would not be an issue. Commissioner Weber said he thought it would have been nice to see more property owners signing off on this and hoped the City could contact all the parcel owners for the public hearing. PAReports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Chairman Alderson said he was sure staff had met all the legal requirements that allowed the Commission to go to the next level. The Commissioners would-be able to address Commissioner Weber's comments at the public hearing. City Attorney Jenson said all the legal parcel owners would receive a copy of the hearing notice. She also clarified the previous statement of 60% of the properties, saying it is 60%of the lineal footage of property. There being no further discussion Jlli,,was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Weber to 'approve Resolution 2009-025 approving the Resolution of Intention to Change a. Street Name Change 2009-019 as submitted Unanimously approved. B. Architectural Design Review; a requestl'by Mr. & Mrs. Doug Bogren for consideration to allow', an architectural' design that is not compatible with the Cove Architectural ;Design Guidelines for a residence to be located at 51-705 Avenida Madero;.within the, La Quinta Cove. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the' -Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner. Quill commented on the Oriental and Fang Shui influences on the design of the house. He asked if this was going to bea. the roof and if there was a color board available. Staff responded the color was shown on Exhibit Sheet Two and the tiles would be green. Commissioner Wilkinson asked staff to verify it would be the dark green color; because it looked blue in the lower picture and the dark green was also highlighted. Staff said the two lower pictures were just examples of existing roof tiles of what the applicant wanted to incorporate into his roof. The one on top is what he is proposing. PAReports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc to Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the tower element was a chimney. Staff said yes and that had been addressed in the plan check comments. It would have to be lowered to comply with the height requirements. Commissioner Weber asked if the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) had reviewed this application. Staff said no. Chairman Alderson asked if they were going,,,to look at it. Staff responded no. Commissioner Weber added it was'not required but the Planning Commission could direct that the ALRC review this application. Planning Director Johnson said it could be _directed to them, but the architectural standards in the Cove Guidelines state significant variations go directly to the Planning Commission for consideration. Commissioner Weber"-,,'said°..there are guidelines and standards established, for single family homes in the Cove ,residential area. He drove the area and did not see anything „like this architecture. Staff commented they were familiar, with the area and did not know of any existing residence that had this type of'roof design, either in the Cove or elsewhere in La Quinta. Commissioner Barrows asked if the height of the spark arrestors had -been addressed. Staff said yes. Chairman,,Alderson said he did not believe there was any other home, in the Cove, with this type of roof construction. Planning Director Johnson said, several staff members had driven throughout;the Cove and had not seen this architectural style. He did not know, if the applicant, or his architect, was aware of any other examples of this architecture within the Cove. He added there were other examples in other communities, but nothing that he could point to within the Cove, or anywhere else in the La Quinta community. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant was available and would like to address the Commission. PAReports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN _9-8-09_Draft.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Mr. Bogren 51-705 Avenida Madero, La Quinta CA 92253, introduced himself and said one of the main purposes of this architecture was to do the arched ridges. He said they were a little bit dramatic (the flying eaves), but they would be reduced to about half of what appeared on the exhibits. He added, the main focus was to do an arched ridgeline. He acknowledged that the house design reflected Asian influence and it was different from all the homes surroundings it , Commissioner Quill asked if Mr. Bogren was the builder. Mr. Bogren said yes. Commissioner Quill asked if Mr. Bogren would be the owner or was he building the house for someone: in particular. Mr. Bogren said he and his wife would own the house:. He said!'his wife was interested in Asian themes and this was the fifth house he built or remodeled. Commissioner Quill confirmed the Asian\interest was Mr. and Mrs. Bogren's interest. Mr.; Bogren said this\,was...a Fang Shui-designed house. He said, if you looked at the pictures you would see the unusual front entrance and there was a large dragon in the courtyard as well as=a-waterfall and fountain. He also said their idea was to carry through on the Asian theme. Commisssioner Quill asked for confirmation that the Commission was not being ,,asked to approve any deviation of zoning setbacks or anything of that nature 'but deciding on a strictly aesthetic treatment type of issue. Staff said that was correct and the language in the design standards was specific in stating that significant variations required Planning Commission approval. Staff viewed this as a significant variation. Commissioner Quill asked if the roof -mounted equipment would be going away. Mr. Bogren said yes. Commissioner Weber asked if the second bedroom was actually 69 square feet as he was concerned when he saw a 69 square foot bedroom. PAReports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doe 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Mr. Santiago Lopez, 52-608 Avenida Diaz, La Quinta, CA, the architect, introduced himself and responded that it was a 69-foot addition to the existing bedroom. Commissioner Weber then asked if that was the third, or second, bedroom noted on the drawing. Mr. Bogren said that was the front bedroom. Commissioner Weber commented to the",applicant that he had indicated that the roof hip curvatures werenot really intended to be as depicted in the drawing provided to the Commission and asked if about half of that was correct. Mr. Bogren said the flying eave part (the part that flies up when you come to the eave) is not as dramatic as that. Commissioner Weber asked if he had the updated drawings available for the Commission. The architect, Mr. Lopez, responded he did not. Commissioner Weber asked Mr. Bogren if he had any conversations with the neighbors. Mr:,06gren said no and,. pointed out how many vacant properties there 'were in the area, as well as rentals, and said he had a total of two neighbors,. Commissioner Weber said he spoke to some of the people in the area and apparently there were a`',lot of rentals. He then commented on who/what was in the area. Mr. Bogren said there was only one homeowner and they were across the street. Commissioner Barrows asked the applicant to explain what the arched 'ridge feature was. Mr. Bogren gave an explanation of what the arched ridge; feature was. Chairman, Alderson asked if Mr. Bogren, as the owner/builder, was going to put up a concrete tile roof on top of the existing roof. Mr. Bogren said he was putting ceramic tile. Chairman Alderson repeated the word "existing" and asked if there was any structural consideration because of the doubling of weight on the roof. Mr. Bogren said no, because the ceramic they were using was a lightweight tile. P:\Reports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Chairman Alderson said the applicant had some new front entry work in an oriental design and asked if that had all been permitted. Mr. Bogren replied yes. Chairman Alderson said because of the type of application, it was not noticed to the public or to the neighbors. Mr. Bogren said that was correct. Chairman Alderson asked if Mr. Bogren was going to raise the roof any inordinate amount that would affect anyone's view. Mr. Bogren said no. Chairman Alderson commented the appl cant was doubling the size of the house. Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of ,the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Wilkinson `�:said.he,"would suggest this go to the Architecture and Landscapirfg�Review Committee (ALRC) since he did not seethis fitting into the neighborhood. It was not like anything else the Commission had ever approved and nobody around them knew what was -,going on. He said;.ihis could not be done in a new development and if it went, toarchitectural review then they could takes'better look at it, since they are more technically versed in this. Chairmani,Alderson asked if Commissioner Wilkinson was suggesting this be sent to the ALRC. Wilkinson said that would be his suggestion; yes. The "so noted" by Chairman Alderson. Commissioner Quill said he probably lived within sight of this house, but not within 500 feet. He commented, as a long-time resident, the Cove was eclectic by its very nature. Those that live there like all forms of architecture. He then gave a little background on some of the many different forms of architecture, in the Cove; such as 70's P:\Reports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 style, Tuscan, Spanish Colonial, and others. He commented this was an upgrade to the neighborhood and he didn't have a problem with it, even though it was a little different and unique. Commissioner Barrows said she would concur with Commissioner Quill's comments because she has lived in the Cove for 20-plus years and part of the reason that she liked it was because of the diversity and the willingness of the community to tolerate some of that diversity. The guidelines and standards of the Cove, that staff provided the Commission, gave the determination to the Planning Commission. The project was described as a significant variation from the style, but the neighborhood 'Commissioner 'Barrows lives in contains French chateaus, southwest style homes, and 50's block houses. It has a lot of diversity;,,and looks very interesting. She did not think the applicant's design was radical in terms of design and thought if fit nicely with the neighborhood. She did not see any reason why the Planning Commission,could not make a decision about it and was willing to make the decision without sending it to the ALRC. Commissioner Weber said he was'less radical and not convinced this design was- appropriate for the neighborhood, as it was extremely divergent -"from the standards in the area. He respected those Commissioners that lived in the Cove, but the reason this came before the Pl11 anning Commission was that it was so radically different. He commented, you could' have a: Feng Shui-style house without having the exterior look like this. He was also concerned that it had not been noticed to the',neighbors and they did not have an opportunity to comment ,on,it; whether they were absentee owners or not. He also had a concern that the architectural standards were not more compliant to a more homogenous design pattern for the area and was not in favor of it. Commissioner Quill interjected that homogenous was not what was wanted in the Cove. The Cove was not a tract. Commissioner Weber said maybe that was a bad word to use, but he did not see anything in the Cove that was similar to this design and questioned whether it was appropriate. P:\Reports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Chairman Alderson said he had seen the house and the neighbors and came prepared to take a negative look at it until the applicant said he was going to take the eaves down. If the eaves were taken down the "radical-ness" of the project would be reduced and then he would be inclined to agree with Commissioners Quill and Barrows that it would be less of a severe architectural change. He asked for the applicant's assurance that the eave angles would be made less severe, then he would be included to support the request. Commissioner Weber said that was one reason why he specifically asked whether drawings were available. He said it was entirely appropriate for the Planning Commission:to ask fora copy of those drawings. He said he had a problem with the Commission being presented with an application and a design that was not, what was being approved. He assumed that the architectural design was going to be re -worked on this before construction and said it was entirely appropriate that it come back before the Planning Commission at that time to make the decision. Commissioner Wilkinson concurred with Commissioner Weber. He said if the design was going to change'the Commissioners should have the opportunity, to look at' the design and to confirm the angle and pitch of whafiwa$ going to be, approved. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant had his architect with him, which he did. Chairman'Aldersonaddressed Mr. Lopez, the architect, saying you've seen and,, heard the dilemma that we're faced with. It's within our power to continue this and have you come back and bring revised :architectural;' drawings showing this roof element altered per the testimony tonight, we can approve it as is, or we can disapprove it. City Attorney Jenson told the Commission they could conditionally approve it, just carrying out the representation that the angle is going to be reduced a certain amount. Chairman Alderson responded that Commissioner Weber would like to see that. Mr. Lopez said, at this time, you could see the elevations on the screen, but the total part of the corner was just one foot. P:\Reports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doe 16 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Chairman Alderson asked if the kick -up was one foot. Mr. Lopez said the fascia, the higher part, was one foot. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the exhibits shown represented what the applicant was going to do. Mr. Lopez said that was what was represented. Commissioner Quill asked for confirmation that this was less than what was depicted in the example pictures but was, in fact, the correct scale of what was going to be built. Mr. Lopez said yes. Mr. Lopez said the photographs were just examples of what the applicant wanted. Commissioner Quill said he was;.,prepared to approve it as. submitted. He said the applicant was not suggesting that they want 'to -change it, he was okay with it and ready to make a motion to approve it as submitted. Commissioner Weber`: said`, he heard something different than Commissioner Quill. What he heard was the photographs did not depict the correct dimens'ions..,"' He -also heard that the architectural submittal did -not depict what, was going'to be built either. Also that the eave was going to be a :foot on the outside and the architectural plans submitted` `did not correctly depict the scale. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Lopez said it w"as in scale and it was one foot at the corner. Commissioner Weber asked if the renderings, provided to the Commission;, were going to be revised to reflect a foot on the corner, not what was, currently being shown. oCmmissioner" Quill said they currently reflect one foot and that was what`was going to be built. He said typical fascia was six inches and this 'was "basically six inches taller, at the corners, than the typical fascia. At the corner the fascia goes up, with that curve to it, twelve inches. Chairman Alderson said it was a six-inch kick -up. Commissioner Weber wanted to make a clarification and said he was looking at the rendering and did not think it was to scale. He saw a six-inch reveal on the fascia and the corner was more than double of what he was seeing. He said the drawings they had were not PAReports - PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 17 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 VII Wf correctly reflecting the actual dimensions and scale. He then pointed out the corner appeared to be more than six inches. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Barrows to approve Minute Motion 2009-007 allowing the architectural design as submitted; understanding that the change at the corner of the eaves will not exceed 12-inches in height. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Quill, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioners Weber, and Wilkinson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council Meetin. gN.olt, August 4, 2009, from Commissioner Weber. He gave a brief rundown of items for that meeting and commented on the discussion of speed postings. Chairman Alderson was unable to attend the meeting of September 1, 2009; however Commissioner Wilkinson was in attendance and gave a brief rundown of the meeting. He commented on several items, includinq:''. The factthat several dust control fences, around the City, were looking tattered and torn. He said one resident commented on actually taking'down the fences. 2. Stan Ford (CV Parks & Recreation) gave a presentation of coming events in the City. 3.;, The date of the Joint Council Meeting; which is scheduled for October 27, 2009. (Staff commented they would confirm the starting time and advise the Commissioners at their next meeting.) B. Chairman Alderson noted Commissioner Wilkinson was scheduled to report on the City Council Meeting of September 15, 2009, but since he attended the September 1" meeting, Chairman Alderson offered to attend that meeting. PAReports- PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 18 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Housing Element Update Planning Director Johnson gave an update on the progress of the Housing Element update and said he hoped to have the matter before the Commission in October or November. B. General Plan Update Planning Director Johnson reported on { where staff was with the General Plan Update. General discussion followed. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved ,and 'seconded by Chairman Alderson/Commissioner Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on September 22, 2009. This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:11,7. p.m. on September 8, 2009. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California ,,, P:\Reports- PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Draft.doc 19 0V Q• LT�4�a�w DI#A FMOF°� MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION /� FROM: LES JOHNSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR . / DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 SUBJECT: JOINT MEETING DISCUSSION ITEMS The purpose of this memorandum is to identify several discussion items for the upcoming City Council, Planning Commission and Architecture and Landscape Review Committee joint meeting scheduled to be held on October 27, 2009. The following list includes items brought forward by individual Commissioners throughout the past year as well as Staff's observations: 1. Discuss establishing provisions that encourage or possibly require use of native plant and tree species in landscaping plans. 2. Discuss establishing provisions that encourages or even mandates solar control (recessed windows and glass doors, awnings, trellises, landscaping, etc.) on non- residential and multi -family buildings. Consider increasing shade requirements for parking lots. Require installation of conduit and any applicable structural upgrades necessary for the future installation of solar panels on new commercial buildings. 3. Discuss establishing stronger provisions that address non -motorized and vehicular connectivity with the adjacent streets and between existing and future developments. 4. Discussion of improvements to the City's transportation/circulation plan to ensure that other non-traditional motorized transportation modes are strongly encouraged, such as golf carts and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV). Ensure that walkways, trails, Class I and II Bike trails, and connection to such with nearby cities is strongly encouraged. 5. Discussion of establishing provisions for wireless communication facilities that specifically address potential visual impact. 6. Consider amending standard requirement for final landscaping plans to be reviewed by the ALRC to be administrative unless ALRC review is deemed necessary by the PC. 7. Consider review and analysis of City's parking standards (LQMC Chapter 9.150). Project review observations have brought into question the number of spaces currently required for several land uses and if the current standards are requiring more parking spaces than is necessary to serve said uses. This list is not intended to be comprehensive in identifying all items of interest brought forth over the past year but rather to stimulate discussion in an effort to establish an agenda for the upcoming joint meeting. Should you have any additional items, please feel free to bring them up for consideration at the September 22 meeting. Please note that the ALRC members will also be in attendance. Due to meeting cancellations, staff has not had the opportunity to discuss topics with the ALRC members and is scheduled to do so at their October 7 meeting. In light of the time allowed, we are encouraging Commissioners limit the number of topics to not more than three. P:\Reports - PC\2009\9-22-09\Jt Mtg Discussion Items Memo.doc COMMISSIONER CORRESPONDENCE Please Note: The Attached Correspondence has been sent in response to the re -distribution of the La Quinta Resort Master Plan Notice of Preparation (NOP) 2 riiabo rutu of La yuinta xeson ana taut) master Plan Page 1 of 3 Carolyn Walker From: Pat Howard [phowardair@att.net] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:43 AM To: Council Cc: Planning WebMail; Colleen and Clay Loomis; Iars82@earthlink.net; mzugsmith@naicapital.com; dianavietor@yahoo.com; xjoelmrax@yahoo.com; Brmtennis@hotmail.com; Iars82@earthlink.net; mzugsmith@naicapital.com; dianavietor@yahoo.com; tennisqutti@aol.com; kathy@citiland.com; floyd@citiland.com; jslagter@verizon.net; Irosenthal3@aol.com; surflanel@yahoo.com; jdpmdsc@earthlink.net; mjocl500@aol.com; ryannelsonemail@googlemaii.com; vance minter; rmiller@islinc.com; Izylabrnch@aol.com; seanpmcveigh@yahoo.com; joemcveigh@yahoo.com; john@khpateht.com; dmccarron@fgflend.com; cloomis@printcfp.com; kevinhopton@hotmail.com; moygarretson@msn.com; bgarretson@msn.com; eje@quinnemanuel.com; elyscaa@charter.net; maryann cappello; tennis wiz; grady@law.ucla.edu; mervin@ervinad.com; martone@pacific.net.sg; brmtennis@hotmaii.com Subject: Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan La Quinta City Counsel Members and Mayor You are about to be presented the final Master--P--lan-for-the-La-Quinta-Hotetand-Ciub-by yourrPlanryingStaff ann the Hotel Management and Ownership. I am sure they have agreed among themselves that this plan is in the best interest of the City. They may be correct except for the portion or phase of the Plan that replaces the majority of the Resorts tennis courts and the beautiful Grove with yet more "Spa Villas". They are so wrong, so blatantly wrong on the Spa Villa portion of the Plan that it borders on a fraud that has to be considered a "takings" attempt on the part of our City and the Hotel as in an Eminent Domain matter. It, however, would be a unique takings case in that the entities insisting on it (the City, City Planning Dept and the hotel ownership) have, in reality, no probable financial or commercial gain with this particular entitlement. They certainly have not intent to build the Spa Villas themselves. The only probable gain from the tennis court and Grove alternate use entitlement is to save face by substituting a more environmentally acceptable project within the Plan in place of the Water Park project that the La Quinta council approved, the Planning Dept supported (then head, Doug Evans, now asst City Mgr) and the present hotel owners stupidly paid for when acquiring the Resort. Regardless of what they all say to you in promoting this phase of the plan there is no intention to ever build the Spa Villas. The present ownership doesn't have and cannot raise the money for this part of the Plan. The Resort will never need the rooms, no matter how successful the Master Plan is in "creating a five star resort". And, sorry Platinum, but the market has interrupted the "greater fool theory" that created the rule that any entitlement will increase the sales price even if it doesn't ever pencil -out. The next buyer of the Resort and Club will not be foolish enough to pay anything for an entitlement that provides unsellable capacity and forever ruins the present actual and future potential value - add as a global tennis destination. They will imbue their presentation to you with self -laudatory descriptions of all the town meetings they have had to demonstrate that they listened to the stakeholders. These meetings were a joke. They had no intention of really considering alternatives that resolve the really serious concerns. As in all politics, the real meetings were the smaller follow up meetings with individual segments of the interested parties in order to divide and conquer the most vehement protesters. They took up most of all of meetings with speeches about what great people they had working on the plans, the scope of which was they said was dictated to them by the La Quinta Planning Dept. They successfully divided and conquered the various segments that had expressed strong opposition to all or part of their Plans. They "took care of the non-resident tennis membership by verbally promising to not eliminate the clay courts and several of the hard courts. This promise did not and cannot 9/18/2009 Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan Page 2 of 3 assuage the legitimate concerns of the Tennis Villa owners as a group. However, they may have made some side deals with individual Tennis Villas owners in order to keep letters like this and potential law suits at a "manageable" level. The new "Spa Villa" portion of the Master Plan that is so wrong-headed and dishonestly intended is also grossly unfair and particularly negative for the 48 Tennis Villas owners. Like the last "Master Plan" with its Water Park, this new Master Plan destroys the financial and lifestyle values of the Tennis Villas. Unlike the Water Park though, this Phase of the Master Plan will never be built by this ownership or any new ownership. The objectors to the Water Park also felt that the Water Park would never be built but at least the financial markets were such at that time that there was some value in securing the entitlement. In fact this present ownership paid to have it! They believed the argument that more summer occupancy could be driven with a 19-lifeguard water park and group gathering space. But, even they (the present owners) don't really believe that more room capacity will be filled just because the build it. Yes, I am a Tennis Villa owner and I am mad as hell. If the Spa Villa portion of the new Plan is build as -drawn, my tennis villa is spared the most damaging direct impact of the Spa Villas. I don't believe for a moment that it will ever be built. However, if approved and built, the City has demonstrated that it does not have the will to force conformance to the drawings, promises and side deals made in the process. The announcement of the concept that a Water Park was going be installed where the Grove and tennis courts are located dropped the value of the Tennis Villas by 30%. Your approval of the Plan dropped the value another 5 basis points. Fighting you legally has cost us about $250,000... so far. Liquidity has of course gone to zero but I will concede that is largely due to the overall market. The City gained nothing from the Water Park entitlement except embarrassment while the former owners got something for it from the present owners. All this continued life style (100%) and financial (35%) value destruction for the purpose of saving face for Doug Evans and the Planning Department recommendation and "aye" -voting councilpersons for a Plan that cannot survive Environmental, legal or commercial -feasibility reviews and giving the present Resort owners a slim chance of recovering some of what they stupidly paid for the Water Park entitlement. That is expensive and, at minimum unsavory, governance of our City. Another idea you might consider if a majority of you just can't bring yourselves to admit and make good on a past mistake, is to approve the Spa Villas project only on the condition and in the event that the next Resort owner, after taking full possession and title to the Resort, requests it be approved as drawn and demonstrates to the City that the project is fully financed and building will begin immediately upon your approval. I beg you to consider doing the right thing for La Quinta this time around. Go ahead and approve the Plan but without the new Spa Villas on tennis courts and in the Grove and drop your often -stayed defense of the Water Park in the courts. To do otherwise is to "take" 35% of the value of the Tennis Villas and throw it to the wind and completely destroy the lifestyle value of 48 Tennis Villa owners as you permanently eliminate the potential for a new and growing tennis draw to our Resort and City*. Respectfully, Pat Howard 24/7 Follow Me 888 213 7588 In Coronado 619 435 8090 In La Quinta 760 564 3161 (Tennis Villa: 76982 Calle Mazatlan) Cell 760 218 5809 9/18/2009 Phase Four of La Quints Resort and Club Master Plan Page 3 of 3 " Without our full tennis facility, the March business at the Resort will not continue to provide 12-15% of the annual total margin contribution. It may turn to a negative contribution just like April. The tour pros will not stay and practice here and Open attendees will find more convenient and cheaper rooms in Indian Wells, a city that is well -run for visitors and residents alike and is our only other tennis -competitive city in the desert. 9/18/2009 ruaoc • vw vt i d Vuuua 1CGJUrl UHU kAUO WaSter rlan Page 1 of 3 Carolyn Walker From: rodger Jolley [tennis.wiz@roadrunner.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 8:48 PM To: Pat Howard; Council Cc: Planning WebMail; Colleen and Clay Loomis; lars82@earthlink.net; mzugsmith@naicapital.com; dianavietor@yahoo.com; xjoelmrax@yahoo.com; Brmtennis@hotmail.com; tennisqutti@aol.com; kathy@citiland.com; floyd@citiland.com; jslagter@verizon.net; Irosenthal3@aol.com; surflanet @yahoo.com; jdpmdsc@earthlink.net; mjocl 500@aol.com; ryannelsonemail@googlemail.com; vance minter; rmiller@islinc.com; Izylabrnch@aol.com; seanpmcveigh@yahoo.com; joemcveigh@yahoo.com; john@khpatent.com; dmccarron@fgflend.com; cloomis@printcfp.com; kevinhopton@hotmail.com; moygarretson@msn.com; bgarretson@msn.com; eje@quinnemanuel.com; elyscaa@charter.net; maryann cappello; grady@law.ucla.edu; mervin@ervinad.com; martone@pacific.net.sg Subject: Re: Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan Pat, Well said. Thank you for taking the time to "think this out and speak on our behalf. Rodger & Madelyn Lolley 77317 Via Marina #403 La Quinta; CA ----- Original Message ----- From: Pat Howard To: council@la-guinta.org Cc: planning@la-quinta.org ; Colleen and Clay Loomis ; lars82(5earthlink. net; mzu'/ 'Dnaicapital.com ; dianavietor(d)yahoo.com ; x'oelmraxt@yahoo.com ; Brmtennis(Dhotmail.com ; la -ik.net ; mzugsmith .naicapital.com ; dianavietor(rDyahoo.com ; tennisqutti@aol.cor• om ; floyd(a_)citiland.com ; jslagter verizon.net ; Irosenthal3Aaol.com ; surflp-' jdpmdsc@earthlink.net ; mjoc1500 aol.com ; ryannelsonemail(c'oo'' rmiller@islinc.com ; Izylabmch@aol.com ; seanpmcveigh(rDvah�' dent john khpatent.com ; dmccarron c0ciflend.com ; cloomis P,— aGr moygarretson msn.com ; bgarretsonC6msn.com ; ejetr' att „maryann cappello ; tennis wiz; grady@law.ucla.edu ; mervin/' 0� brmtennis@hotmail.com a5 Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:43,," e;t0at` Subject: Phase Four of La Quinta Res 0``pJ4 La Quinta City Counsel Member/ 0 f You are about to be / d 2 Adinta Hotel and Club by your Planning Staff and the Hotel M� cet0 k3 ti i&e agreed among themselves that this plan is in the best r�1 I to 10' ;-r1t for the portion or phase of the Plan that replaces the majori" ate `tt A,10 ,atrful Grove with yet more "Spa Villas". They are so wrong, so blatai 010A lg�� ; r the Plan that it borders on a fraud that has to be considered a "takings" a �rt5 all , -i and the Hotel as in an Eminent Domain matter. It, however, would be a unique 0041 ; aentities insisting on it (the City, City Planning Dept and the hotel ownership) hay ?0k ; .probable financial or commercial gain with this particular entitlement. They certainly have nc G build the Spa Villas themselves. The only probable gain from the tennis court and Grove alternate use entitlement is to save face by substituting a more environmentally acceptable project within the Plan in place of the Water Park project that 6 9/15/2009 Page I of 1 Carolyn Walker From: Tennisqutti@aol.com Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 11:19 PM To: Planning WebMail; Council Subject: Comments regarding the Revised Notice of Preparation -La Quinta Resort expansion Dear Planning Commission and Council Members: Once again, I am writing to you to comment on the La Quinta Resort expansion project. I am a Tennis Villas owner: 76-946 Calle Mazatlan. I am also a member of the tennis club. I am totally opposed to any changes to the Specific Plan relating to the Planning Area 1. I found it very interesting that on page 5, paragraph 2, of the NOP, the Planning Area 1 IS composed of the La Quinta Resort grounds AND the 48-unit Tennis Villas Residential Community. How can you make any decision regarding the expansion project without considering the impact and welfare of the property owners included in The Specific Plan - Planning Area 1 ? First, there is an implied covenant associated with the tennis courts and the Tennis Villas Community. The 1984 sales brochure describes the "La Quinta Hotel Tennis Villas surround the grass, clay and hard courts of the La Quinta Hotel Tennis Club" We purchased our homes because of the tennis courts and the singular ambiance and life style they created. How can you approve a entitlements that reduce the number of tennis courts and fill the area with rental structures called "Spa Villas". How can it be fair that the revised plan will allow some Tennis Villas owners to retain their views of the tennis courts while other owners will be sentenced to looking into the windows of Spa Villas, All 48 Tennis Villas owners have the right to the same treatment. We are a community and part of Planning Area 1. We should not be subject to this whimsical plan dreamed up by developers to obtain entitlements to "sell' to other developers. Second, your approval of this revised plan will definitely devalue the Tennis Villas properties. Even now, the possibility of this project obtaining entitlements has been detrimental to property values. Even though construction plans are probably 5-10 years away, if at all, do you expect all 48 Tennis Villas owners to live with this black cloud of uncertainly over ourheads? Finally, I am so tired of hearing the sad story of how this redevelopment is supposed to revitalize the resort. Give me a break! The resort is unprofitable because of bad management, over building in the desert and of course bad economic times. Every time the Pyramid Group is asked why they don't promote the tennis programs and become once again a "Top 50 Best Tennis Resort", they come up with a non answer. The Pyramid Group does not care about the historical significance, the ambiance or the special uniqueness of the La Quinta Hotel. If they acquire the entitlements, they will be gone. VOTE against the revised project development for Planning Area 1. Listen to your constituents. Vote no to protect our property rights and life style entitlements. Thank you. Sincerely, Ruth Utti TEL 760-809-5871 September 14, 2009 9/15/2009 MAXag address: P.O.OaX975 La Qdnta, CaGfmnia 92247 September 15, 2009 'W wm L. Qitget received SEP 15 2009 CRy of La QtA to MaRH M9 D8PC#fftW Mr. Wallace H. Nesbit Principal Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92247 77-600Avenda T£ernando La Qainta, California 92253 (760)7714730 &Xpuget@dcrrcam Re: Revised Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Proposed Expansion of La Quinta Resort & Spa Dear Wally: In response to the Revised Project Description contained in the referenced Revised Notice of Preparation, dated August 17, 2009, distributed by the La Quinta City Planning Department, we are providing the comments below concerning the contemplated changes to the hotel's plans. These comments are supplemental to, not in lieu of the concerns we previously expressed by way of our comments dated February 3, 2009. We continue to find the massing, height and density of the plan incomprehensible, but such concerns were previously listed in our February 3rd comments. The points below are intended to focus on the changes. 1. Plans that have been shared with us by hotel representatives include a northerly elevation of a screen wall (the "Screen Wall") along Fernando as well as plans for its setback ten feet (10') from the southerly curb of Avenida Fernando. The ten foot set back is intended to accommodate the sidewalk and areas for landscaping. The Screen Wall is contemplated to be, as I recall, fourteen feet (14') in height and its northerly face is intended to include design articulation to break up its monotony and mass. We don't see any of these plans among the changes, but we believe they should be included. 2. In discussions with hotel representatives, it was contemplated that the surface of the southerly elevation of the Screen Wall would be incorporated with sound- proofing materials to further mitigate the noise occurring from the loading dock entry. We believe this measure should be incorporated as part of the hotel's Mr. Wallace H. Nesbit September 15, 2009 Page 2 plans, though this specification does not appear among the changes, at least in our review. 3. We believe the revised plans call for a ceremonial entrance in the form of a bell - tower ("Ceremonial Bell Tower") configuration near the planned conference center and the Avenida Fernando entrance. View plane studies shared with us by hotel representatives showed this feature to be an alarming and obtrusive mass visible in an overbearing way from our property. We can appreciate the benefits to the hotel of incorporating such an architectural feature, but we object to its hulking intrusion as presented and would ask that its mass be mitigated in some manner. It is our understanding that the footprint of such Ceremonial Bell Tower has been moved further south, but we have seen no revised line -of -site studies that would illustrate the impact on our property. 4. For obvious reasons we continue to be concerned about protecting the privacy of our property, which largely contributes to its value. One of the primary reasons for the existing height limit on the hotel property was to prevent this problem. Therefore, it is of critical concern to us that there would be no view corridors from any place in the hotel, including rooms, roof -top deck of the conference center or the Ceremonial Bell Tower which would afford views into our property. Likewise, none of the hotel improvements should permit any platforms for viewing into any of the single-family properties adjacent to the hotel. 5. Last, but certainly not least, is the notion of postponing the development of the resort services center to the last phase of the project. It is generally acknowledged by all parties with an interest in this expansion that the existing loading dock facilities contribute greatly to the neighborhood antagonism toward the hotel over its use of Avenida Fernando; especially the problems created by large delivery trucks. Therefore, to allow this service center to be relegated to the last phase is virtually the same as saying it would not be built at all and for sure not within a time frame that is meaningful to any existing stakeholders. If there is to be any development plan approved, it seems only logical that the developer should remedy one of the biggest existing problems, if not the biggest, as part of the first phase of the development — not the last, or in practical terms, never. Also in this regard, the revised notice suggests that the resort services center, when it is operational, would be expected "to accept a majority of the large truck deliveries". Given the chronic challenge that the hotel's various managers have had controlling truck deliveries, the notion of limiting the use of Fernando only to a "majority" of the deliveries clearly leaves a hole in the solution which would be, shall we say, big enough to drive a truck through. Any allowance for large trucks to make deliveries directly to the hotel, once the services center is completed, needs to be severely limited to special circumstances, perhaps by prior permit, to discourage such use. Mr. Wallace H. Nesbit September 15, 2009 Page 3 We appreciate the notice you have given us about the contemplated changes and the opportunity to express our comments and concerns. We hope they are rational and helpful. Please feel free to call us if you have any questions. erely, William L. Puget WLP/bp cc: Wallace H. Nesbit, City of La Quinta Planning Department (by hand) Leslie Puget 10 Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan Wanda Wise -Latta From Sent: To: Cc: Joel Walker [xjoelmrax@yahoo.com] Tuesday, September 15, 2009 8:50 AM Pat Howard; Council; rodger lolley Page 1 of 4 Wet lan2"1 r ew�� P0444 Planning WebMail; Colleen and Clay Loomis; lars82@earthlink.net; mzugsmith@naicapital.com; CrAvu— dianavietor@yahoo.com; Brmtennis@hotmail.com; tennisqutG@aol.com, kathy@citnand.com, floyd@citiland.com; jslagter@verizon.net; Irosenthal3@aol.com; surflanel@yahoo.com; jdpmdsc@earthlink.net; mjocl500@aol.com; ryannelsonemail@googlemail.com; vance minter; rmiller@islinc.com; Izylabrnch@aol.com; seanpmcveigh@yahoo.com; joemcveigh@yahoo,com; john@khpatent.com; dmccarron@fgflend.com; cloomis@printcfp.com; kevinhopton@hotmail.com; moygarretson@msn.com; bgarretson@msn.com; eje@quinnemanuel.com; elyscaa@charter.net; maryann cappello; grady@law.ucla.edu; mervin@ervinad.com; martone@pacific. net.sg Subject: Re: Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan To the Planning Commission: I'm sure that you can understand that losing value and quality of life in our Tennis Villas as a result of activities on the part of Pyramid which they hope may improve their sales price for the Resort is an emotional issue for the Homeowners. I'm sure that Pyramid (and hopefully the Planning Commission) have, at some level, a realization that this major project likely will never happen and if it does it likely will not be financially successful. I would hate to see the beautiful City of La Quinta impacted by this "game". Please take a moment to read carefully the details provided in Pat Howard's letter. Pat's emotions show the level of stress and chaos which this ploy has inflicted on us all. But the facts speak for themselves and we appreciate your consideration of them as you make your decisions for this project which will have such a major (and most likely negative) on the City. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ann and Joel Walker 77-321 Avenida Fernando --- On Mon, 9/14/09, rodger lolley <tennis.wiz@roadrunner.com> wrote: irents' -% s attach From: rodger lolley <tennis.wiz@roadrunner.com> a �sits a Subject: Re: Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Ma•-' )pcJ To: "Pat Howard" <phowardair@att.net>, council(a)'/ fOtto� Cc: planning@la-quinta.org, "Colleen and Cla-' the lars82@earthlink.net, mzugsmith@naieg—' ed'003 to.) xjoelmrax@yahoo.com, Brmtenni-' eGO �$ p ) ,;itilandxorn, floyd@citiland.com, jslagter has t 9 $t A3 a•R' vyahoo.com, jdpmdsc@earthlink.net-- ma)) 010 1o' o0=ail.com, "vance se ntpm veigh@yahoo o. Tminer" <vnce.minterC hts e t LoUey(9I1�j09 =m@khpatent comol.com, Rod9No�a�d pat 11 9/15/2009 Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan Page 1 of 5 CC: n'V Wanda Wise -Latta Cz From: Grady, Mark [grady@law.ucla.edu] ki'iAi( Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:10 PM To: 'Joel Walker', Pat Howard; Council, rodger lolley C� Cc: Planning WebMail; Colleen and Clay Loomis; lars82@earthlink.net; mzugsmith@naicapital.com; dianavietor@yahoo.com; Brmtennis@hotmail.com; tennisqutti@aol.com; kathy@citiland.com; floyd@citiland.com; jslagter@verizon.net; Irosenthal3@aol.com; surflane1@yahoo.com; jdpmdsc@earthlink.net; mjocl500@aol.com; ryannelsonemail@googlemail.com; vance minter; rmiller@islinc.com; Izylabrnch@aol.com; seanpmcveigh@yahoo.com; joemcveigh@yahoo.com; john@khpatent.com; dmccarron@fgfiend.com; cloomis@printcfp.com; kevinhopton@hotmail.com; moygarretson@msn.com; bgarretson@msn.com; eje@quinnemanuel.com; elyscaa@charter.net, maryann cappello; mervin@ervinad.com; martone@pacific.net.sg Subject: Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan To the Planning Commission: My fellow Tennis Villa homeowners have basically rejected the compromise offered to us by Pyramid, which is essentially the amended plan that Pyramid recently filed with your department and the city. I think Pat Howard's letter to you states eloquently the feelings that most of us Tennis Villa Owners share concerning the proposed loss of our tennis courts and the consequent radical drop in our home values. Since the time of Pyramid's proposal my assessed value has dropped from about $535,000 to $213,000. It is very unfair that we Tennis Villa owners should bear such a concentrated loss in order to promote development. Indeed, this development violates a covenant running with the land that Landmark Land & Development gave to our ' predecessors to maintain the tennis courts as tennis courts. (Please see my prior emails to the Mayor and members of the City Council.) I think that the reason our property values have dropped so radically is that no one expected that Pyramid or the City would violate our covenant. In other words, that possibility was not even discounted as a part of our property values. Given the feeling of our community against the amended proposal and the extraordinary losses that we have already borne, it would not surprise me if members of our community sought to enforce their property rights in court. I continue to believe that Pyramid would be liable in such an action and that the City of La Quinta might also be liable for its part in approving development that violates our covenant to have the La Quinta tennis courts remain tennis courts. Respectfully submitted, Mark Grady Mark F. Grady Professor of Law and Director, Center for Law and Economics UCLA School of Law This e-mail was received with the following a -mails as attachments: 405 Hilgard Avenue Joe Walker (9115109 — 8:50 a.m.) Rodger Lolley (9/14/09 — 8:48 p.m.) Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476 Pat Howard (9114109 — 10:43 a.m.) Telephone:310-206-1856 12 9/16/2009 Page 1 of 6 CC' Na Wanda Wise -Latta :PkkAt A) CAA IV/ _._._.._ .._ _ _ ._ -_--_ __.___ _.._ ___ _____ _CM_ From: Bryan Martone [brmtennis@hotmail.com] /1�5 Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:26 PM '"� To: grady@law.ucla.edu; xjoelmrax@yahoo.com; phowardair@att.net; Council; CCA tennis.wiz@roadrunner.com; Bryan Martone; bryan.martone@ubs.com Cc: Planning WebMail; colloomis@aol.com; lars82@earthlink.net; mzugsmith@naicapital.com; diana vietor; tennisqutti@aol.com; kathy@citiland.com; Floyd@citiland.com; jslagter@verizon.net, Irosenthal3@aol.com; surflane1@yahoo.com; jd pmd sc@earth link. net; mjocl500@aol.com; ryannelsonemail@googlemail.com; vance.minter@sbcglobal.net; rmiller@islinc.com; Izylabrnch@aol.com; seanpmcveigh@yahoo.com; joemcveigh@yahoo.com; john@khpatent.com; dmccarron@fgflend.com; cloomis@printcfp.com; kevinhopton@hotmail.com; moygarretson@msn.com; bgarretson@msn.com; eje@quinnemanuel.com; elyscaa@charter.net; maryann.cappello@gmail.com; mervin@ervinad.com; victoria martone Subject: RE: Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan To the Planning Council I will keep this very brief as previous mails below have largely reflect our views all the way from sunny Singapore. Our place at 76-986 Calle Mazatlan was bought for one purpose and this was to find a place in Southern California we could enjoy tennis as a family. The last five years have been marked by endless redevelopment plans and not one of them has included reviving the tennis program and making La Quinta once again a destination for tennis enthusiasts to visit. Since then we have seen the outright decline of the Tennis Program at La Quinta, a near 60% decline in property values and a near 70% decline in rental incomes. It defies common sense, basic economics, that adding more units to La Quinta will revive the resort. During these difficult times Pyramid should identify means by which they can streamline the La Quinta Operations and promote the Tennis Program to nurture this flower of the desert back to health again. The current plan that you will soon be presented is fundamentally flawed and we urge you to reject this outright and right the wrong that has been committed by development plans that have destroyed the value of our beautiful community over the last five years. Tks in advance Bryan and Victoria Martone sots: hrn From: grady@law.ucia.edu s Ott aG To: xjoelmrax@yahoo.com; phowardair@att.net; council@la-quinta.org: a115 a tennis.wiz@roadrunner.com e m CC: planning@la-quinta.org; colloomis@aol.com; lars82@ear0" _____ mzugsmith@naicapital.com; dianavietor@yahoo.com; Bra-_ a 101JONNI tennisqutti@aol.com; kathy@citiland.com; Floyd - W, 01 th Irosenthal3@aol.com; surflanel@yahoo.com;;'red ryannelsonemail@googlemail.com; vanc­__�fecef Izylabrnch@aol.com; seanpmcvei-'11p� NO05dmccarron@fQ:� a,m' ) moygarretsong@m d o om,; 9!'hI a,I�ai1 gji510 9 8'y$48 . m j - s��charter.net; maryann.cappello@gmail.c, Glad`I ((9j15j�t},09 10:q.3 may'' - Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16: matK aIV# ay pl �jOg Subject: Phase Four of La Qu. J06 N V1069a Lpard (90 Pat N 9/16/2009 13 Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan Page 1 of 6 C': — & Wanda Wise -Latta hbM� n. From: Michael Zugsmith [mzugsmith@naicapital.comj Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:57 PM To: 'Grady, Mark'; 'Joel Walker'; 'Pat Howard'; Council; 'rodger lolley'� Cc: Planning WebMail; 'Colleen and Clay Loomis'; lars82@earthlink.net; dianavietor@yahoo.com;- Brmtennis@hotmail.com; tennisqutti@aol.com; kathy@citiland.com; floyd@citiland.com; jslagter@verizon.net; Irosenthal3@aol.com; surflanel@yahoo.com; jdpmdsc@earthlink.net; mjocl500@aol.com; ryannelsonemail@googlemail.com;'vance minter'; rmiller@islinc.com; Izylabrnch@aol.com; seanpmcveigh@yahoo.com; joemcveigh@yahoo.com; john@khpatent.com; dmccarron@fgflend.com; cloomis@printcfp.com; kevinhopton@hotmail.com; moygarretson@msn.com; bgarretson@msn.com; eje@quinnemanuel.com; elyscaa@charter.net; 'maryann Cappello'; mervin@ervinad.com; mertone@pacific. net.sg Subject: RE: Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan To The Planning Commission: My family and I have been visitors to the La Quinta Resort and Spa for almost 20 years and have owned our Tennis Villa for almost five years. We have always considered the Resort a special place; that's why we bought there. To allow the current ownership to change the very nature of the Resort and let it become just another hotel amongst many might accomplish a short term goal for a ownership that clearly wants to maximize value for sale; however, at a potentially significant long term cost to the City of La Quinta. After all, is it any less logical that by setting this precedent if either or both of the golf courses located at the Resort became more valuable as residences, the City will allow them to be replaced them with more housing too? Or, instead of valuing low density and height restrictions, the City allows uncontrolled growth at the expense of quality of life? This concern would not be limited to the Resort; any community in the City would be at risk. Your actions in this regard could have a chilling effect on future property sales in the City if community amenities were considered expendable by its elected representatives. I also believe that Mark Grady is correct in his legal assessment. If this project is approved it will be litigated and not only will Pyramid (or whomever owns the Resort; the last time I checked it was still in KSL's name and the property taxes were delinquent) be a defendant, but also the City, which will open itself up to potential liability for what is in essence the taking of a significant portion of our property value without compensation. I encourage you to stop listening to the highly paid attorneys and consultants whose singular goal is to steamroller everyone in opposition to the ownership receiving entitlements that are not in the best long-term interests of either the Resort or the City. At one point my wife and I were considering retiring to Santa Rosa Cove, viewing the Resort and the City as positives. If we were to make that decision now or in the near future, the Resort and the City have unfortunately become negatives. Michael A. Zugsmith Chairman 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 905-2400 Fax: (818)905-2425 miugsmith@naicapital.com www.naicapital.com DRE#: 00493505 This e-mail was received with the following a-. mails as attachments: Mark Grady (9115109 - 4:10 p.m-) Joe Walker (9115109 - 8:50 a.m.) Rodger Loiley (9114109 - 8:48 p.m-) pat Howard (9114109 - 10:43 a.m.) 14 9/16/2009 Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan Page 1 of 7 CE: Wanda Wise -Latta �t"� �""✓ _ _.----- _....._._ .__.,__._.-. From: Grady, Mark [grady@law ucla edu] C*k /ID5 Sent: Tuesday, September 15 2009 7:19 PM To: 'Michael Zugsmith'; 'Joel Walker'; 'Pat Howard'; Council; 'rodger lolley' f Cc: Planning WebMail; 'Colleen and Clay Loomis'; lars82@earthlink.net; dianavietor@yahoo.com; Brmtennis@hotmail.com; tennisqutti@aol.com; kathy@citiland.com; Floyd@citiland.com; jslagter@verizon.net; Irosenthal3@aol.com; surflane1@yahoo.com; jdpmdsc@earthlink.net; miocl500@aol.com; ryannelsonemail@googlemail.com;'vance minter'; rmiller@islinc.com; Izylabrnch@aol.com; seanpmcveigh@yahoo.com; joemcveigh@yahoo.com; john@khpatent.com; dmccarron@fgflend.com; cloomis@printcfp.com; kevinhopton@hotmail.com; moygarretson@msn.com; bgarretson@msn.com; eje@quinnemanuel.com, elyscaa@charter.net; 'maryann cappello'; mervin@ervinad.com; marto ne@ pacific. net. sg Subject: RE: Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan Attachments: Bourgerie.doc To the Planning Commission: I'm attaching a California case that holds that a city which condemns a private easement, such as the covenant we Tennis Villa owners possess over the La Quinta Resort tennis courts, owes the owners just compensation for any taking for a public use, such as the construction of an electrical substation. Our case would be more extreme than the attached case of municipal liability because Pyramid proposes that the City of La Quinta take our easement for a private (not a public) use, viz., the construction of "Spa Villas" for private purposes. I respectfully suggest to you that the City of La Quinta lacks the power under the California and U.S. Constitutions to take our tennis court covenant for private purposes. Respectfully submitted, Mark Grady Mark F. Grady Professor of Law and Director, Center for Law and Economics UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476 Telephone: 310-206-185 6 This a -mail was received with the fol%wing a mails as attachments: From: Michael Zugsmith [mailto:rr Michael Zugsmith (9115109 — 4:57 p.m.) Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 201 Mark Grady (9115109 — 4: 10 p.m.) To: Grady, Mark; 'Joel Walker'; 'Pa Joe Walker (9115109 — 8:50 a.m.) Rodger Lolley (9114109 — 8:48 p.m.) 9/16/2009 pat Howard (9114109 — 10:43 a.m.) 15 Westlaw 507 P.2d 964 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 Cal.Rptr. 76 (Cite as: 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964,107 Cal.Rptr. 76) P Supreme Court of California, In Bank. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, V. Richard D. BOURGERIE et al., Defendants and Ap- pellants. L.A. 30095. March 28, 1973. Action was brought by public utility to condemn land, burdened with a building restriction against electric transmission station, for purpose of building an electric substation thereon. The Superior Court, Santa Barbara County, John A. Westwick, J., entered a judgment from which defendant adjoining land- owners appealed. The Supreme Court, Musk, J., held that the building restriction in deed constituted prop- erty for purpose of constitutional provision requiring compensation for taking of private property, and compensation must be made to landowner who had been damaged by construction of electric substation on condemned land in violation of building restric- tion. Reversed in part and affirmed in part. Burke, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which McComb, J., concurred. Opinion, Cal App., 103 Cal.Rptr. 719, vacated. West Headnotes Ill Eminent Domain 148 4D��85 148 Eminent Domain 148II Compensation 148II B Taking or Injuring Property as Ground for Compensation 148k81 Property and Rights Subject of Compensation 148k85 k. Easements and Other Rights in Real Property. Most Cited Cases Building restriction constitutes "property" within meaning of constitutional provision forbidding the Page 1 taking of private property without just compensation and compensation must be paid whenever damage to landowner results from violation of restriction. West's Ann Const. art. 1, & 14; West's Ann.Civ.Code, 6 1001; West's Ann.Code Civ Proc. S 1238. 121 Eminent Domain 148 �85 148 Eminent Domain 148II Compensation 14E B Taking or Injuring Property as Ground for Compensation 148k81 Property and Rights Subject of Compensation 148k85 k. Easements and Other Rights in Real Property. Most Cited Cases Grantees of land burdened with restriction against use of land for electric transmission station had a "prop- erty" right with respect to a like restriction on the adjoining parcel retained by grantor entitling them to compensation for its loss following condemnation of grantor's retained parcel by public utility for purpose of building electric substation; overruling Friesen v. City of Glendale 209 Cal. 524, 288 P. 1080. West's Ann Const. art1, 5 14; West's Ann.Civ.Code, & 1001; West's Ann.Code Civ.Proc. § 1238. ***76 **964 *170 Jack Otero, Santa Barbara, Roger M. Sullivan, Los Angeles, and Gideon Kanner, Bev- erly Hills, for defendants and appellants. ***77 **965 Rollin E. Woodbury, Los Angeles, Robert J. Cahall, Rosemead, Harry W. Sturges, Jr., and Tom P. Gilfoy, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent. MOSK, Justice. The sole question at issue is whether a building re- striction in a deed constitutes `property' for purposes of article I section 14, of the California Constitution FNI so that compensation must be made to a land- owner who has been damaged by the construction of an improvement which violates the restriction on land acquired by eminent domain. FNI. Article I section 14, of the California Constitution provides in part, `Private prop- erty shall not be taken or damaged for public © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 16 507 P.2d 964 FOR EDUC 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 Cal.Rptr. 76 (Cite as: 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964,107 Cal.Rptr. use without just compensation having first been made to ... the owner ...: A TIONAL USE ONLY *171 In 1964, defendants purchased a tract of land in Santa Barbara from the Bank of America; the bank retained a portion of the tract adjoining defendants' property on the west. The deed from the bank to de- fendants provided that the property transferred could not be used for an electric transmission station, and the land retained by the bank was made subject to the same restriction. Plaintiff, Southern California Edison Company (Edison), a public utility, sought to acquire the bank's land by eminent domain, for the purpose of building an electric substation. FNI FN2. Section 1001 of the Civil Code pro- vides that any person may acquire private property by eminent domain for any use specified in section 1238 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Section 1238 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that the right of emi- nent domain may be exercised by any public utility for electric power facilities. In its complaint against the bank, Edison joined de- fendants, alleging that they owned or claimed some right, title or interest in the bank's land. Defendants answered, asserting that the bank's land was burdened with a restriction in their favor, and that they would be damaged by the proposed electric substation. Sub- sequently, the bank and Edison entered into a stipula- tion for judgment in which the bank agreed to permit Edison to acquire the bank's land for a specified sum. The action proceeded to trial on the issues relating to the propriety of the condemnation, and the trial court rendered judgment in Edison's favor, holding that the property sought to be condemned would be applied to uses authorized by law. It held also that the restric- tion forbidding the construction of an electric trans- mission station on the bank's land did not create a compensable property interest in defendants. Ll In attacking the basic issue defendants fire two salvos. First, they maintain that a building restriction constitutes 'property' as that term is used in article I section 14, of the California Constitution and, there- fore, a taking must be compensated whether the plaintiff seeking condemnation is a governmental entity or a private party. Second, they assert even if a restriction is not viewed as compensable property when the condemner is a governmental entity, never - 76) Page 2 theless a private, profit -making corporation such as Edison may not violate the restriction without com- pensating the property owner in whose favor it runs. We need not reach the second of these issues since, as will appear, we conclude that whether the con- demner is a public or private entity, a building re- striction constitutes 'property' within the meaning of article I, section 14, and compensation must be paid whenever damage to a landowner results from a vio- lation of the restriction. The trial court ruled against defendants in reliance upon *172Friesen v City of Glendale (1930) 209 Cal 524, 288 P. 1080, and Lombardy v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co (1968) 266 Cal App 2d 599 72 Cal.Rptr. 240. In Friesen, a case we have not reexamined in over four decades, the court held: a building restric- tion is not a property right but merely a negative easement or an equitable servitude; such an interest is, in essence, a contractual right cogniza- ble***78 **966 in equity as between the contracting parties but not binding upon the sovereign since par- ties may not by mutual covenants in private contracts create for themselves an estate in land entitling them to compensation by the state; moreover, if plaintiffs' position were sustained, each landowner in the tract to which the restriction applied as well as the encum- brancers of the various lots would be necessary par- ties to a condemnation suit, thereby greatly increas- ing the cost of condemnation. In Lombardy the Court of Appeal denied compensation on the authority of Friesen. A majority of jurisdictions which have considered the matter hold that building restrictions constitute prop- erty rights for purposes of eminent domain proceed- ings and that a condemner must compensate a land- owner who is damaged by violation of the restriction. ( Horst v Housing Auth. of County of Scotts Bluff (1969) 194 Neb. 215 166 N.W.2d 119, 121, Meredith v Washoe County School District (1968) 84 Nev 15 435 P.2d 750, 752-753; United States v Certain Land in City of Augusta, Maine (S D Me 1963) 220 F Supp 696 700-7O L School District No 3 v Country Club of Charleston (1962) 241 S.C. 215 127 S E 2d 625, 627; Town of Stam- ford v Vuono (1928) 108 Conn 359, 143 A. 245, 249• Allen v City of Detroit (1911) 167 Mich. 464, 133 N.W. 317, 320; see cases collected in 4 A.L.R.3d 1137: 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain (3d ed. 1970) s 5.73(1).) The Restatement of Property also adopts © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 17 507 P.2d 964 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 9 Ca1.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 Cal.Rptr. 76 (Cite as: 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 Cal.Rptr. 76) this view. (Rest., Property, s 566.)Friesen and other cases adhering to the minority view have been sharply criticized by law review commentators. (See, e.g., Aigler, Measure of Damages for Extinguishment of Easement by Condemnation, 1945 Wis.L.Rev. 5; Stoebuck, Condemnation of Rights the Condemnee Holds in Lands of Another (1970) 56 Iowa L.Rev. 293; Spies & McCoid, Recovery of Consequential Damages in Eminent Domain (1962) 48 Va.L.Rev. 437; Comment (1955) 53 Mich.L.Rev. 451.) M We are impressed with the cogent criticism of the conceptual underpinnings of Friesen. First, it is un- questioned that building restrictions constitute prop- erty rights for some purposes ( Mock v. Shulman (1964) 226 Cal App.2d 263, 269-270, 38 Cal.Rptr. 39- see 5 Powell on Real Property (1971) s 671, p. 147). Furthermore, it is difficult to justify affording compensation for the appropriation of an easement, which is unquestionably compensable `property' (see 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain *173 (3d ed. 1970) s 5.72), while denying payment for violation of a re- striction. Both easements and building restrictions may be created by agreements between private par- ties and, therefore, upon condemnation in both situa- tions the financial burden of the condemner is in- creased solely by virtue of agreements made between private parties. FN3 Equally important, the violation of a building restriction could cause far greater dam- age in monetary value to a property owner than the appropriation of a mere right of way. To establish a substantive distinction by merely labeling one a property interest for which compen sation **967 ***79 must be made and the other a mere con- tractual right which may be appropriated by a con- demner without any compensation is inequitable and rationably indefensible. FN3. Professor Aigler, in his article, Meas- ure of Damages for Extinguishment of Easement by Condemnation, op. cit. Supra, 1945 Wis.L.Rev. 5, 23-24, footnote 44, of- fers this analysis: `... But surely it is possi- ble for a landowner by his own act, for in- stance by improving his land with buildings, trees, etc., to increase the amount of com- pensation he is entitled to receive on con- demnation. The condemning unit cannot expect to get off by paying for the taken land only in its natural state untouched by the hand of man and unaffected by devel- Page 3 opments in the neighborhood. Likewise he may clearly get increased compensation if he has acquired valuable easements (legal) apurtenant (sic) to the land taken, and if the legal easement he has acquired burdens the taken land for the benefit of his and which is not taken, the authorities all agree that he is entitled to compensation. Why, then, should compensation be denied when the increase in value or the interest extinguished was created by covenant instead of by a deed of conveyance and is called an equitable in- stead of a legal easement? The contract in these situations creates Property rights.' We need not contemplate in depth the somewhat eso- teric dialogue on he appropriate characterization of a building restriction. One writer has perceptively de- clared that the `no -property -interest argument is less the motivation for denial of compensation than it is a rationalization for a result desired for other reasons' (Stoebuck, op. cit. Supra, 56 Iowa L.Rev. at p. 306). An objective analysis reveals the real basis for the decisions which deny compensation for the violation of building restrictions by a condemner relates to pragmatic considerations of public policy rather than abstract doctrines of property law, and it is upon these issues of policy that jurisdictions choose be- tween the minority and majority views. (Compare Wharton v United States (Ist Cir. 1907) 153 F. 876, expressing in dictum the minority concept, with the most frequently cited case for the majority position, town of Stamford v. Vuono supra, 143 A. 245.)FN4 FN4. The rationale of the Connecticut court in Stamford(at pp. 248-249) seems irrefuta- ble: `The plaintiff also contends that these restrictions, in so far as they prohibit the erection of a high school or other municipal building upon the restricted property, are void as against public policy. The argument in support of this contention is that no con- tractual agreement between the owners of property should be permitted to prevent the use of that property by an agency of the state when its use is required in the exercise of a governmental function, that to require the state to make compensation for the right taken would interfere with this governmen- tal function, and therefore should not be permitted. The fallacy of the argument lies 0 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 18 507 P.2d 964 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 Cal.Rptr. 76 (Cite as: 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 Ca1.Rptr. 76) in the assumption of its minor premise that the requirement that the state compensate the owner of the dominant tenement for the taking of his interest in the servient tene- ment actually interferes with the exercise of any governmental function. There is, of course, a clear distinction between the rights of the private owner of land which is subject to a restrictive easement and those of a gov- ernmental agency which requires for public purposes the use of the land in violation of the restriction. The private owner may not violate the restriction; if he attempts to do so, he may be restrained by injunction. The governmental agency may not be restrained from making such use of the property as the public purpose for which it is acquired may require, but, if that involves the taking of private property it must make compensation for the same. When, therefore, property sub- ject to a restrictive easement is taken for a public use, it has been held that the owner of the property for whose benefit the restriction is imposed is entitled to compensation... . Such restrictions are in the nature of an easement constituting an interest in the land upon which they are imposed.' * 174 Denial of compensation has been justified upon the ground that the cost of constructing public pro- jects will be substantially increased if compensation must be provided by a condemner for the violation of a restriction. In addition, it is asserted that a con- demner might be required to join a large number of landowners as defendants in cases where the benefit of the restriction runs to numerous lots, and that this could result in inhibiting the condemner's ability to acquire essential property. FN5 Finally, it has been suggested that landowners might `pluck valuable causes of action from the thin air' by entering into agreements imposing restrictions whenever condem- nation proceedings are on the horizon. ( Arkansas State Highway Commission v. McNeill (1964) 238 Ark 244 381 S. W 2d 425, 427.) FN5. Professor Aigler referred to the `lively imagination' of a Texas court which saw 10,000 possible claimants. (Aigler, Measure of Damages for Extinguishment of Ease- ment by Condemnation, op. cit. Supra, 1945 Wis.L.Rev. at p. 32.) Page 4 We find these reasons for denying compensation to be unpersuasive. Conceding the possibility that the cost of condemning property might be increased somewhat by awarding compensation for the viola- tion of building restrictions, we cannot conclude that such increases will significantly burden exercise of the power of eminent domain.***80 **968 As a practical matter some takings would result in negligi- ble damage to the owners of the restriction (e.g., pub- lic works such as parks or access roads); if the char- acter of the improvement were such that damage to some landowners would result (e.g., schools or fire stations), it is likely that only those immediately ad- joining or in close proximity to the improvement would suffer substantial injury, even in highly re- stricted areas. As to the procedural difficulties, while they are not here involved and we need not decide the issue, it has been posited by some authorities that a condemner need only selectively join in the action landowners whose property is most likely to be dam- aged by the violation of the building restriction; there are other remedies for *175 excluded owners who anticipate the improvement will result in damage to their property. (See Stoebuck, op cit. Supra, 56 Iowa L.Rev. pp. 307-308.)Finally, the speculative possibil- ity that some unduly acquisitive landowners might in bad faith enter into restrictive covenants solely for the purpose of collecting compensation would not justify the denial of compensation to all property owners, including those acting in good faith. If bad faith or sharp practices were established, a court could properly refuse to allow compensation. Under the minority view, compensation is denied to persons whose property may have been damaged as a result of the violation of a valid deed restriction, thereby placing a disproportionate share of the cost of public improvements upon a few individuals. Neither the constitutional guarantee of just compensation, nor public policy permit such a burdensome result. The United States Supreme Court has recently declared, `The constitutional requirement of just compensation derives as much content from the basic equitable principles of fairness ... as it does from technical concepts of property law.'( United States v. Fuller (1973) 409 U.S. 488 93 S Ct 801 35 L.Ed.2d 16.)Our conclusion to harmonize California law with the majority rule is in conformity with this salutary principle. © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 19 507 P.2d 964 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 CaLRptr. 76 (Cite as: 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 CaLRptr. 76) For all the foregoing reasons, Friesen v. City of Glendale, supra, 209 Cal. 524, 288 P. 1080, is over- ruled and Lombardy v Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., supra, 266 Cal App 2d 599, 72 Cal.Rltr. 240, is disapproved to the extent that they are inconsistent with the views herein expressed. The judgment is reversed insofar as it determines that defendants are not entitled to be compensated for the violation of the restriction. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. WRIGHT, C.J., and TOBRINER, SULLIVAN and KAUS,r" JJ., concur. FN* Assigned by the Chairman of the Judi- cial Council. BURKE, Justice (dissenting). I dissent. The majority opinion extends the provisions of article I section 14, of the California Constitution to a degree previously unrecognized in this state, thereby substantially affecting future eminent domain proceedings. This case alters longstanding California law to conform with the rule in the 'majority' of American jurisdictions on the issue of compensability of a 'taking' of building restrictions in eminent do- main proceedings. However, in doing so, the majority discards the conceptual bases supporting the prior California position without submitting persuasive reasons justifying the change. *176 It has been stated 'a determination that 'prop- erty' has been 'taken' is merely descriptive of the end result, the conclusion reached, rather than of the rea- sons that impelled the conclusion. The very question to be decided in a case of this character (eminent do- main proceedings involving a violation of a building restriction) is whether, After all relevant factors are weighed, it can be said that a property right does exist as between the condemner and the person claiming compensation.'(Kratovil & Harrison, Eminent Do- main-***81 **969 Policy and Concept (1954) 42 Cal.L.Rev. 596, 630; italics added.) Today's majority opinion is founded upon the tenuous proposition that a building restriction is substantially equivalent to an easement. Since an easement is a compensable property interest, and since both ease- ments and building restrictions bear some similar characteristics, the majority concludes that a violation Page 5 of a building restriction in a condemnation action is a taking of a property interest, and is likewise com- pensable. Yet an easement is an affirmative right of use, whereas a building restriction is wholly negative in character, amounting to no more than a promise not to use property in a particular manner. Although the majority characterizes the distinction between compensability for easements and noncompensability for building restrictions as `inequitable and rationally indefensible,' a number of jurisdictions have found the policies underlying the distinction to be reason- able and persuasive. FN 1 FN I. By reason of this decision California conforms with the rule followed by the ma- jority of jurisdictions in the United States. However, the number of jurisdictions adher- ing to the minority view is substantial. (See cases collected in 4 A.L.R.3d 1137; 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain (3d ed. 1970) s 5.573(2).) The California doctrine denying compensation for a `taking' of building restrictions was first announced in Friesen v City of Glendale 209 Cal 524, 288 P. 1080 which the majority now overrules. The reasons espoused in support of the holding in Friesen appear equally as cogent today as when that case was de- cided. In Friesen the court held a building restriction amounted to no more than a contract right, enforce- able in equity as between the parties or their succes- sors with notice, and did not attain the status of a compensable property interest r"—Z Other courts have concluded similarly. ( Moses v. Hazen, 63 App.D.C. 104, 69 F.2d 842; Houston v Wynne, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W. 916; Board of Public Instruction v. Bay Harbor islands Fla. 81 So 2d 637; Anderson v. Lynch 188 Ga. 154, 3 S.E.2d 85; Doan v. Cleveland Short Line R. Co.,92 Ohio St. 461, 11.2 N.E. 505.)The majority fail to explain what reasons now compel a contrary rule. FN2. See 5 Powell on Real Property (1971) section 671, page 144, where a promise re- specting the use of land is recognized as a type of contract between the parties which did not constitute property at common law. *177 The conceptual premises underlying eminent domain proceedings add further support to the hold- ing in Friesen.In Smith v Clifton Sanitation District, © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 20 507 P.2d 964 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 Cal.Rptr. 76 (Cite as: 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 Cal.Rptr. 76) 134 Colo 116, 120, 300 P.2d 548, 550, the court re- marked 'We think it is fundamental that where a company, corporation or agency of the state is vested with the right of eminent domain and has acquired property through eminent domain proceedings and is using the property for public purposes, no claim for damages arises by virtue of such a covenant as in the instant case, in favor of the owners of other property on account of such use by the condemner. Were the rule otherwise the right of eminent domain could be defeated if the condemning authority had to respond in damages....' The above remarks focus on the added expense which a damages award would impose in future eminent domain actions. Such an award could `defeat' the right of eminent domain in at least two ways. Initially, an award of damages to land owners benefitted by a building restriction may be so prohibitive as to require termination of the contem- plated condemnation action. Secondly, although the public entity might be able to pay the damage awards and proceed with the public use of the condemned property, the financial burdens involved may out- weigh the expected benefit to the public. Each of these is an equally unacceptable alternative which the majority's decision imposes on ***82 **970 those entities possessing powers of eminent domain. FN3 FN3. Since only a small number of parties conceivably have been injured by the viola- tion of the building restriction in this case the increased condemnation costs caused by damage awards may be insubstantial. How- ever, the factual circumstances presented by this action should not blind the majority from recognizing that in similar situations the number of injured parties claiming dam- age may be so numerous as to make the use of eminent domain prohibitive. Additionally, damage awards in future eminent do- main actions may present complex procedural entan- glements. If each parcel in a residential subdivision is mutually benefitted and burdened by a building re- striction, then upon violation of the restriction by condemnation proceedings and inconsistent use, the problem is raised as to which persons have com- pensable property interests requiring joinder in the action. The owner of every benefitted parcel should be joined if, as the majority concludes, each has suf- fered a taking of 'property.' FN4 Also, since lien - holders and mortgagees *178 maintain a present pro - Page 6 prietary interest in the benefitted property, they too may possess a right to have that interest considered and protected. FN5 These are substantial procedural hurdles which, because of the majority's refusal to consider, may return to haunt us in the near future. FN4. The majority cites Stoebuck, Condem- nation of Rights the Condemnee Holds in Lands of Another (1970) 56 Iowa L.Rev. 293, 307-308. There the author states that individuals suffering a `technical' injury may be compensated by a settlement agree- ment. He also proposes a highly question- able procedure to dispose of the claims of such persons who have a compensable prop- erty interest taken: 'A major safety valve for the condemnor is that holders of the smaller claims cannot, practically, afford to press their claim very hard.... Perhaps the con- demnor would even be justified in failing to join those with nominal claims, putting the burden on them to join the action or later bring an inverse condemnation action. Nei- ther of these responses would be likely to occur unless property owners' losses were more substantial than expected.' FN5. See 17 Cal.Jur.2d, Eminent Domain, section 95; 154 A.L.R. 1110,'Rights of Mortgagee in Award in Eminent Domain Proceedings: I would affirm the trial court judgment denying com- pensation for the violation of the restriction on the basis of the Friesen case and Lombardy v. Peter Kie- wit Sons' Co 266 Cal App 2d 599 72 Cal Rptr. 240 The following commentary places the problem in true perspective: 'Decision on the scope of compensation in eminent domain is simply a question of policy. (Citation.) If we are at all correct in concluding that fundamental fairness requires compensation for consequential loss if feasible, the policy decision becomes one simply of the practicalities. The answer lies in the economic information which will be revealed by inquiries be- yond the reach of the courts, which are largely con- fined to information presently available or collected by litigants. Therefore, these question may be more satisfactorily explored by legislatures.'(Spies & McCoid, Recovery of. Consequential Damages in © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 21 507 P.2d 964 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 7 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 Cal.Rptr. 76 (Cite as: 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 Cal.Rptr. 76) Eminent Domain (1962) 48 Vir.L.Rev. 437, 457- 458.) McCOMB, J., concurs. Cal. 1973. Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. Bourgerie 9 Cal.3d 169, 507 P.2d 964, 107 Ca1.Rptr. 76 END OF DOCUMENT © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 22 NOTE: Attachments noted in the following e-mail: Shalimar Association v D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd., Skyline Woods, and UTE Park Summer Homes Association are over 75 pages. If you wish to review these documents, the are available in the Planning Department. 23 Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan Page 1,9f 7 a: =k Wanda Wise -Latta t"At� C;wl AA From: Grady, Mark [grady@law.ucla.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:34 PM To: 'Michael Zugsmith'; 'Joel Walker'; 'Pat Howard'; Council; 'rodger lolley' Cc: Planning WebMail;'Colleen and Clay Loomis'; lars82@earthlink.net; dianavietor@yahoo.com; Brmtennis@hotmail.com; tennisqutti@aol.com; kathy@citiland.com; Floyd@citiland.com; jslagter@verizon.net; Irosenthal3@aol.com; surflanel@yahoo.com; jdpmdsc@earthlink.net; mjocl500@aol.com; ryannelsonemail@googlemail.com; Vance minter'; rmiller@islinc.com; Izylabmch@aol.com; seanpmcveigh@yahoo.com; joemcveigh@yahoo.com; john@khpatent.com; dmccarron@fgflend.com; cloomis@printcfp.com; kevinhopton@hotmail.com; moygarretson@msn.com; bgarretson@msn.com; eje@quinnemanuel.com; elyscaa@charter.net; 'maryann cappello'; mervin@ervinad.com; martone@pacific.net.sg Subject: RE: Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan Attachments: Shalimar Association v. D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd. (Ariz. 1984).rtf; Skyline Woods (Neb. 2008) 758 N W 2D 376 3-5-09 1719.doc; UTE PARK SUMMER HOMES ASSOCIATIO (N.M. 1967),427_P_2 D_249_3-10-09_1836.doc To the Planning Commission: I am attaching cases that are highly analogous factually to Pyramid's proposal to violate the covenant that Landmark gave our Tennis Villa predecessors that the La Quinta Resort tennis courts would remain tennis courts. (For more details about precisely how Landmark created this covenant through written statements and maps, as well as through filings with the Riverside County Recorder, please see my earlier emails to the Mayor and the City Council as well as John Quinn's letter to Pyramid, which was copied to the Mayor and City Council.) Although I have not found such factually analogous cases within California, I suspect that the reason for their absence may be either that no California developer has so far dared to violate such a covenant or that no California municipality has so far dared to approve such a violation. In some of these attached cases, our facts and arguments seem stronger than those of the winning homeowners. I have not found any case from any jurisdiction (including California) in which the violation of a covenant similar to our covenant has failed to yield liability. For the City of La Quinta to approve Pyramid's plan could result in liability for the City either under a civil conspiracy theory or under a legal theory asserting the violation of our civil rights (namely, the public taking of our property for a private use and without just compensation). Respectfully submitted, Mark Grady Mark F. Grady Professor of Law and Director, Center for Law and Economics UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476 9/16/2009 This e-mail was received with the following e-mails, as well as the Court Case information, as attachments: Michael Zugsmith (9115109 — 4:57 p.m.) Mark Grady (9115109 — 4:10 p.m.) Joe Walker (9115109 — 8:50 a.m.) Rodger Lolley (9114109 — 8:48 p.m.) 24 Pat Howard (9114109 — 10:43 a.m.) NOTE: Attachments noted in the following e-mail; the CC & R's and Landmark's Sales Brochure contain over 100 pages. If you wish to review these documents, the are available in the Planning Department. 25 Carolyn Walker From: Grady, Mark [grady@law.ucla.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:25 PM To: 'Michael Zugsmith'; 'Joel Walker'; 'Pat Howard'; Council; 'rodger Jolley'; Wanda Wise -Latta Cc: Planning WebMail; 'Colleen and Clay Loomis'; 'lars82@earthlink.ner; 'dianavietor@yahoo.com'; 'Brmtennis@hotmail.com'; 'tennisqutti@aol.com'; 'kathy@citiland.com'; 'floyd@citiland.com'; 'jslagter@verizon.net'; 'Irosenthal3@aol.com'; 'surflanel @yahoo.com'; 'jdpmdsc@earthlink.nef; 'mjoc1500@aol.com'; 'ryannelsonemail@googlemail.com'; 'vance minter'; 'rmiller@islinc.com'; 'Izylabrnch@aol.com'; 'seanpmcveigh@yahoo.com'; 'joemcveigh@yahoo.com'; 'john@khpatent.com'; dmccarron@fgflend.com'; 'cloomis@printcfp.com'; 'kevinhopton@hotmail.com'; 'moygarretson@msn.com'; 'bgarretson@msn.com'; 'eje@quinnemanuel.com ; 'elyscaa@charter.net'; 'maryann cappello'; 'mervin@ervinad.com'; 'martone@pacific.net.sg' Subject: Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan Attachments: Landmark's Recorded CC&Rs.pdf; Landmark's Sales Brochure for Original Tennis Villa Grantees.pdf PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL To the Planning Commission: Please find attached two documents highly relevant to Pyramid's proposed plan to remove approximately 15 of the 26 tennis courts surrounded by our "Tennis Villas." The first is a copy of the "La Quinta Hotel Tennis Villas" CC&Rs filed by Landmark, the original grantor of the 'Tennis Villas," to the original "Tennis Villa" grantees, our predecessors in title. This document bears the filing date stamp of the Riverside County Recorder. These CC&Rs consistently describe our condominiums as 'Tennis Villas." The second attached document is a brochure, authored and published by Landmark, which contains a highly detailed map of our "Tennis Villas" and their physical relationship to the La Quinta Hotel's tennis courts and each of them —the same configuration that now exists. Landmark distributed this brochure to the original "Tennis Villa" grantees as a clarification of what it meant for each of our condominiums to be a "La Quinta Hotel Tennis Villa" as that term was used by Landmark's contemporaneously filed CC&Rs. Moreover, this same written brochure independently promised the original grantees that their "Tennis Villas" "surround the grass, clay and hard courts of La Quinta Hotel Tennis Club," as depicted in detail on the following page. Under California law these filed CC&Rs, together with the original grantor's maps and published statements in writing, create covenants running with the land down to us, the current owners of the La Quinta Tennis Villas. Pyramid's proposed plan to replace most of these tennis courts with "Spa Villas" and other privately owned structures violates Landmark's covenant. Because Landmark's covenant runs with the land, it binds Pyramid, as well as its partners and affiliates, which are the successors in title to Landmark. Respectfully submitted, Mark Grady Mark F. Grady Professor of Law and UCLA School of Law 405 Hilgard Avenue 9/16/2009 This e-mail was received with the following e-mails, as and Sales Brochure, as attachments: Mark Grady (9/15109 - 7:34 p.m.) Michael Zugsmith (9115109 - 4:57 p.m.) Mark Grady (9115109 - 4:10 p.m.) Joe Walker (9115109 - 8:50 a.m.) Rodger Lolley (9114109 - 8:48 p.m.) as the CC & R's 26 pat Howard (9114109 - 10:43 a.m.) Phase Pour of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan Pagel of 9 Carolyn Walker From: Kathy Turnquist - CIC [kathy@citiland.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:43 PM To: 'Grady, Mark'; 'Michael Zugsmith'; 'Joel Walker'; 'Pat Howard'; Council; Todger lolley'; Wanda Wise - Latta Cc: Planning WebMail; 'Colleen and Clay Loomis'; lars82@earthlink.net; dianavietor@yahoo.com; Brmtennis@hotmail.com; tennisqutti@aol.com; Foyd@citiland.com; jslagter@verizon.net; Irosenthal3@aol.com; surflanel@yahoo.com; jdpmdsc@earthlink.net; mjocl500@aol.com; ryannelsonemail@googlemail.com; 'vance minter'; rmiller@islinc.com; Izylabrnch@aol.com; seanpmcveigh@yahoo.com; joemcveigh@yahoo.com; john@khpatent.com; dmccarron@fgflend.com; cloomis@printcfp.com; kevinhopton@hotmail.com; moygarretson@msn.com; bgarretson@msn.com; eje@quinnemenuel.com; elyscaa@charter.net; 'maryann cappello'; mervin@ervinad.com; martone@pacific.net.sg Subject: RE: Phase Four of La Quinta Resort and Club Master Plan To the Mayor, City Council and City of La Quinta Planning Commission: As tennis villa owners, as well as owners of a real estate firm for 35 years, we are constantly attuned to the real estate market. Morgan Stanley/Pyramid Partners paid a huge price for the resort during a frenzied market several yrs ago, just before the general economic crash. Many hotels all over the USA are in financial straits, as investors are not buying hotels. It seems that Pyramid Partners has applied for a new long term building plan and this plan will "hang over" our tennis villas for many years to come, since no one knows when the hotel business in general will thrive again. This has driven our property values down into the $200,000s, as we sit "in waiting" wondering when/if this plan is actually going to happen. This unknown factor will continue to devalue our property. The Pyramid Group has its own staff of lawyers, but we, the tennis villa owners, are on our own. We believe that the City Council represents the citizens (that would be us, the homeowners), so we urge you to carefully review and consider Pyramid Group's plan very carefully and thoroughly. Shouldn't there be a timetable for their plan? Will they show the approved financing for their plan? Will they be required to build within a specific time period of a plan approval, rather than anytime in the future they, or a new owner, wishes? We completely agree with Pat Howard (see original letter in this email chain) and Mark Grady (re: his documents regarding our tennis court rights) and the other tennis villa owners who have emailed you. Re: Removal of the tennis courts, how can one own a tennis villa without the tennis courts we were promised when we purchased (see Mark Grady's documents). We appreciate your diligence on our behalf. Thank you, Kathy and Floyd Turnquist Citiland Investment Corp. From: Grady, Mark [mailto:grady@la Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 20 To: 'Michael Zugsmith'; 'Joel Walker'; Cc: 'planning@la-quinta.org'; 'Colleen 'Brmtennis@hotmail.com'; 'tennisqutti This e-mail was received with the following e-mail as attachments: Mark Grady (9116109 - 2:25 p.m.) Mark Grady (9115109 - 7:34 p.m.) Michael Zugsmith (9115109 - 4:57 p.m.) Mark Grady (9115109 - 4:10 p.m.) Joe Walker (9115109 - 8:50 a.m.) Rodger Lolley (9114109 - 8:48 p.m.) pat Howard (9114109 - 10:43 a.m.) 27 9/17/2009 PH#A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 08-601 SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002 AMENDMENT 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 APPLICANT: PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF PLANS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROJECT.SITE AND CONSTRUCT THE PGA WEST GOLF VILLAS; A 54-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DUPLEX UNITS AND COMMUNITY CENTER LOCATION: PGA WEST; WEST SIDE OF PGA BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF AVENUE 54 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 08-601 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139, SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002 AMENDMENT 7, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT AS MITIGATED WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE RECOMMENDS A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. GENERAL PLAN: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: PALMER PRIVATE CLUBHOUSE SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL (TR 28259-1); GOLF COURSE EAST: PGA BOULEVARD WEST: GOLF COURSE/DRIVING RANGE BACKGROUND PGA West, which is generally located between Avenue 54 and Avenue 58 west of Madison Street, is an approximately 1,700-acre resort community featuring golf, tennis, and clubhouse amenities (Attachment 1). A Specific Plan for the community was originally approved in 1984, with a conceptual total of up to 5,000 residential units, 650 hotel rooms with approximately 120,000 square feet of resort commercial uses, and a 20-acre commercial center (SP 83-002). Five amendments to this plan have since been approved. Currently, the PGA West community is almost completely developed, with the exception of a few scattered residential lots and an approximately 42-acre site near the southern terminus of PGA Boulevard, which is located immediately east of the subject property. The subject property is an approximately 25-acre area near the center of the community. At this time, the property is comprised of the Private Clubhouse, associated parking, nineteen tennis court facilities and a Health and Racquet Club. PROJECT REQUEST Overview The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property into three separate parcels (see Tentative Tract Map listed below for further description). The PGA West Golf Villas site is approximately 15 acres in size and will consists of 54 single-family attached duplex units and a new community recreation building. The Villas site is located on the west side of PGA Boulevard (Attachment 2, Sheet 2). Located directly to the north of the project site is the Palmer Private Clubhouse, a remodel and expansion of which is currently proposed under a separate site development permit (SDP 09-91 1). A driving range is located to the west of the project site. Existing PGA West single-family homes and golf course areas are located to the south. The primary configuration of the Villas consists of duplex units clustered around a new private street (Attachment 2, Sheet 4). Vehicle access to the Villas will be provided via a new entrance drive proposed along the eastern edge of the Palmer Private Clubhouse parking lot, which will then connect with PGA Boulevard. An emergency access will also be provided near the southeast corner of the Villas site, directly connecting with PGA Boulevard. The nineteen existing tennis courts and the Health and Racquet Club will be replaced by five new tennis courts, one of which will be a stadium court design, and a new community recreation building. Specific Plan Amendment The applicant has proposed a Specific Plan Amendment (Attachment 3). This 2 represents the seventh amendment to the original PGA West Specific Plan, and includes the re -designation of the 25-acre project area within Planning Area III from CT/RSP — Tourist Commercial/Residential Specific Plan land use to RL-(RSP) — Residential Specific Plan land use in order to accommodate the proposed PGA West Golf Villas development and Private Clubhouse remodel and expansion. The re - designation also brings the project area's land use designation into consistency with the City of La Quinta General Plan and Zoning maps. Tentative Tract Map The applicant proposes to subdivide the approximately 25-acre project site into three numbered lots and four lettered lots (Attachment 4). Lot 1, which is approximately 9 acres, would consist of the Private Clubhouse and parking lot. Lot 2, at approximately 15 acres, would consist of the proposed 54-unit Villas community and recreation building. Lot 2 would also include lettered Lot A and Lot D, which comprise of circulation and open space areas within the proposed Villas community. Lot 2 is the reason Tentative Tract Map 36139 is a condominium map, as the proposed 54 units are to be situated on the same lot. Lot 3, at approximately 0.5 acres, is a remainder lot that will be used for the future construction of a single-family home. This lot is not a part of the Villas community. Lettered Lot B and Lot C, which are approximately 0.28 acres combined, consist of open space areas along the perimeter of the project site. A new private street system will be introduced to serve the Villas proposed on Lot 2. The road network will consist of a 29-foot wide private street. The proposed street width will adequately serve two way vehicle movement but will not allow on -street parking. In addition to the parking proposed for each villa unit and the community recreation building, 20 off-street parking spaces are proposed in five 4- stall clusters to be placed in various locations near villa units. Site Development Permit Residential Units Included with this proposal are architectural plans of the PGA West Golf Villas residential units, which have been designed to reflect a modified Tuscan design, referred to by the project architect as a Tuscan Territorial Modernism architectural style (Attachment 5). The architectural elements of the Villas units includes use of flat concrete tile roofing, a variety of stained stucco and wood, stone accents, as well as steel and metal finishes (Attachment 2, Sheets 8 — 9). Balconies, trellises, chimney accents, and other design elements provide architectural articulation to the various building facades. Each of the typical 54 two-story units has the following characteristics (Attachment 2, Sheets 5 — 7): I • 2,180 square feet • 3 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms • 2-car garage • Covered and uncovered terraces and balconies Each duplex consists of staggered mirror images of the typical Villas unit, with identical floor plans and features, but with a slight variation in orientation. The height of the Villas units, at the highest roof ridgeline, is approximately 22 feet in height (Attachment 2, Sheets 8 — 9). The height of the chimney architectural projection is approximately 23'-6" in height (Attachment 2, Sheets 8 — 9). Community Recreation Building Included with this proposal are plans of the approximately 3,400 square foot community recreation building, which includes leasing and management offices, game and exercise rooms, a kitchen, lounge area, and pool and spa facilities (Attachment 2, Sheet 10). The community recreation building area also includes five lit tennis courts, with one of the courts designated as a stadium court with tiered stadium spectator sitting. Vehicular access to the community recreation building is off of the new private street within the Villas community. Pedestrian pathways are also provided throughout the community that connects the Villas units to the community recreation building (Attachment 2, Sheet 4). A total of eleven parking spaces are provided, including two ADA-accessible spaces. The community recreation building has been designed to be architecturally consistent with the Villas and reflects a modified Tuscan architectural style. The building incorporates use of the same architectural design elements, materials and colors as the Villas. The community recreation building, at the highest ridgeline, is approximately 22 feet in height (Attachment 2, Sheets 12 — 14). Landscaping The landscape plan for the Villas identifies a plant palette consisting of low- to moderate -water use trees, shrubs, and groundcover generally consistent with what is permitted in the PGA West Specific Plan (Attachment 2, Sheet 15). Landscaping throughout the Villas community is plentiful and is designed to complement the architecture and layout of the duplexes and community building. Areas of turf have been limited to small patches around pedestrian walkways and an expansive common area in the middle of the community. Perimeter landscaping along PGA Boulevard and Double Eagle Way, including turf areas, trees/shrubs, and perimeter walls, will be constructed to match the existing conditions. The applicant proposes the use of Mediterranean Fan Palms, Palo Verdes, Chilean Mesquites, and Desert Acacias, among others (Attachment 2, Sheet 24). A variety fd of small and large accent shrubs, including Red Bird of Paradise, Compact Myrtles, and Agaves, are proposed in the areas surrounding the duplex units and around the community building (Attachment 2, Sheet 26 — 28). Types of groundcover used include Desert Carpet, Purple Trailing Lantanas, and Petunias. The applicant is also proposing landscape lighting at various locations throughout the project site (Attachment 2, Sheet 30 — 34). Up -lighting of the trees around the project site are to be done with low wattage, semi -recessed metal halide up -lights. The applicant also proposes a water feature placed within the planter located in the center of the main entrance traffic circle (Attachment 2, Sheet 18). The feature incorporates a cascading veneered fountain and a large fountain bowl (Attachment 2, Sheet 23). ANALYSIS Specific Plan Amendment PGA West Specific Plan Amendment 6 represents the last amendment, which consisted primarily of the Eden Rock project site. Though Eden Rock is located within Planning Area III, Amendment 6 did not change the land use designations or development standards for the subject property. Amendment 7 has been prepared to specifically address only the land use designations and development standards of the subject property, and references Amendment 4 as applicable to the remaining Specific Plan area. Amendment 7 specifically addresses the following: • Amends the land use designations from from CT/RSP — Tourist Commercial/Residential Specific Plan land use to RL-(RSP) — Residential Specific Plan • Updates the typical land uses allowed within Planning Area III • Revises graphic references and exhibits related to Planning Area III • Associates development standards for the Villas, which are located within Planning Area III, to existing development standards for single-family attached homes found in Planning Area I The amended specific plan brings the land uses within the proposed project area into consistency with the City of La Quinta General Plan and Zoning maps, and also establishes internal consistency between the Villas and the PGA West Specific Plan. Staff finds that the proposed amendment is necessary regardless of the proposed development activities since it results in a land use designation consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and Zoning Maps. The amendment also ensures that the development standards remain consistent with other areas in PGA West that share 5 the same land use designation. Tentative Tract Map The design of proposed Tentative Tract Map 36139, as conditioned, generally conforms to the design guidelines and standards of the City of La Quinta General Plan for Low Density Residential (LDR) designated properties, as set forth in the Land Use Element, as well as the PGA West Specific Plan. The proposed site design incorporates street and parcel designs that are in conformance with applicable General Plan goals, policies, and development standards, and will provide adequate circulation, infrastructure, and utilities. The lots created as part of the tract map are necessary for the development activities proposed within the subject property. Lot 1 modifies existing property lines and creates the proper setbacks necessary to accommodate the proposed Private Clubhouse expansion and remodel. Lot 2, as the condominium portion of the proposed map, will be able to accommodate the development of 54 single- family dwelling units. And Lot 3, the future site of a single family residence, will have direct access via Double Eagle Way, and will be incorporated into the existing PGA West residential community. Site Development Permit Staff finds that the overall architectural style and design of the proposed PGA West Golf Villas to be acceptable. Staff has not found any significant issues with the proposed layout and design of the duplex units, community building, common areas, and landscape palette. The articulated massing on the buildings reflects village -like clustered style architecture, and the floor plan embraces and enhances the seasonal indoor -outdoor lifestyle with the incorporation of courtyards, balconies, and terraces. The variation in front and side building setbacks provide visual breaks from the pedestrian/vehicular perspective. However, staff believes certain architectural elements should be improved upon prior to final approval. Although the modified Tuscan architecture and layout appear to be generally compatible with the styles permitted in the PGA West Specific Plan, materials and colors proposed for the Villas units create an aesthetic dissimilar to the existing surrounding residences. Staff believes that the proposed dark color palette is contrasting when compared to the lighter building colors typically found in existing PGA West neighborhoods. Staff has recommended a condition of approval directing the color palette for both the Villas and community building to be amended to represent the lighter colors typically found in PGA West. Furthermore, staff believes that the internal architectural compatibility between the Villas and the community building is too dissimilar. The design elements that characterize each building are inconsistent; in particular, roof pitch and the divergent emphases of horizontal versus vertical roof design. Staff recommends that the Planning T Commission discuss this incompatibility and provide direction, if necessary, regarding internal architectural consistency. Staff has no significant issues with the proposed uses within the community building as well as the adjacent tennis court and pool areas as they are appropriate and well -designed. The pool and tennis court areas are properly screened and are easily accessible from both the Villas and community recreation building. The eleven parking spaces provided do not meet the requirements stated in LQMC Section 9.150.060 Spaces Required by Use, which would require a minimum of fifteen spaces for "commercial" tennis courts (three parking spaces per court)• However, as these courts are for tennis member -use only, with some users arriving to the site by golf cart or walking, staff believes that the eleven proposed spaces will be sufficient. The five new lit courts are acceptable as staff has reviewed a lighting photometric plan for site suitability, and five of the 19 tennis courts are currently lit courts. Additionally, although a pedestrian access is provided from the Private Clubhouse parking lot for tennis members who are not Villas owners using the tennis courts, access to the courts requires utilizing a pedestrian path that travels inconveniently around the community building. Staff recommends that a pedestrian path be installed from the gate that leads directly to the tennis courts. Furthermore, tennis court usage and membership details have not been resolved yet, as the applicant has stated that residents of the Villas communities may not necessarily have direct access to the tennis courts. Market analysis and user demand will eventually dictate usage characteristics. In general, the proposed landscape palette presented is acceptable. The assorted species of plants, most of which are taken from the approved plant list in the PGA West Specific Plan, provide diversity and add character to the proposed Villas community. Although a number of proposed plants are not listed in the Specific Plan, they are also low water users and drought tolerant, and therefore are an acceptable alternative. Thorough use of shrubs and groundcover effectively screen the clubhouse service areas, parking areas, and other project aspects. Per PGA West HOA requirements, perimeter landscaping will be constructed to match the existing landscaping conditions along PGA Boulevard and Double Eagle Way. Staff does recommend that turf areas not be installed adjacent to paved pedestrian walkways due to possible water waste and has proposed a condition of approval accordingly. The turf in the center of the community is acceptable as it may be utilized as an active -use area. The proposed water feature, which is primary to the design of the community entrance, can be permitted if they meet the City's water efficiency requirements and are approved as part of the project by the Planning Commission. Staff has proposed a condition of approval pertaining to this feature, requiring energy efficient pumps and staff review to ensure that there will be minimal water loss due to splashing, evaporation, etc. However, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee expressed concerns over the location, size, and necessity of this water 7 feature, as it does not promote pedestrian interactivity. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the use and viability of the water feature as part of the Villas proposal. ALRC Review The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, at its meeting of August 5, 2009, discussed Site Development Permit 2008-907 (Attachment 6). No recommendation was made to the Planning Commission as only two Committee members were present and consensus could not be reached on a variety of project items. With regards to the proposed architectural style and project compatibility, Committee Member Thorns stated that he found the existing architectural styles at PGA West to be too similar. He commented that the introduction of a different architectural style in the community would offer a welcome variety, especially considering that the proposed project was not very big. Also, Committee Member Thorns stated that he thought the darker color palette might be too dark and heavy in comparison to the rest of the PGA West project. Committee Member Thorns also encouraged the applicant to provide greater deviation in the setbacks of the homes in order to get away from having all of the homes in a row. On the whole, Committee Member Thorns found the overall site plan to be very well -designed. Committee Member Rooker said he agreed with Committee Member Thorns' comments regarding the property setbacks, but disagreed with his architectural findings. Committee Member Rooker noted that the proposed architectural design was very sophisticated, but he questioned its use in the desert area and particularly at PGA West. He explained that the present architectural styles in the PGA West Community consist of Traditional Mediterranean with stucco build -outs, trims and wood, or a sophisticated horizontal contemporary style. He expressed his concern about introducing the proposed architectural style with the flat -top roofs which are normally associated with economical construction and building, as well as the material palette, as he found them to be inappropriate for PGA West. He outlined a few of the major differences between the existing and the proposed styles in color and architecture. The Committee could not come to a consensus regarding the proposed architecture and project compatibility. With regards to the proposed water feature, Committee Member Thorns felt that it was inappropriate to introduce such a magnificent water feature at a time that called for conservation. He suggested that the applicant use a different type of architectural focal feature. Committee Member Rooker said he was supportive of the proposed entrance fountain and did not find it to be out of scale in relation to the rest of the project. The Committee could not come to a consensus regarding the proposed water feature. F11 Staff recommended six Conditions of Approval for the ALRC to consider at the August 5 meeting. Since a recommendation was not brought forth by the ALRC, staff is recommending the same Conditions to Planning Commission, which are as follows: 1. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height, shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff, and be turned off or reduced to a level deemed appropriate by the Planning Director within one hour following closing hours. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Director for his approval. 2. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the parapet. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 3. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. 4. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director. Said review and approval shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with these units. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer. 5. All signs shall be approved under a separate sign permit/program application. 6. The clubhouse.water features shall be designed to minimize "splash", and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. They shall be included on the final landscaping plans and in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13. Environmental Review The La Quinta Planning Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2008- III 601 for Tentative Tract Map 36139, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7, and Site Development Permit 2008-907 in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Planning Director has determined that the project as mitigated will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore recommends a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program be certified. PGA West Resident Review On February 23, 2009 and March 23, 2009, the applicant and the development team for the Villas presented their proposal to PGA West homeowners and Association/Club members. According to the applicant, the meetings were well - attended and response to the proposal was generally positive. The Planning Department has not received any written or verbal comments regarding the proposed project as a result of these presentations. Public Notice This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on September 11, 2008, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. To date, staff has received two written comments regarding the proposed residential development (Attachment 7). Any other written comments received will be handed out at the Planning Commission hearing. SB-18 Native American Tribal Consultation As per SB-18 (2004) consultation requirements, information regarding the proposed Specific Plan was forwarded to those Tribes referenced on the Tribal Consultation List provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. Staff has followed up with all Tribes requesting information or consultation and placed their recommendations for monitoring in the Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS Findings to recommend approval of this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009- , recommending to City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Assessment 2008-601, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; and, 10 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009- , recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; and, 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 36139, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; and, 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009- , recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2008-907, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Planner Attachments: 1. PGA West Vicinity Map 2. PGA West Golf Villas Submittal Packet 3. PGA West Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7 4. Tentative Tract Map 36139 5. PGA West Golf Villas Architectural Design Narrative 6. Minutes of August 5, 2009 ALRC meeting 7. Written Correspondence 11 ••�I�Z�]��Iit/1��3L�7��11�3�I>U<ji[�]i�'L�Z��� RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR THE PGA WEST GOLF VILLAS SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002 AMENDMENT 7, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 08-601 APPLICANT: PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 22nd day of September, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Pyramid Project Management, LLC to recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 08-601, prepared for Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7, Tentative Tract Map 36139, and Site Development Permit 08-907, for the PGA West Golf Villas located on the west side of PGA Boulevard, south of Avenue 54, more particularly described as: APN: 775-250-024, 775-220-003, 775-220-004, 775-220-005, 775-220-006, 775-250-101, 775-250-025, 775-250-024 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Planning Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 08-601) and has determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program should be adopted; and, WHEREAS, at upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council adoption of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no 12 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Environmental Assessment 08-601 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 2 significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 08-601 . 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population 'to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Development of the site has the potential to impact cultural and paleontological resources. However, the mitigation measures included in the project approval will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. 3. . There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. The site does not contain significant biological resources. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The project is consistent with the General Plan. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non - attainment area for PM10, and development of the site will generate PM10; however, several mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality have been incorporated into the project approval. 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Environmental Assessment 08-601 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 3 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 08- 601 and said assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Planning Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of Environmental Assessment 08-601 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Planning Department. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of September, 2009 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 14 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Environmental Assessment 08-601 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 4 ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California 15 Environmental Checklist Form Project title: PGA West Golf Villas, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment No. 7, Tentative Tract Map 36139, Site Development Permit 08-907, Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Jay Wuu, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 Project location: The project site occurs within the existing PGA West country club project, west of PGA Boulevard. APNs 775-250-024, 775-220-003, 775-220-004, 775-220-005, 775-220-006, 775-250-101, 775-250-025, 775-250-024. Project sponsor's name and address: Pyramid Project Management, LLC One Post Office Square, Suite 3100 Boston, MA 02109 General plan designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: Low Density Residential Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed Specific Plan Amendment proposes modifications to allow the development of a resort duplex neighborhood (Golf Villas), consisting of 54 single family attached units with five tennis courts, a small recreation center building, and associated swimming pool, on the existing PGA West Tennis Facilities. There will be no change of the current LDR land use and RL zoning designations. A Tentative Tract Map is proposed to divide the land into 3 parcels, and a Site Development Permit has been filed to address the Golf Villas site plan and building design. The existing Clubhouse, located on the northern 9.63 acres of the project site, is currently developed with 72,750 square feet of building floor area and associated off-street parking. The southern 14.64 acres of the site are currently developed as the PGA West Health and Racquet Club with a 10,355 square -foot tennis/fitness building and 19 existing tennis courts, including three exhibitions tennis courts. The Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Permit would replace the -existing PGA West Health and Racquet Club tennis/fitness building and 19 tennis courts (Lot 2) with 54 new condominiums, 5 tennis courts, and a recreation center with a pool. Development of the Golf Villas would be structured into 54 single-family condominium units. Units are proposed to be two stories in height. Building heights to peak roof ridge lines are proposed to range from 16'6" to 22'0". Access to the new Golf Villas will be via the existing PGA West Private Clubhouse driveway on PGA Boulevard. Emergency access for the Villas is proposed in the west side of PGA Boulevard between Jack Nicklaus Boulevard and the future Eden Rock development access. No curb parking will be permitted along Street "A" within the Golf Villas development. A new parking 16 configuration is proposed for the Private Clubhouse parking lot. The Tentative Tract Map is required to subdivide the 25.11 acres into three numbered lots, which include Lot 1 for the Private Clubhouse (9.36 acres), Lot 2 for attached residential (14.97 acres), and Lot 3 for a future single family residence (0.05 acres). Also included are two lettered lots, which are Lot A for open space (0.1 acres) and Lot B, also for open space (0.18 acres). Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: PGA West/Private Golf Clubhouse and Parking (Low Density Residential) South: Golf, and Residential (Low Density Residential) East: PGA Boulevard and future Eden Rock beyond (Residential Mixed Use) West: Golf Driving Range (Golf Course/Open Space) Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -2- 17 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significa» t ,'mpacr" or — "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature . 6.1 Date -3- 18 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. , 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation -of —mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. -4- 19 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit X 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) ' c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and X its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely X affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-c) The proposed project is not located on a designated Image Corridor. The project site occurs in the center of an otherwise developed country club. Surrounding development is single story in nature, and consists primarily of single-family condominium units. The proposed Golf Villa project (Lot 2) will result in the development of two story structures located immediately south of the PGA Private Clubhouse. A single family dwelling unit is planned for development at an undetermined date (Lot 3). Views from surrounding properties are generally to the west and southwest, where the Santa Rosa Mountains are visible. Construction of the Golf Villa project will partially block the views of the tennis courts, Private Clubhouse and associated parking areas, and the Little San Bernardino Mountains from the single family residential units to the immediate south of the site (on the south side of Double Eagle Way). As the Golf Villa project will replace the tennis courts, existing views of the tennis courts and Private Clubhouse and its associated parking area will also be replaced. Views will continue through the project to the mountains in the far distance. The character of the proposed project is consistent with the mass and density that currently occurs within PGA West. The proposed two story structures will be of a different character than the surrounding single story, single family homes that exist, but the architectural quality is generally of an equal caliber, both in design and materials to be used. The project is buffered by large expanses of golf course to the west and the PGA Private Clubhouse to the north, which serve to reduce the visual impact of the proposed project. -5- 20 There are no significant rock outcroppings, groves of trees or historic structures on the site. d) The proposed project will result in lighting associated with landscaping, building lighting, and automobile headlights. The site is located within an existing country club, where vehicular traffic already occurs. The addition of the proposed project will not significantly add to the lighting levels. Further, the proposed project will be required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance, which prohibit the spillage of lighting off a project site. The overall design in conjunction with City "standards will assure that impacts associated with lighting will be less than significant. -6- 21 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. I11-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The project site is currently developed and is not in agriculture. Lands surrounding the project site are developed in low density residential and golf development. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property, or on properties in the immediate vicinity. No impacts to agriculture will result with development of the proposed project. _7_ 22 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2003 PMIO Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X (Project Description, Aerial Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project X Description, Aerial Photo) III. a)- e) The development of air quality plans by the South Coast Air Quality Management District was based on the City's General Plan build out. The PGA West project has built out in a manner consistent with the designations assigned in the General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan amendment proposes modifications to allow the development of one 0.5-acre single family unit (Lot 3) and a 14.97-acre resort duplex neighborhood (Lot 2) consisting of 54 single family attached units, five tennis courts, a small recreation center building and associated swimming pool on the existing PGA West Tennis Facilities. No changes to the current Low Density Residential (LDR) land use and zoning designations will occur. It can be expected that additional residential development would generate a higher potential for air emissions due to increased vehicle trips. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the air quality planning undertaken for the Coachella Valley and the City. The proposed project will result in air emissions associated with both construction and operation of the site. Each of these potential impact areas is addressed individually below. Construction Impacts -8- 23 As of March 12, 2009, the Coachella Valley continues to be in non -attainment with Federal standards for Ozone and PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or less). PM2.5 is currently designated as attainment/unclassifiable within the Coachella Valley. In order to achieve attainment in the region, the 2003 Coachella Valley PMio Management Plan was adopted, which establishes strict standards for development proposals. The Plan established control measures to control fugitive dust emissions, including: CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-I Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance Grading of 14.97 acres on the site (the Golf Villas) would result in the potential for 395.2 pounds of fugitive dust per day during construction, as shown in Table 1. This exceeds the SCAQMD thresholds of significance of 150 pounds per day, and requires mitigation. Compliance with the City's PMio Management Plan, mentioned below, will ensure that potentially significant fugitive dust impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. Table 1 Fugitive Dust Potential Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust Disturbed in One Phase (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day) 14.97 26.4 395.2 Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. The City requires the preparation of PMio Management Plans for all grading and construction projects. This requirement will be applied to the proposed project. The plan will include the control measures identified above. SCAQMD has established reduction percentages for these control measures. With watering of the site three times per day, the proposed project emissions will be reduced by 50%, to 197.6 pounds per day. In order to assure that the proposed project does not exceed thresholds for fugitive dust, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. MMRP (1) No more than 5 acres shall be actively graded in anyone day. Grading, construction, and operation of the Golf Villa and Private Clubhouse modification project will result in emissions from vehicles used in the process. -9- 24 Development activities will result in temporary emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. Potential air pollutant emissions are analyzed below. Table 2 illustrates the potential equipment emissions associated with the grading of approximately 14.97 acres. Emission projections for worker moving exhaust from grading activities are shown in Table 3. Table 2 Grading - Equipment Emissions (pounds per day) Equipment hrs/ CO NOx ROG SOx PM,o PM2.5 CO2 CH4 Pieces day Crawler Tractors 1 8 1.49 5.13 11.08 0.01 0.68 0.61 912.17 0.13 Scrapers 1 8 9.94 23.26 2.56 0.02 1.00 0.89 2,100.00 0.23 Tractor/LoaderBackho 1 8 3.14 5.40 0.82 0.01 0.42 0.37 534.40 0.07 e Rubber Tired Dozer 1 8 170 11.30 23.91 0.02 1.03 0.92 1,912.8 0.24 Motor Graders 1 8 5.05 11.47 1.38 0.01 0.60 0.54 1,064.00 0.23 Off -Highway Trucks 2,080.8 (Water Trucks) 1 8 5.94 19.11 1.98 0.02 0.70 0.62 0 0.18 Total: 28'22 75.67 41.73 0.09 4.43 3.95 8,604.11 1.08 SCAQMD Thresholds: 550 100 75 150 150 55 N/A N/A Table 3 summarizes the total vehicle emissions associated with the project, including those emissions generated by worker trips to and from the site. Table 3 Grading - Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) CO NOx ROG SOx PMto PM2.5 CO2 CH4 Equipment Emissions 28.22 75.6 41.73 0.09 4.43 3.95 8,604.1 1.08 6 7Workers' Vehicle Emissions 1.00 0.81 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 143.5 0.01 Total Construction Emissions 35.8 87.9 SCAQMD Thresholds: 550 100 43.7 0.1 5.3 4.7 9,854.1 1.3 75 150 150 55 N/A N/A As shown in the Tables, emissions associated with grading equipment and grading worker moving exhaust are not expected to exceed thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. -10- 25 For the construction phase of the project, air quality emissions for criteria pollutants are shown in the following tables. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that construction would begin in 2010. Emission factors are from EMFAC 2007 (Version 2.3) and URBEMIS 2002. 26 Equipment Fork Lift Rollers Tractor/LoaderBackhoe Pavers Cement and Mortar Mixer Dumper/Tender Excavator Other Construction Equipment Sweeper/Scrubber Table 4 Construction - Equipment Emissions hrs/ CO NOx ROG SOX PM10 PM2,5 CO2 CH4 Pieces day 1 8 1.86 4.13 0.55 0.00 0.22 0.20 435.20 0.05 1 8 3.37 6.20 0.94 0.01 0.44 0.39 536.80 0.08 1 8 3.14 5.40 0.82 0.01 0.42 0.37 534.40 0.07 1 8 4.52 7.89 1.42 0.01 0.57 0.50 623.20 0.13 1 8 0.35 0.48 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.02 57.60 0.01 1 8 0.27 0.52 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.03 60.80 0.01 1 8 4.46 9.20 1.19 0.01 0.51 0.45 956.80 0.11 1 8 3.29 8.09 0.84 0.01 0.35 0.31 982.40 0.08 1 8 4.30 6.78 1.24 0.01 0.55 0.49 628.00 0.11 19.1 2,080.8 Off -Highway Trucks 1 8 5.94 1 1.98 0.02 0.70 0.62 0 0.18 31.5 67.8 6,896.0 Total 0 0 9.15 0.08 3.82 3.40 0 0.83 Table 5 Asphalt Off -gassing (pounds per day) Total Asphalt VOC Factor Total Potential VOC Acreage (Ibs./acre) Generation (Ibs.) 2.18 2.62 5.71 Source: URBEMIS2002 Users' Guide Version 7.4 Mav 2003. Table 6 Architectural Coatings (pounds,per day) Maximum Daily Building VOC Factor Total Potential VOC Coverage (sgft)* (Ibs/1,000 sqft) Generation (lbs.) 2,500 18.5 46.3 -12- 27 Table 7 Aggregate Construction- Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Equipment Emissions 31.50 67.80 9.15 0.08 3.82 3.40 6,896.00 Workers' Vehicle Emissions Asphalt Paving Emissions Architectural Coatings 1.67 1.35 0.22 0.00 - - 5.71 - - 46.25 0.05 0.04 239.24 Emissions Total Construction Emissions 33.17 69.14 61.33 0.08 3.87 3.44 7,135.24 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 N/A As shown in Table 7, even when aggregated, construction phase emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Impacts to air quality for all criteria pollutants will be less than significant. Operational Emissions Operational emissions associated with the proposed project will be primarily those caused by vehicle emissions. It is assumed by the project's traffic analysis that the proposed Private Clubhouse modifications will increase Club membership by 25%1 , having the potential of generating approximately 520 additional trips on a peak season weekday. The existing tennis courts generate approximately 300 trips per day. The Golf Villas are expected to generate approximately 420 trips per day. Build out of the proposed Golf Villas would generate a net increase of approximately 120 additional trip, on a peak season weekday, which, combined with the increased Club membership trips, brings total build out trip generation to 680. The emissions created by these vehicles are illustrated in Table 8, below. As shown in the Table, emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant. Clubhouse improvements are anticipated to increase Club membership from the current 1,500 to a maximum of 1,875 members. Based on these figures, the project traffic report (Endo Engineering) added 25% to the existing trip generation for project site calculations. -13- 28 Table 8 Cumulative Daily Project -Related Emissions at Buildout (pounds per day) Stationary Moving Total SCAQMD Source Emissions Source Anticipated Threshold Power Nat. Gas Emissions Emissions Criteria* Plants Consumption (lbs./day) (lbs./day) Carbon Monoxide 0.2 1.0 59.76 60.92 550.0 Nitrogen Oxides 1.0 1.2 7.96 10.10 100.0 Reactive Organic Gases 0.1 0.1 6.65 6.84 75.0 Sulfur Oxides 0.0 0.00001 0.11 0.15 150.0 Particulates 0.0 0.0 1.72 1.74 55.0 Carbon Dioxide - 1,420 11,640.93 13,060.85 N/A * Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining the significance of air quality impacts. Source: "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993, Revised October 2006; EMFAC 2007 (Version 2.3); and URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4. It should be noted that Club members using electric golf carts make most of the trips to and from the PGA West Private Clubhouse. As a result, the trips on which the above analysis was based may be less, as residents opt to use other means of transportation for trips within the country club. Greenhouse Gases The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions annually at build out. As shown in Tables 3 and 7, grading and construction emissions will generate 9,854 and 74,135 pounds per day of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases, respectively. During the life of the project, the operation of the homes, including electric and natural gas demand, and water production, will generate the following greenhouse gas emissions. Table 9 Annual GHG Summary at Buildout CO2 Emission Equivalent CO2 Equivalent Source Metric Tons Million Metric Tons Pounds Per Day Electricity 111.03 0.000 670.65 Natural Gas 236.45 0.000 1,428.17 Moving Source 107.56 0.000 649.67 Water Transport 616.42 0.001 3,723.22 Total 1,071.46 0.001 6,471.708 There are currently no thresholds for greenhouse gases. However, the project site is currently occupied by tennis courts and ancillary facilities, and greenhouse gas emissions are expected to be negligible. The operation of the proposed project, however, will contribute 0.0003% of California's greenhouse gas emissions at build out. -14- 29 The proposed residential development is not expected to create objectionable odors. -15- 30 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local X or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the X California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, X such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or X other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) 16- 31 IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is currently developed land. There are no species of concern identified for this property in the City's General Plan. The site has been heavily impacted by the existing uses, and provides ornamental non-native habitat for local common species. The site is surrounded on all sides by existing development. No significant native habitat occurs on the site. The proposed project site does not occur in a survey area for any sensitive species, as identified in the General Plan. The site is not identified as a conservation area in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). There are no areas of riparian habitat or wetlands on the site. All participating cities, including the City of La Quinta, and the County of Riverside are required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) within the CVMSHCP plan area. Therefore, although not in a designated conservation area, the proposed project will be required to pay fees for the CVMSHCP. These fees are designed to offset potential impacts of cumulative projects on covered species, and assure that impacts are reduced throughout the Valley and City to less than significant levels. Impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be insignificant. - 1 7- 32 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as X defined in'15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological X resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique X geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal X cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) V.a)-d) As the Private Clubhouse expansion will added on to the existing clubhouse and the Golf Villas will be developed on the previously graded and cleared existing sunken tennis courts where no cultural resources have been identified in previous construction, no impact is expected. The proposed project site is not a known burial site or cemetery. No remains are known to have been interred at the project site. Should remains be encountered during excavation of the site, California law requires that the coroner be contacted, and that he/she take responsibility for proper disposal of remains, and for Native American consultation, if necessary. The proposed project will be subject to these state requirements, which will serve to assure that impacts associated with human remains are insignificant. _18_ 33 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significantw/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, X including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area X or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA X Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-d) The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The site, and the City in general, are located in a seismically active area, and will experience strong groundshaking during an earthquake. The City will enforce Uniform Building Code standards for seismic zones for the proposed project. The site is within the liquefaction hazard area mapped in the General Plan. Liquefaction could cause significant damage to the project structures if it were to occur _19_ 34 at the site. This is a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation, as follows: MMRP (2) In conjunction with submittal of grading plans, the required geotechnical investigation shall include an analysis of the liquefaction potential on the site, and shall propose remediation, if necessary. The site is flat, and is not located near a hillside. No landslide potential occurs. The potential for soil erosion is addressed under Air Quality, above, and Hydrology, below. Soils in the area of the project site are not expansive. The units will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer existing within PGA Boulevard. No septic systems will occur on the site. -20- 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter X mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Application materials) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency. X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with _Z1_ 36 wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The proposed project will result in the storage by individual homeowners of small amounts of chemicals for household cleaning purposes. Homeowner participation in the household hazardous waste programs implemented by Burrtec throughout the City will serve to reduce the amount of this chemical source. There are no identified hazardous materials sites within the project area. The project has been integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some years. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. _22_ 37 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan X EIR p.1II-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table X level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. 111-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would X result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off: site? (General Plan EIR p. I11-187 ff) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including' through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the X rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?(General Plan EIR p. 111-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or X redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) -23- 38 VIII. a)-g) The proposed project will not generate flows which will impact either water quality or waste discharge requirements. The proposed project will be required to implement National Pollution Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for storm flows, both during construction and operation of the project, through the preparation and implementation of SWPPP and WQMP as required. These City requirements are designed to assure that water quality is not impacted by storm flows emanating from development sites. The project will be connected to Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) sanitary sewer lines. The residential nature of the project will not generate the potential for violation of waste discharge requirements. Domestic water will be supplied by CVWD. The District has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan based on General Plan land uses in all the jurisdictions within its service area. The Plan demonstrates that the District has, available,- or can supply, sufficient water to serve the proposed project as well as long term build out of the area. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The proposed project has prepared a preliminary hydrology study 2. The study calculated the potential impacts associated with storm water on the project site, both before and after construction. These storm flows will be integrated into the existing stone water system designed in PGA West, which utilizes golf course fairways and lakes for storage and recharge. The Private Clubhouse and parking lot will maintain the same drainage acreage and stormflows as the existing conditions for the site. Stone flows occurring in the existing tennis facilities currently are currently pumped to the parking lot of the clubhouse. As a result of improvements proposed for the Golf Villas, storm flows on this site will be contained on site, and conveyed to the southwest, to discharge into an existing golf course lake. The City Engineer will continue to review hydrology analysis for the proposed project through issuance of grading permits, to assure that the project will effectively control storm water runoff. Impacts associated with storm water are expected to be less than significant. The project site is not located within a FEMA flood zone. 2 "Drainage Study Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations for Tract 36139...," prepared by MDS Consulting, July 2009. -24- 39 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo; project plans) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, X or zoning. ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit 2.1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) IX a)-c) The proposed 25.11-acre site is currently designated Low Density Residential in both the PGA West Specific Plan and the La Quinta General Plan. The proposed project is located at the center of an otherwise developed country club. The proposed project will be located on an established road system, and does not propose to amend the master plan of roads. Access through PGA West will therefore not be affected by the project, and existing residents will continue to access project facilities, and the City, as they have in the past. The project will introduce nine two-story buildings at a density of 3.61 units per acre and one single-family unit at a density of 2 units per acre into a project that has, for the most part, traditionally developed at a density of approximately 3.5 units per acre (gross). The character of the existing PGA West and the proposed development is quite similar to that of the proposed project. Existing development within the country club is primarily single story in nature, consisting primarily of detached and attached single- family condominium homes. The Golf Villa proposal has a net density of 3.55 units per acre, which includes the 54 Golf Villas and one single-family residence.The proposed project will be in keeping existing residential character within PGA West. The proposed project does not increase the overall number of approved units; originally approved for 5,000 residential units, the total for the Specific Plan area has been reduced by subsequent amendments to the total of 3,936 units. Current unit count in the PGA West Specific Plan planning area is of just over 2,500 units. Construction of the Golf Villa and single-family dwelling unit is anticipated to result in a total of approximately 2,555 units. Upon completion of the 292 City -approved housing units within the Eden Rock project, total units within PGA West is anticipated to be 2,847 at build out. -25- 40 The City is required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) for implementation of the CVMSHCP. Therefore, the proposed project will be required to pay fees for the CVMSHCP. -26- 41 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: -__- a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and -the residents of X the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land X use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The site is located in an area of the City designated Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1, which indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project. -27_ 42 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? (General Plan MEA p. l l l ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project X area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI.a)-f) The proposed project will result in 54 attached residential units and one single family residence. Development and operation of the project will marginally increase noise on the site and in surrounding areas. However, the proposed project occurs in an area where ambient noise levels are generally low, because of the limited traffic which occurs on PGA Boulevard. PGA Boulevard is developed as a 4-lane roadway, but is a private street and therefore, not identified on the General Plan Circulation Element. No major arterial streets are within impact distance of the project boundaries. The proposed project is surrounded by existing residential and golf uses typical of a resort style country club environment. Berms, landscaping and walls proposed for the project _Zg_ 43 site will further reduce noise impacts associated with operation of the project, and long term noise impacts are expected to be less than significant. The proposed project will result in higher noise levels during construction. These noise levels will be mitigated by distance, but may result in temporary impacts to residents, particularly those to the south of the site. The distance to the homes is a minimum of over 100 feet, which will reduce the potential noise levels at this location. The project will, however, be restricted to the construction hours prescribed in the Municipal Code, which limit construction to the less sensitive day time hours. Residential land use will not generate ground borne vibrations. The project site is not located in an airport influence area. Overall impacts associated with noise are expected to be less than significant. -29 44 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through X extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General X Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The southern 14.64-acre portion of the proposed project will result in the addition of 55 housing units to the City's housing stock. At a current household size of 2.8,the project has the potential to add approximately 154persons to the City's population. It would be expected that at least some of the units will be purchased by part-time winter residents. The PGA West Specific Plan was originally approved for 5,000 residential units; subsequent amendments reduced that total to 3,936 units. Current unit count at PGA West is approximately 2,500 units; with construction of the Golf Villa project, PGA West build -out is anticipated to be approximately 2,654 units. An additional 292 housing units have been approved by the City for the future Eden Rock project, which is proposed for development on the east side of PGA Boulevard, directly east of the project site. The increase in population is not substantial, and would be expected as part of the City's incremental growth rate anticipated under the La Quinta General Plan. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. This portion of the project site is currently developed as a tennis/fitness building, tennis courts, and parking spaces, and will not displace people or housing units. -30- 45 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) PGA West is already serviced by the City's contract police and fire services. Implementation of the proposed project will marginally increase the calls for service to the project area, and it is expected that these impacts will be less than significant. PGA West includes golf courses, club houses, tennis courts and other recreational facilities; which accommodate the residents and reduce the demand on other City parks. The proposed project will be required to pay the State mandated school impact fees to offset the potential impacts to schools. Overall impacts to public services are expected to be less than significant. -31- 46 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The proposed project will be located within an existing country club, whose amenities include golf and tennis facilities. The master plan for the project's recreational facilities encompassed all the lands within the Specific Plan boundary, and it is therefore expected that the additional 54 units will be accommodated in existing recreational facilities within the project. -32- 47 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle X trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. 111-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. 111-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (TTM36139) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (TTM 36139) X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (TTM 36139) X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle X racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) XV. a-g) The proposed project will result in 54 residential Golf Villa/condominium units on 14.97 acres and one single-family unit on 0.5 acres. A traffic analysis was prepared for the proposed project;. Future traffic projections for 2010 were established by applying a 4.5% annual traffic growth rate for two years to expand 2008 peak season traffic counts to 2010 peak season volumes. Also added to the project's traffic counts in "ECN 09057 PGA West Golf Villas TTM 36139 SDP 08-907 — Traffic Study"; Endo Engineering, May 28, 2009 -33- 48 relation to PGA Boulevard were build out traffic volumes of the future Eden Rock development". The proposed Private Clubhouse modifications project would generate approximately 520 additional trip ends on a peak season weekday, while the proposed Golf Villas project is anticipated to generate a net increase of approximately 120 additional trip ends on a peak season weekday over the 300 trips currently generated by the tennis facilities. The aggregate number of additional end trips for the total project would amount to a net increase of approximately 640 on a peak season weekday, representing a 53% increase in the current daily site trip generations. The Site Plan for the proposed Golf Villas (which would replace the existing PGA West Health and Racquet Club) proposes access via the existing PGA West Private Clubhouse driveway on PGA Boulevard. In addition to PGA Boulevard (the primary access point to and from the project site) as an established emergency access, it is proposed that an emergency access for the Golf Villas be constructed on the west side of PGA Boulevard between Jack Nicklaus Boulevard and the future Eden Rock development access. It is recommended that a turn -around area immediately inside the emergency access gate be provided to permit solid waste collection vehicles and delivery trucks to turn around rather than backing out of this street onto Street "A". In addition, removable bollards or a fence with a gate is recommended to prevent non - emergency vehicles from using the emergency access. On -street curb parking is not proposed and shall not be permitted along Street "A" within the Golf Villas development. It is also recommended that the planned mini entry roundabout be designed to accommodate large vehicles such as moving vans, recreational vehicles, emergency service vehicles, and delivery trucks, especially for the right -turn maneuver from the westbound approach to the roundabout near the exit gate. As trips to the Private Clubhouse are currently, and will remain, limited to Club members and their guests, increases in future trip generation related to development of this project are expected'to be limited. The planned Clubhouse improvements are not anticipated to alter the current purpose of these trips, which is primarily associated with use of the three private golf courses. It should be noted that Club members using electric golf carts make most of the trips to and from the PGA West Private Clubhouse. Traffic count data gathered for the traffic study included golf carts passing through the Clubhouse driveway. In addition to the counted golf carts are golf carts using internal paths west of the driveway. The project traffic study analysis concludes that the minor street approach (the site driveway) to PGA Boulevard is projected to continue to operate at the current LOS B or better in future peak hours with two-way stop control and the existing approach " "Eden Rock Traffic Impact Study'; RK Engineering Group, Inc., October 30, 2007 s Table 3: "Project Related Change on Peak Season Weekday Sit Trip Generation", "ECN 09057 PGA West Golf Villas TTM 36139 SDP 08-907 — Traffic Study'; Endo Engineering, May 28, 2009 -34- 49 lanes. Future left -turn movement from PGA Boulevard is expected to continue to operate at the current LOS A. The project will result in the elimination of approximately 43 off-street parking spaces associated with the existing PGA West Health and Racquet Club. As this facility will be replaced by the proposed Golf Villas, no significant impact to existing parking accommodations will occur from this -ction. The project site is not located within the land use plan for the Thermal airport, and no other airstrips are located in the vicinity. The proposed project will be reviewed under the City's Zoning Ordinance and Public Works standards for the design of interior streets. These standards and requirements are designed to assure that circulation within and surrounding the project is conducted in a safe manner. The proposed project will be located on interior streets, and does not propose amendments to the backbone street system. As such, the project will not impact potential transit routes in the future. No impacts are anticipated. Overall traffic impacts are expected to be less than significant. -35- 50 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General X Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could X cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause X significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or X are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's X projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a)-g) Implementation of the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on utilities. -36- 51 The project site will be served by CVWD for sanitary sewer service. CVWD's treatment plant has sufficient capacity, and has the ability to expand its capacity as demand rises. Similarly, CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan indicates that the District has sufficient water supplies, or plans for addition to its water supplies, to serve the proposed project and other projects in its service area in the long term. The proposed project's hydrologist has designed storm drainage on the property to integrate into the. PGA West storm control system, using the golf course and lakes for storm water. The City Engineer will review the plans to assure consistency with existing designs and preservation of stormwater capacity, prior to the issuance of grading permits. The proposed project will be served by the City's waste hauler Burrtec. The residents will participate in recycling programs in place currently in the City. Burrtec currently hauls City solid waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste is transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlands and El Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. -37- 52 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a X plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage X of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when X viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The project site has been previously developed, and further development will not impact biological or cultural resources. XVII. b) The proposed project will not change the land use designation on the project site. The implementation of the project furthers the goals of the PGA West Specific Plan to provide golf course residential units. XVII. c) Development of the proposed project will not have significant impacts associated with traffic and circulation. Impacts related to air quality are not anticipated to be significant. Overall cumulative impacts, therefore, are expected to be less significant. XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and geotechnical impacts. Mitigation measures have been included in this Initial Study to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. -38- 53 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Environmental Impact Report 83-009 (SCH #83062922), certified 5/1/84, Council Resolution 84-28, and subsequent environmental review conducted for the previous amendments to the Specific Plan, including the Supplemental Traffic Study to the Environmental Impact Report for PGA West, adopted 9/20/88, Council Resolution 88-I 11. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -39- 54 a ��N l� N O pp p l� N CD N O N O n y � r- rq o c i n O r- 'b cq O 0 7 O > l- N O - l- N O r� .O. •N Y .o a W L 3 ° a z F ¢, Q" O o Ca �a H� � h cOi 0 Z U b � n a � M O ro 6 rn O O O Wp U Lti a a. u a u C � o �. oz o z¢ z a� I.y W F c w .a Y aV S OV ¢ � o W F aui U v z F G C OV � w J m G p Q zcl a� 3 W [� U a y U z o F C4 0 C F v � a 0 �a W F A W z .a SWL a U OU a o aconsa.ro L oq z � U F C 7 N o� L � E a a O C7 wz � m 0 Q zz Y a� 3w 7 a .u. z 'N U ¢ C) T U �, W v' ct ❑ o d ? 0 Z 6 G O ~ 7 u U Q C N � 55 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83- 002 AMENDMENT 7, FOR THE PGA WEST GOLF VILLAS CASE: SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002 AMENDMENT 7 APPLICANT: PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 22nd day of September, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Pyramid Project Management, LLC for approval an amendment to the existing PGA West Specific Plan in order to accommodate plans for a 54-unit residential development consisting of single-family attached duplex units and community center located on the west side of PGA Boulevard, south of Avenue 54, more particularly described as: APN: 775-250-024, 775-220-003, 775-220-004, 775-220-005, 775-220-006, 775-250-101, 775-250-025, 775-250-024 WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on September 11, 2009 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and, WHEREAS, per SB-18 consultation requirements, the Planning Department has forwarded information regarding the proposed Specific Plan to those Tribes referenced on the Tribal Consultation List provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and has followed up with all Tribes requesting information or consultation and placed their recommendations for monitoring in the Conditions of Approval; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 08-601 for Tentative Tract Map 36139, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7, and Site Development Permit 08-907 in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non - significance; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing andconsidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said G11 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 2 Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code to justify recommending to the City Council approval of said Specific Plan: 1 . Consistency with the General Plan The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the design, height, scale and mass of the residential units and community facilities permitted in the specific plan are compatible with the goals and policies of the General Plan Low Density Residential (LDR) Land Use designation. 2. Public Welfare Approval of the proposed specific plan amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare as Environmental Assessment 08-601 was prepared, and certification of the Environmental Assessment is in compliance with CEQA requirements. 3. Land Use Compatibility The proposed Specific Plan Amendment incorporates land uses that are compatible with zoning on adjacent properties. The design and density regulations specified in the specific plan amendment for residential and related recreational facilities, including attached single-family duplex resort residences and community recreation buildings, are compatible with the existing single-family resort homes and recreation amenities located within the specific plan area and on surrounding properties. 4. Property Suitability The uses permitted in the specific plan amendment, including attached single-family duplex resort residences and community recreation buildings, are suitable and appropriate for the subject property in that the land is relatively flat and surrounded by similar existing uses such as single-family homes. The current specific plan area is served without adverse impact by all necessary public services and utilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and 57 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 3 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22ntl day of September, 2009 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California W PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002 AMENDMENT 7 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7 shall be developed in compliance with these conditions, and the approved Specific Plan document. In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of SP 83-002 Amendment 7, these conditions shall take precedence. 3. Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: Environmental Assessment 08-601 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Planning Director shall determine precedence. 4. Within 30 days of City Council approval, applicant shall provide five copies of the Final Specific Plan document, as amended by this action, to the Planning Department. The Final Specific Plan shall include all original Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 4 text and graphics except as amended by this action, all amendments per this action, and correction of any typographical errors, internal document inconsistencies, and other amendments deemed necessary by the Planning Director. 59 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139, SUBDIVIDING ± 25 ACRES INTO THREE PARCELS FOR THE PGA WEST GOLF VILLAS AND PRIVATE CLUBHOUSE CASE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 APPLICANT: PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 22ntl day of September, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Pyramid Project Management, LLC to subdivide ±25 acres into three parcels accommodating an existing golf course clubhouse, creating a single-family residential lot and a lot for the future development of 54- unit residential project consisting of single-family attached duplex condominium units and community center located on the west side of PGA Boulevard, south of Avenue 54, more particularly described as: APN: 775-250-024, 775-220-003, 775-220-004, 775-220-005, 775-220-006, 775-250-101, 775-250-025, 775-250-024 WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on September 11, 2009 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Tentative Tract Map 36139 is for condominium purposes in order for Lot 2 to accommodate the future development of a 54-unit residential project know as the PGA West Golf Villas; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 08-601 for Tentative Tract Map 36139, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7, and Site Development Permit 08-907 in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non - significance; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Tentative Tract Map 36139 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 2 said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for approval of Tentative Tract Map 36139: 1. The design of proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the City's General Plan in that its street design and parcels are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. Additionally, the 54-unit Golf Villas do not exceed the maximum density allowed (60 units at 4 units/acre) per the General Plan as well as the PGA West Specific Plan. 2. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project approval to mitigate impacts where needed. 3. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban infrastructure improvements are existing, or will be installed, based on applicable local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access is provided within the project and to adjacent public streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 36139 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of September, 2009 by the following vote, to wit: 61 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Tentative Tract Map 36139 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California 62 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 1 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. This Tentative Tract Map shall expire on October 6, 2011, two years from the date of City Council approval, unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code 13.12.160 (Extensions of Time for Tentative Maps). 4. Tentative Tract Map 36139 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: Environmental Assessment 08-601 Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Planning Director shall determine precedence. 5. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Riverside County Fire Marshal 63 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 2 • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) • Planning Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2008-0001 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). S1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 3 The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 7. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 8. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall not be construed as approval for any horizontal dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically identified in the following conditions of approval. 65 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 4 9. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 10. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 11. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer or the HOA over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. 12. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street rights - of -way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 13. The private street rights -of -way to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS (OFF -SITE) 11 PGA Boulevard (Arterial, 120' and 130' ROW) — No additional off -site private street dedication is required. 2) Double Eagle Way — No additional off -site street dedication is required except for the construction of the proposed cul-de-sac at the westerly end. B. PRIVATE STREETS (ON -SITE) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 5 1) Street 'A' - Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 28-foot travel width where on -street parking is prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Planning Department prior to recordation. C. CUL DE SACS 1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as shown on the tentative map. D. ROUNDABOUT 11 The design of the roundabout shall be as shown on the tentative tract map and as approved by the City Engineer. E. EMERGENCY TURN -AROUND 1) The turn around at the Emergency Access Gate to PGA Boulevard shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract map except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall. Curve radii for curbs at all street intersections shall not be less than 25 feet except at the as shown on the approved rough grading plan. 14. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street rights -of -way shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such rights -of -way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights -of -way within 60 days of a written request by the City. 15. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 16. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 67 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 6 17. Direct vehicular access to PGA Boulevard and Double Eagle Way from lots with frontage along PGA Boulevard and Double Eagle Way is restricted, except for those access points identified on the Site Development Permit 2008-907, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map of Tentative Tract Map 36139. 18. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 19. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT 20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development) for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 21. As proposed, Private Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1/8" batter and a minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 22. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE PRIVATE STREETS 1) PGA Boulevard (Arterial, 120' and 130' ROW) - No additional widening of the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width. 2) Double Eagle Way - No additional off -site street widening is required M. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 7 except for the construction of the cul-de-sac at the westerly end. B. ON -SITE PRIVATE STREETS 11 Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 28 feet travel width where on -street parking is prohibited and adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors. The applicant will establish provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation. C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS 11 Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb similar to the layout shown on the rough grading plan. D. ROUNDABOUT 1) The design of the roundabout shall be as shown on the tentative tract map and as approved by the City Engineer. E. EMERGENCY TURN AROUND 11 The turn around at the Emergency Access Gate to PGA Boulevard shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract map except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall. 23. All gated entries shall be as shown on the preliminary precise grading plans prepared for SDP 08-907 and SDP 09-91 1 and Tentative Tract Map No. 36139 dated August 25, 2009 and as approved by the City Engineer. 24. Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum radius to be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry. Pursuant to said condition, there shall be a minimum of twenty five feet width provided at the turn- around opening provided. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 8 Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for.residents, and one lane for visitors. The two travel lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as approved by the Fire Department. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 25. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 26. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 27. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (PGA Boulevard): Full turn movements are allowed (Existing Access Drive) 28. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 29. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be 70 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 9 stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 30. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall design. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. D. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. E. Parking stall lengths where new parking lot configuration is proposed shall be according to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and be a minimum of 17 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang for standard parking stalls and 18 feet with a 2-foot overhang for handicapped parking stall or as approved by the City Engineer. One van accessible handicapped parking stall is required per 8 handicapped parking stalls. F. Drive aisles between parking stalls where new parking lot configuration is proposed shall be a minimum of 26 feet with access drive aisles to Public Streets a minimum of 30 feet as shown on the Site Development Plan site plan or as approved by the City Engineer. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. 31. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. 71 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 10 Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic) 4.5" a.c./5.5" c.a.b. Loading Areas 6" P.C.C./4" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 32. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 33. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. 34. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. FINAL MAPS 35. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate mylars of the Final Map that were approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The Final Map shall be 1 " = 40' scale. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 36. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans)• 37. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and 72 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 11 approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP 1 " = 40' Horizontal D. WOMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) NOTE: A through D to be submitted concurrently. E. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical F. On -Site SDP 2009-911 Clubhouse Expansion Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 20' Horizontal G. On -Site SDP 2008-907 New Clubhouse Precise Grading 1 " = 20' Horizontal The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. H. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. 73 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 12 All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2007 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Precise Grading" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official, Planning Director and the City Engineer. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. "Street Parking" plan shall include appropriate signage to implement the "No Parking" concept, or alternatively an on -street parking policy shall be included in the CC & R's subject to City Engineer's Approval. The parking plan or CC & R's shall be submitted concurrently with the Street Improvement Plans. 38. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and Design Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la- quinta.org)• Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 39. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. 40. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible 74 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 13 record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer Of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 41. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 42. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security). 43. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 75 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 14 In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 44. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these actions, as the City may require. Said off -site improvements shall include obligations of the PGA West Development not performed by KSL Development Corporation or any of its entities, as deemed necessary by the City of La Quinta. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 45. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off - site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also 76 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 15 submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 46. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 47. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 48. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 49. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls). All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. 77 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 16 A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 50. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 51, Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1 . All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1 .5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 52. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 53. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 54. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. in PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 17 Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 55. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus five tenths of a foot (0.5') from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 56. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. 57. This development shall comply with LQMC Chapter 8.11 (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6)• Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish elevation certifications, as required by FEMA, that the above conditions have been met. DRAINAGE 58. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for the PGA West Development. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. 59. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 60. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. W PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 18 61. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001 . A. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopments Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. 137-2008-001 . B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB- CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. UTILITIES 62. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities)• 63. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 64. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 65. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 19 restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. CONSTRUCTION 66. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 67. The applicant shall comply with ,LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 68. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 69. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 70. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director, however landscape plans for landscaped median on public streets shall be approved by the both the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first building permit unless 81 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 20 the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer. 71. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 24 inches of curbs along public streets. 72. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 51" Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. MAINTENANCE 73. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 74. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of perimeter landscaping up to the curb, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 75. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 76. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 77. Tentative Tract Map 36139 shall provide for parks through payment of an in -lieu fee, as specified in Chapter 13.48, LQMC. The in -lieu fee (sometimes referred to as the "Quimby Fee") shall be based on the fair market value of the land within the subdivision. Land value information shall be provided to the Planning Director, via RE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 21 land sale information, a current fair market value of land appraisal, or other information on land value within the subdivision. The Planning Director may consider any subdivider -provided or other land value information source for use in calculation of the parkland fee. 78. In accordance with Chapter 3.34 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, future development permits are subject to the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 79. As part of the building permit review process for structures located with this map, the building plans shall be reviewed for compliance with the California Vehicle Code and other law enforcement and public safety concerns, including defensible space issues, applicable at the time of building permit issuance. Questions regarding the Sheriff's Department review should be directed to the Deputy at (760) 863-8950. FIRE DEPARTMENT 80. As part of the building permit review process for structures located with this map, the building plans shall be reviewed for compliance with the California Fire Code and other fire prevention/suppression and public safety concerns, applicable at the time of building permit issuance. A plan check fee will be required for said review. Questions regarding Fire Marshal review should be directed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 81. Approved Cultural Resource Monitor(s) be present during all ground disturbing activities. Experience has shown that there is always a possibility of encountering buried cultural resources during construction related excavations, or archaeological testing/data recovery. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) Archaeologist to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the City and the Agua Caliente THPO. 82. Additionally, in accordance with State law, the County Coroner should be contacted if any human remains are found during earthmoving activities. If the 83 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36139 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 22 remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The City will work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907, INCLUDING ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THE PGA WEST GOLF VILLAS AND COMMUNITY RECREATION BUILDING CASE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 APPLICANT: PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 22nd day of September, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Pyramid Project Management, LLC for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a 54-unit residential development consisting of single-family attached duplex units and community center located on the west side of PGA Boulevard, south of Avenue 54, more particularly described as: APN: 775-250-024, 775-220-003, 775-220-004, 775-220-005, 775-220-006, 775-250-101, 775-250-025, 775-250-024 WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on September 11, 2009 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 08-601 for Tentative Tract Map 36139, Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7, and Site Development Permit 08-907 in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non - significance; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 5`" day of August, 2009, hold a public meeting to review and discuss architecture and landscape plans and although no consensus was reached, the minutes of said meeting were included in the staff report for consideration by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said 85 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Site Development Permit 08-907 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 2 Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it proposes an attached single-family duplex resort community as part of a previously -approved residential development which is General Plan -designated for LDR (Low Density Residential) development. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code and PGA West Specific Plan The proposed structures, as conditioned, are consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code and the PGA West Specific Plan, in terms of architectural style, building height, building mass, and landscaping. The community is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Map, as it proposes an attached single-family duplex resort community as part of a previously -approved residential development which is General Plan -designated for RL (Low Density Residential) development. The site development permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the zoning standards of the RL district, and other supplemental standards as established in Title 9 of the LQMC and the PGA West Specific Plan. 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The La Quinta Planning Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 08-601 for Tentative Tract Map 36139, Specific Plan 83- 002 Amendment 7,' and Site Development Permit 08-907 in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Planning Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore recommends a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program be certified. 4. Architectural Design The architectural design aspects of the proposed Villas and Community Recreation Building provide interest through use of varied roof elements and colored roof tiles, enhanced building and facade treatments, and other design details which will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design quality M. Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Site Development Permit 08-907 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 3 prevalent in the City. Although the modified Tuscan architecture and layout is relatively dissimilar to the existing surrounding PGA West residences, the style, as conditioned, is compatible with the existing community conditions in that they are all styles permitted in the PGA West Specific Plan. The articulated massing reflects village -like clustered style architecture, and the floor plan embraces and enhances the seasonal indoor -outdoor lifestyle, incorporating courtyards, balconies, and terraces. 5. Site Design The site design aspects of the proposed Villas community, as conditioned, will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City, in terms of interior circulation, pedestrian access, and other architectural site design elements such as scale, mass, and appearance. The Villas and Community Recreation Building are properly sized with regards to height and floor area, and are situated at engineer -approved locations with regards to vehicular and pedestrian access. 6. Landscape Design The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. Additionally, the assorted species of plants, most of which are taken from the approved plant list in the PGA West Specific Plan, provide diversity and add character to the proposed Villas community. Although a number of proposed plants are not listed in the Specific Plan, they are also low water users and drought tolerant, and therefore are an acceptable alternative. The project landscaping for the proposed Villas, as conditioned, shall unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed community with the surrounding development. Landscape improvements are designed and sized to provide visual appeal. The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to blend with the building architecture and existing site landscaping conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and N Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Site Development Permit 08-907 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 4 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Site Development Permit 08-907 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of September, 2009 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 1 GENERAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit 2008-907. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Site Development Permit 2008-907 shall comply with the requirements and standards of Chapter 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"), Chapter 13 of the LQMC, and conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 36139, as applicable. The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. This Site Development Permit shall expire on October 6, 2011, two years from the date of City Council approval, unless granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code 9.200.080 (Permit expiration and time extensions). 4. Site Development Permit 08-907 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: Environmental Assessment 08-601 Specific Plan 83-002 Amendment 7 Tentative Tract Map 36139 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Planning Director shall determine precedence. 5. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: Riverside County Fire Marshal NO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 2 • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) • Planning Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Coachella Valley Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2008-0001 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (11 acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (11 acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). ISO] PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 3 The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 7. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 8. Approval of this Site Development Permit 2008-907 shall not be construed as approval for any horizontal dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically identified in the following conditions of approval. 91 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 4 9. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 10. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 11. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer or the HOA over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing on -site private streets that access off -site private streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. 12. The private street rights -of -way to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS (OFF -SITE) 1) PGA Boulevard (Arterial, 120' and 130' ROW) — No additional off -site private street dedication is required. 2) Double Eagle Way — No additional off -site street dedication is required except for the construction of the proposed cul-de-sac at the westerly end. B. PRIVATE STREETS (ON -SITE) 1) Street 'A' - Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 28-foot travel width where on -street 92 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 5 parking is prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Planning Department prior to recordation. C. CUL DE SACS 1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as, shown on the tentative map and as approved by the City Engineer. D. ROUNDABOUT 1) The design of the roundabout shall be as shown on the Site Development Permit 2008-807 site plan and as approved by the City Engineer. E. EMERGENCY TURN -AROUND 1) The turn around at the Emergency Access Gate to PGA Boulevard shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract map except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall. Curve radii for curbs at all street intersections shall not be less than 25 feet except at the as shown on the approved rough grading plan. 13. Direct vehicular access to PGA Boulevard and Double Eagle Way from lots with frontage along PGA Boulevard and Double Eagle Way is restricted, except for those access points identified on the Site Development Permit 2008-907, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map of Tentative Tract Map 36139. 14. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 93 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 6 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT 15. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development) for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 16. As proposed, Private Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flow line shall be near vertical with a 1/8"batter and a minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 17. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE PRIVATE STREETS 1) PGA Boulevard (Arterial, 120' and 130' ROW) — No additional widening of the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width. 2) Double Eagle Way — No additional off -site street widening is required except for the construction of the proposed cul-de-sac at the westerly end. B. ON -SITE PRIVATE STREETS 1) Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 28 feet travel width where on -street parking is prohibited and adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors. The applicant will establish provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS 11 Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative 94 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 7 map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb similar to the layout shown on the rough grading plan. D. ROUNDABOUT 1) The design of the roundabout shall be as shown on the tentative tract map and as approved by the City Engineer. E. EMERGENCY TURN AROUND 1) The turn around at the Emergency Access Gate to PGA Boulevard shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract map except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall. 18. All gated entries shall as shown on the preliminary precise grading plans prepared for SDP 08-907 and SDP 09-911 and Tentative Tract Map No. 36139 dated August 2009 and as approved by the City Engineer. 19. Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum radius to be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry. Pursuant to said condition, there shall be a minimum of twenty five feet width provided at the turn- around opening provided. Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. The two travel lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as approved by the Fire Department. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 20. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.. 95 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 8 or the approved equivalents of alternate materials 21. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 22. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (PGA Boulevard): Full turn movements are allowed (Existing Access Drive to Clubhouse) 23. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. 24. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 25. The design of parking bays along Street A (Lot A of Lot 2) shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall design. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. D. Accessibility routes to adjacent development and within the development shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 9 E. Parking stall lengths shall be according to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and be a minimum of 17 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang for standard parking stalls and 18 feet with a 2-foot overhang for handicapped parking stall or as approved by the City Engineer. One van accessible handicapped parking stall is required per 8 handicapped parking stalls. F. Drive aisles between parking stalls where new parking lot configuration is proposed shall be a minimum of 26 feet with access drive aisles to Public Streets a minimum of 30 feet as shown on the Site Development Plan site plan or as approved by the City Engineer. 26. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Bays (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 27. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 28. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. 29. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 97 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 10 IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 30. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 31. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP 1" = 40' Horizontal D. WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) NOTE: A through D to be submitted concurrently. E. On -Site SDP 2008-907 New Community Building Precise Grading 1 " = 20' Horizontal F. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 11 pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors G. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2007 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Precise Grading" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official, Planning Director and the City Engineer. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. "Street Parking" plan shall include appropriate signage to implement the "No Parking" concept, or alternatively an on -street parking policy shall be included in the CC & R's subject to City Engineer's Approval. The parking plan or CC & R's shall be submitted concurrently with the Street Improvement Plans. 32. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and Design 99 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 12 Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la- quinta.org) • Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 33. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. 34. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer Of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact.to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 35. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 100 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 13 36. Depending on the timing of the development of Tentative Tract Map No. 36139, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these actions, as the City may require. Said off -site improvements shall include obligations of the PGA West Development not performed by KSL Development Corporation or any of its entities, as deemed necessary by the City of La Quinta. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction or by the issuance of the 5th Building Permit. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map for Tentative Tract Map 36139 or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 37. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 101 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 14 GRADING 38. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 39. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 40. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls). All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 41. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 42. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope 102 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 15 shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1 . All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1 .5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 43. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 44. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 45. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 46. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus five tenths of a foot (0.5') from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 47. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The 103 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 16 data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. 48. This development shall comply with LQMC Chapter 8.11 (Flood Hazard Regulations)• If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish elevation certifications, as required by FEMA, that the above conditions have been met. DRAINAGE 49. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for the PGA West Development. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. 50. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 51. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 52. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. 137-2008-001 . A. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopments Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. 137-2008-001 . 104 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 17 B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB- CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. UTILITIES 53. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 54. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 55. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 56. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. NSTRUCTION 57. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten 105 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 18 percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 58. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans)• 59. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 60. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 61. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director, however landscape plans for landscaped median on public streets shall be approved by the both the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project, in particular, perimeter turf, tree/shrub, and wall plans along PGA Boulevard and Double Eagle Way. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer. 62. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 24 inches of curbs along public streets. 106 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 19 63. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5`h Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. 64. The clubhouse water features shall be designed to minimize "splash", and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. They shall be included on the final landscaping plans and in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13. MAINTENANCE 65. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 66. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of perimeter landscaping up to the curb, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 67. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits)• These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 68. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 69. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the Coachella Valley Multi - Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee, in accordance with LQMC Chapter 3.34. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 70. As part of the building permit review process, the building plans shall be reviewed for compliance with the California Vehicle Code and other law enforcement and public safety concerns, including defensible space issues, applicable at the time of building permit issuance. Questions regarding the Sheriff's Department review 107 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 20 should be directed to the Deputy at (760) 863-8950. FIRE DEPARTMENT 71. As part of the building permit review process, the building plans shall be reviewed for compliance with the California Fire Code and other fire prevention/suppression and public safety concerns, applicable at the time of building permit issuance. A plan check fee will be required for said review. Questions regarding Fire Marshal review should be directed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 72. Approved Cultural Resource Monitor(s) be present during all ground disturbing activities. Experience has shown that there is always a possibility of encountering buried cultural resources during construction related excavations, or archaeological testing/data recovery. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) Archaeologist to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the City and the Agua Caliente THPO. 73. Additionally, in accordance with State law, the County Coroner should be contacted if any human remains are found during earthmoving activities. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The City will work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains. 74. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. In the community building area, all freestanding lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height, shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff, and be turned off or reduced to a level deemed appropriate by the Planning Director within one hour following closing hours. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Director for his approval. 75. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the parapet. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment 108 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 08-907 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 PAGE 21 shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 76. All signs shall be approved under a separate sign permit/program application. 77. The architectural color palette for both the Villas and community building shall be amended to represent the lighter colors typically found in PGA West. The final color palette shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. 78. In order to accommodate tennis club members who are not Villas residents, the applicant shall install a pedestrian pathway leading from the Private Clubhouse parking lot directly to the tennis courts. 109 ATTACHMENT 5 09 zDESIGN GROUF PGA WEST RESIDENTIAL VILLAS ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT The Club at PGA WEST 'The Western Home of Golf in America"e The Villas are located in a spectacular setting among citrus groves and towering palms at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains in the Coachella Valley, home to the Jack Nicklaus private golf course. The resort is home to prestigious golf tournaments, famous shots in golf history by celebrity sports figures and celebrities. DESIGN CONCEPT Style: Tuscan Territorial Modernism Develop a stronger relationship and expression between architecture and nature. Natural materials like stone, copper, heavy timber and natural organic materials will create textural and contrasting dynamic elements and reflect the indigenous context of the shell -laden, ancient ocean desert location. Articulated massing reflects a village -like clustered style architecture clad in natural stone and two colors of stucco to blend into the spectacular setting. The floor plan embraces and enhances the seasonal indoor— outdoor lifestyle incorporating courtyards with water features. Deep set windows provide shelter from the sun and allow filtered light to infuse the interiors or frame views to nature. COMMUNITY CENTER Style: Desert Territorial Modernism (Re: Clubhouse) i1' i11 1CII"I, NIIh1A . 'IW. ,6N Z DESIGN+R'tFLK 13 4i: .nL m'N' SU II I. U Q BO 0 1U 80102-,'kUSA n, 30}.4794811 PAx X- ".! Ads A) , N6i 01.NFI' III ATTACHMENT 6 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA August 5, 2009 10:04 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architecture and' Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:04 arm: by Planning Manager David Sawyer who led the Committee in the'flag salute. B. Committee Members Present: Ray Rooker and2David Thorns Committee Member Absent: Jason Arnold C. Staff present: Planning Manager"David Sawyer, Associate Planner Jay Wuu, and Secretary Monika Radeva. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGE NDA:"`Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Staff asked if there were any changes^to the Minutes of July 1, 2009. There being no comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by Committee Members; .RookedThoms to approve the minutes as submitted. AYES: Committee Members Rooker and Thorns. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Committee Member Arnold. V. BUSINESS ITEMS': A. Site, Development Permit 2008-907 a request submitted by Pyramid Project' Management, LLC. for consideration of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for the PGA West Golf Villas; a 54-Unit residential development consisting of single-family attached duplex units and community center located at PGA West; west side of PGA West Boulevard, south of Avenue 54. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Committee Member Thoms said he agreed with staffs recommendation to address the size of the proposed water feature for the project. He said he did not find it appropriate to introduce such a magnificent water 112 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 feature at a time that called for conservation. He suggested that the applicant use a different type of architectural focal feature. Committee Member Thorns said he liked the fact that the proposed units had a common sideyard wall. He noted there was sufficient space between the units to allow for greater deviation in the setbacks of the homes and he encouraged the applicant to do so in order to get away from having all of the homes in a row. Committee Member Thorns also recommended that the applicant be more creative with the driveway designs. He noted that he found the overall site plan to be very well designed in terms of the streets, the entrances; the turnaround, etc. Committee Member Rooker said he agreed with Committee Member Thorns' comments regarding the property setbacks and the driveways. He found it as a nice diversification;ibetween the units. Committee Member Rooker said*he was' -supportive of the proposed fountain and he did not find it to be.out of scale in relation to the rest of the project. He mentioned he found thecharacterand the design of the fountain to be inconsistent with that of the adjacent guest house. Committee Member Rookery noted he found ;the proposed parking spaces to be limited. As there wasn't roomto put additional parking spaces, he recommended the ,applicant accentuate the connectivity between the clubhouse and the parking area to the north. Committee Member Rooker commented that the overall site had a total of 52 living; units proposed and'only one swimming pool. He suggested smaller swimming pools be introduced that were equally pedestrian - friendly to all of the living units. Committee "Member Rooker noted that the proposed architectural design was very sophisticated, but he questioned its use in the desert area and at PGA West. He explained that the present architectural styles in the PGA West Community consist of Traditional Mediterranean with stucco ;'build -outs, trims and wood, or a sophisticated horizontal contemporary style. He expressed his concern about introducing the proposed architectural style with the flat -top roofs which are normally associated with economical construction and building, as well as the material pallet, as he found them to be inappropriate for PGA West. He outlined a few of the major differences between the existing and the proposed styles in color and architecture. Committee Member Thorns noted he disagreed with the comments made by Committee Member Rooker regarding the proposed architectural style. He said he found the existing architectural styles at P:\Reports - ALRC\2009\10-07-09\ALRC_Draft MIN_8-5-09.doc 2 113 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 PGA West to be boring; as everything looked the same. He commented that the introduction of a different architectural style in that community would offer a welcome variety, especially considering that the project was not very big. Committee Member Thoms said he did not find it necessary to have additional pools as suggested by Committee Member Rooker. Committee Member Thorns explained that if additional pools were incorporated into the project, the cost for their maintenance would result in higher homeowner dues. He also reiterated' his earlier comments regarding the proposed fountain. He strongly;encouraged the applicant to try to introduce some variety in the setbacks of the homes. Planning Manager Sawyer asked, if the applicant's representatives would like to respond to the any of the comments made by the Committee. Mr. Ken Hoeppner, Vice President for. Pyramid Project Management, LLC., One Post Office Square, Suite # 300, Boston, MA, introduced himself. He said the proposed water feature could definitely be replaced with a different architectural feature: He noted the suggested changes regarding the setbacks'and the driveways could be addressed and adjusted. He discussed the: -pros and cons of having one big pool versus many -little pools in 'relation to` cost, function, maintenance and use, and'nofed their research was supportive of the one big -size -pool concept. Mr. _Hoeppner, 'explained thereasonsthis architectural style was chosen was because the projectsgoal was to create a vibrant and active community>and'the applicant wanted to complement it by bringing in some personality, color and light with the architecture. Mr, Forrest Haag, Landscape Architect for Forrest K. Haag, ASLA, Inc., 1254,,,N. Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, CA, introduced himself and said,he had,b6en working on PGA West since its acquisition in the early 80's, Iafe�70's. He gave a brief overview of the architectural background of PGA West and explained the intent of the architect and how it would tie in with the existing project. He mentioned a few possible issues that might arise with changing the setbacks on a few of the units, depending on the location. Mr. Hoeppner added that in order for the project to be competitive in the market place, the applicant had to keep in mind that cost associated with certain customizations, such as the variations in the setbacks, P:\Reports - ALRC\2009\10-07-09\ALRC_Draft MIN_8-5-09.doc 3 114 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 might outweigh the benefit of it. He elaborated that this was a duplex - type project and customization was not an established characteristic. Committee Member Thorns questioned Mr. Haag's comment regarding possible issues and/or inability to adjust the setbacks on certain lots. He explained his recommendation was to make the adjustments only a few feet because even a one -foot adjustment would make a difference. He noted he was pleased to hear that the applicant was willing to consider the use of a different type of focal feature in lieu of the proposed water fountain. Michael Olson, AIA, Principal for Z Design Group, 1877 Broadway, Boulder, CO, introduced himself and talked",,, about some of the challenges involved in trying to create a project'within an existing, and already established, architectural environment. He�ezplained what the applicant's request was and how the design team hoped.to achieve it. He elaborated on the numerous types of materials the team had considered, such as the use of stone to create a strong;indoor/outdoor feel and how it grounded the clubhouse.to the site and tied it in with the beautiful Santa Rosa mountains, etc. He said the team had chosen a darker color palette for the materials used to better blend them in with the surrounding natural environment. He talked about the difference between the already existing and:the�oroposed architectural styles. Committe`e"Member Thom `commented on the choice of darker colors as he.thmught they might be It0o dark and heavy in comparison to the rest of 'the 'project. He indicated that shifting the setbacks might help lighten the darker colors a bit/through the movement of the homes as well as-aettina'awav from the monotonous feel of the tract homes. There b61ng"go further discussion, Committee Member Thoms moved to adopt Minute Motion 2009-007, recommending approval of Site DevelopmentPermit 2008-907, with the following recommendations: 1) Re" lace -the proposed water fountain with a different type of architectural focal feature. 2) Adjust the property setbacks of the homes to create some movement. 3) Use a more creative design for the driveways. Planning Manager Sawyer noted the above motion did not pass due to the lack of a second. Committee Member Rooker moved to adopt Minute Motion 2009-007, not recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2008-907, due P:\Reports - ALRC\2009\10-07-09\ALRC_Draft M[N_8-5-09.doc 4 115 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 to architectural inconsistency of the proposed design with the existing project. Planning Manager Sawyer noted the above motion did not pass due to the lack of a second. There being no other motions, Planning Manager Sawyer said the project would be scheduled for the next regular Planning Commission Meeting. He noted the minutes from this meeting would be included and would reflect the discussions and concerns of the Committee for the Planning Commission's consideration. B. Site Development Permit 2009-911 a:; Project Management, LLC. for cons landscaping plans for the expansioi Clubhouse located at PGA Westrwest south of Avenue 54._ Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented staff report, a copy of which is on file in quest submitted by Pyramid :ration of architectural and of the PGA West Private ide of PGA West Boulevard, information contained in the i,Planning Department. Committee Member Thorns said he liked the project, didn't have any concerns with the proposed parking, and that there were a lot of elevations onrthe site plan. The only comment he had was on the aisles in,the'patking lots. He found them to be too long and suggested reducincl'them a'bt. Committee'`'a�f�lember 'Rooker,,said he .did not have any concerns I egarding the parking or the proposed water feature, he found it to be appropriate>and'within scale for the project. Committee Member"Rooker said he had major concerns regarding the entry way courtyard. He said he was disappointed with the fact that it no longer had a porte cochere entry way, which was a very elegant element, as -well as providing much needed shade in the extreme desert heat. He referenced page F-2 from the site plan and noted it did not indicate any plants for the courtyard. Mr. Haag said what was envisioned was container planting as it would sit higher in relation to the cars and would provide more visual impact and would be less likely to get run over. Committee Member Rooker said the proposed architectural design was extremely complicated in comparison to the existing style which was extremely simple, and he did not find it complimentary. He addressed P:\Reports-ALRC\2009\10-07-09\ALRC—Draft MIN_8-5-09.doe 5 116 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 different architectural features on the proposed buildings and explained why they were inconsistent and not complimentary to the existing project. Michael Olson, AIA, Principal for Z Design Group, 1877 Broadway, Boulder, CO, introduced himself and explained the reasons that guided them in deciding on the design, materials and color palette. Mr. Ken Hoeppner, Vice President for Pyramid Project Management, LLC., One Post Office Square, Suite #300, Boston, MA, provided additional detail regarding the applicant's request and the approach the team took to fulfill that request. Committee Member Thorns said he did not see a problem with introducing a different type of architectural style in",PGA West. He strongly recommended the Landscape Architect keep:the center area, which was addressed by the applicant as the courtyard, as simple as possible. He suggested the use of a large scale specimen with contours which could become a unique feature identified with the clubhouse. General discussion followed" ..regarding different landscaping alternatives for the courtyard area. There being no further discussion, Committee Member Thorns moved to adopt Minute Motion 2009-007, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2008-9111 with the recommendation to simplify the Planning, Manager Sawyer noted the above motion did not pass due to the lack of asecond. Committee Members Rooker moved to adopt Minute Motion 2009-007, not'recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2008-911, due to architectural inconsistency of the proposed design with the existing project:. _ Planning Manager Sawyer noted the above motion did not pass due to the lack of a second. There being no other motions, Planning Manager Sawyer said the project would be scheduled for the next regular Planning Commission Meeting. He noted the minutes from this meeting would be included and would reflect the discussions and concerns of the Committee for the Planning Commission's consideration. P:\Reports - ALRC\2009\10-07-09\ALRC_Draft MIN_8-5-09.doe 6 117 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None. VIII. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rookedfhoms to adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on: September 2, 2009. This meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m. on August 5, 2009."­"'" Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA Secretary P:\Reports - ALRC\2009\10-07-09\ALRC_Draft MIN_8-5-09.doc 7 118 /y aoo9 ATTACHMENT 7 SEP Y 6 2009 ciry ��NG �e QUINTq 19 To: La Quinta Planning Commision From: Mr. B. Richins 54-299 Shoal Creek Road L. Q., Ca. 92253 Sirs: 15 Sept. 2009 SEP 18 2009 CITY OF LA QUINTA Make it known that I am fully opposed to the upcoming `multi unit' residential development project near PGA West. 120 PH#B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 CASE NUMBERS: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 APPLICANT: PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF PLANS FOR THE REMODEL AND EXPANSION OF THE PGA WEST PRIVATE CLUBHOUSE LOCATION: 56-140 PGA BOULEVARD PGA WEST; WEST OF PGA BOULEVARD ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332 CLASS 32 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE; CONSISTS OF A PROJECT SITE OF LESS THAN 5 ACRES; IS SUBSTANTIALLY SURROUNDED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT; WILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON HABITAT, AIR QUALITY, TRAFFIC, NOISE OR WATER RESOURCES; AND IS SERVED BY ADEQUATE SERVICES AND UTILITIES. GENERAL PLAN: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: RESIDENTIAL (TR 28259-1); GOLF COURSE SOUTH: PROPOSED PGA WEST GOLF VILLAS (TTM 36139) EAST: PGA BOULEVARD WEST: GOLF COURSE/DRIVING RANGE BACKGROUND PGA West, which is generally located between Avenue 54 and Avenue 58 west of Madison Street, is an approximately 1,700-acre resort community featuring golf, tennis, and clubhouse amenities (Attachment 1). A Specific Plan for the community was originally approved in 1984, with a conceptual total of up to 5,000 residential units, 650 hotel rooms with approximately 120,000 square feet of resort commercial uses, and a 20-acre commercial center (SP 83-002). Five amendments to this plan have since been approved. Currently, there are three golf course clubhouses within the PGA West community. The Norman Course Clubhouse is located within the Norman Course community on the east side of Madison Street. The Stadium Clubhouse is located at the southern terminus of PGA Boulevard, which underwent an expansion in 2008. The applicant is proposing to remodel and expand the Palmer Private Clubhouse, which is located on an approximately 9-acre site on the west side of PGA Boulevard (Attachment 2). PROJECT REQUEST Overview The PGA West Palmer Private Clubhouse is located off of and provided access via PGA Boulevard. A main entry drive leads from the street to the clubhouse courtyard. The proposed PGA West Golf Villas (SDP 08-907) is to be located south of the clubhouse area, with a number of tennis courts between the clubhouse and nearest residential property line. The redesigned parking lot will provide access to the clubhouse as well as to the Villas. For this application, the applicant is requesting consideration of the structure, design, and associated landscaping plans for the expansion of the Private Clubhouse. The existing two-story Private Clubhouse is approximately 62,000 square feet, and includes dining, locker room, and office facilities. The clubhouse is primarily surrounded by non-residential, recreational uses, with the closest residential property line located approximately 350 feet away from the northernmost extent of the expansion. The proposed 17,700 square foot expansion, which will be the focus of this report, includes the construction of interior spa and fitness club facilities, two new pool facilities, and exterior patio areas (Attachment 2, Sheet 4). Clubhouse Expansion Included with this proposal are plans to expand the two-story, multi -use golf course clubhouse (Attachment 2, Sheet 9). The architectural style of the clubhouse, as referred to by the applicant, is Desert Territorial Modernism, and includes use of prefinished metal, colored concrete, stained woods, and ornamental metals 2 (Attachment 2, Sheet 9 — 13). The proposed clubhouse expansion plans maintain the main entry drive leading from PGA Boulevard to a vehicular courtyard (Attachment 2, Sheet 5)• A new entrance area leads from the courtyard to the existing lobby of the clubhouse. Along the north and southern boundaries of the vehicular courtyard are new exterior loggias. North of the entrance lobby is the interior spa expansion (Attachment 2, Sheet 4). This expanded area includes a spa reception, additional locker areas, a number of massage rooms, and a waiting/recovery area. Outside of the spa expansion area is one of the new pool areas, which include a spa pool, water feature, fire pit, and sitting areas (Attachment 2, Sheet 15). To the south of the entrance lobby is the interior fitness club expansion (Attachment 2, Sheet 15). This new area, which will replace the existing fitness center in the Health and Racquet Club, includes additional retail amenities, a fitness area, a yoga room, a child care facility, and a variety of office and storage spaces. In the area outside of the fitness center expansion is the second new pool area. Similar to the other pool expansion, this southern pool area includes a pool, spa pool, and a sizeable seating area. At the rear, or western end of the clubhouse, the expansion includes a small interior addition to the main dining area and an expansive new outdoor terrace and pavilion area (Attachment 2, Sheet 14). As the clubhouse is situated on multiple grades and incorporates varying rooflines, the height of the building, including both existing and expanded areas, but not including the uninhabitable tower feature, averages approximately 35 feet in height at its highest ridgelines, measured from the lower grade level (west elevation) (Attachment 2, Sheet 11). The uninhabitable clock tower is approximately 45 feet in height, measured from the lower grade level (west elevation). In general, the expanded areas are the same height as the existing clubhouse; only the clock tower and front accent wall exceed the current building heights. The new clubhouse expansion totals approximately 17,700 square feet, bringing the total area of the clubhouse to approximately 79,500 square feet at the end of construction. Parking Lot The existing clubhouse parking lot is being redesigned as part of the clubhouse expansion. Currently, there are approximately 397 existing parking spaces at the Private Clubhouse. A total of 257 parking spaces, including eight (8) ADA parking spaces, are provided in the new lot (Attachment 2, Sheet 6)• Accessible sidewalks lead pedestrians from the parking lot to the main clubhouse entrance, two pool areas, and spa and fitness facility entrances. Although valet parking is available for special events, most patrons are expected to park their vehicle in the parking lot and walk to the clubhouse. c Landscaping The landscape plan for the clubhouse identifies a plant palette consisting of low- to moderate -water use trees and shrubs generally consistent with what is permitted in the PGA West Specific Plan. Landscaping throughout the clubhouse facility is plentiful, is designed to complement the architecture and layout of the building, and also suitably integrates into the existing landscaped areas. Mostly utilized around the clubhouse site are various palm trees and shrubs, with some areas of turf, which has been limited to landscape planters near the front of the clubhouse and an existing lawn area near the rear of the clubhouse. The existing palm trees located within the parking lot planters will remain. The applicant proposes the use of existing Date Palms and both California and Mexican Fan Palms (Attachment 2, Sheet 24). New trees on the palette include Palo Verdes, Desert Willows, and Hybrid Mesquites. A variety of small and large accent shrubs, including Red Bird of Paradise, Desert Marigolds, and Trailing Lantanas, are proposed in the areas immediately surrounding the clubhouse and in the parking lot areas (Attachment 2, Sheet 32 — 38). The applicant is also proposing landscape lighting at various locations throughout the project site (Attachment 2, Sheet 42 — 50). Up -lighting of the trees around the project site are to be done with low wattage, semi -recessed metal halide up -lights. Walls, fences, and gates throughout the clubhouse site have several different design elements. Concrete masonry unit (CMU) retaining walls with stucco finishes, ranging from 4- to 14-feet in height, are prevalent throughout the clubhouse facilities. The applicant also proposes multiple water features throughout the project (Attachment 2, Sheet 5). The features range from smaller - scale features located at the main entrance to the building to larger -scale water features located at the automobile courtyard as well as at the rear of the clubhouse facilities (Attachment 3). ANALYSIS Clubhouse Staff finds that the overall architectural style and design of the proposed PGA West Palmer Private Clubhouse expansion to be acceptable. Staff has no significant issues with the proposed interior expansion areas, the new exterior pool and patio areas, the redesigned parking lot, and the landscape palette, as they are appropriate and well -designed. The Desert Territorial Modernism architecture and layout of the clubhouse expansion is for the most part compatible with the existing clubhouse design. The existing building provides reasonable solar control with deep set roof overhangs for shade and uninterrupted panoramic views, and these design characteristics will be incorporated into the proposed expansion. Sustainable, or Green building construction elements do not appear to be a focus of 0 the proposed remodel and expansion plans. Parking Lot Staff finds the design of the Private Clubhouse parking lot to be acceptable. .The parking lot is designed with a clear separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and also provides sufficient solar shading via the existing mature palm trees. Additionally, the use of strategically -placed parking lot lighting results in a safe and secure environment, while having minimal negative visual impact on the surrounding areas. Based upon the La Quinta Municipal Code parking standards and observations of historical use, staff has determined that the 257 parking spaces for the clubhouse based upon the remodel and expansion plans will adequately serve the project. This calculation includes the two private golf courses, dining, spa/fitness center and tennis uses. According to the applicant, operational observations have dictated that a good majority of clubhouse patrons, particularly golf and dining users, arrive at the site using personal golf carts. An existing golf cart parking area exists on the ground level near the golf cart storage/golf staging area. This is frequently used by PGA West residents and is anticipated to see similar use after the remodel and expansion is complete. Therefore, staff believes that the proposed 257 parking spaces will sufficiently accommodate the actual motor vehicle need for the PGA West Private Clubhouse. Landscaping In general, the proposed landscape palette presented is acceptable. The assorted species of plants, most of which are taken from the approved plant list in the PGA West Specific Plan, provide diversity and add character to the proposed building expansion. Although a number of proposed plants are not listed in the Specific Plan, they are also low water users and drought tolerant, and therefore are an acceptable alternative. Thorough use of shrubs and groundcover effectively screen the clubhouse service areas, parking areas, and other project aspects. Some of the proposed water features are primary to the design of the clubhouse expansion. Such features can be permitted if they meet the City's water efficiency requirements and are approved as part of the project by the Planning Commission. Staff has provided a Condition of Approval pertaining to these features, requiring energy efficient pumps and staff review to ensure that there will be minimal water loss due to splashing, evaporation; etc. The small-scale water features located near the clubhouse entrance are appropriate in that their placement and scale are beneficial towards the pedestrian atmosphere. However, staff still has some concerns over the location, size, and necessity of the larger water features, as their size and location do not promote pedestrian interactivity. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the use and viability of the proposed 1, water features as part of the expansion. ALRC Review The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, at its meeting of August 5, 2009, discussed Site Development Permit 09-911 (Attachment 6). No recommendation was made to the Planning Commission as the Committee could not agree on a variety of project topics, including the proposed architectural style, project compatibility, and water feature implementation. Committee Member Thoms was in support of the proposal. He did not see a problem with introducing a different type of architectural style in PGA West, and didn't have any concerns with the proposed parking and felt that there were plenty of elevation variations on the site plan. He strongly recommended that the landscape architect keep the center vehicular courtyard area as simple as possible. Rather than a fountain or water feature, he suggested the use of a large scale tree specimen with contours which could become a unique feature identified with the clubhouse. Committee Member Rooker did not have any concerns regarding the clubhouse parking or the proposed water features. However, he did have some major concerns regarding the entry way courtyard and architecture. He was disappointed with the fact that there was no longer a porte cochere entry way. Also, he felt the proposed architectural design was extremely complicated in comparison to the existing style which was extremely simple, and did not find it complimentary. The following landscape -related Conditions of Approval, which were presented to the ALRC, are also recommended to Planning Commission for approval: 1. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height, shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff, and be turned off or reduced to a level deemed appropriate by the Planning Director within one hour following closing hours. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Director for his approval. 2. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the parapet. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 3. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning 31 Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director. Said review and approval shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with these units. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer. 4. All signs shall be approved under a separate sign permit/program application. 5. The clubhouse water features shall be designed to minimize "splash", and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. They shall be included on the final landscaping plans and in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13. Environmental Review The Planning Department has reviewed this project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project is exempt pursuant to section 15332 Class 32 of the CEQA guidelines. The project is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; consists of a project site of less than 5 acres; is substantially surrounded by urban development; will have no significant impact on habitat, air quality, traffic, noise or water resources; and is served by adequate services and utilities. Public Notice This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on September 11, 2008, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. To date, no comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received will be handed out at the Planning Commission hearing. FINDINGS Findings to recommend approval of this request can be made and are contained in 7 the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009- , recommending to the City Council approval Site Development Permit 09-91 1, subject to the attached F)ndings and Conditions of Approval. by: ociate Planner Attachments: 1 . PGA West Vicinity Map 2. PGA West Palmer Private Clubhouse Submittal Packet 3. Water Feature Detail Sheet 4. Minutes of August 5, 2009 ALRC meeting 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911, FOR THE REMODEL AND EXPANSION OF THE PGA WEST PRIVATE CLUBHOUSE CASE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 APPLICANT: PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 22nd day of September, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Pyramid Project Management, LLC for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for the remodel and expansion of the PGA West private clubhouse located on the west side of PGA Boulevard, south of Avenue 54, more particularly described as: APN: 775-220-003 WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on September 11, 2009 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Department has reviewed this project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project is exempt pursuant to section 15332 Class 32 Infill Development Projects of the CEQA guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 5`h day of August, 2009, hold a public meeting to review and discuss architecture and landscape plans and although no consensus was reached, the minutes of said meeting were included in the staff report for consideration by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 0 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Site Development Permit 09-911 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 2 1 . Consistency with the General Plan The proposed site development permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it proposes to remodel and expand an existing golf course ancillary building in an area which is General Plan -designated for LDR (Low Density Residential) development. Within the PGA West Specific Plan, golf course ancillary uses are an outright permitted use within the Low Density Residential land use. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code and PGA West Specific Plan The proposed remodel and expansion, as conditioned, is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code and the PGA West Specific Plan, in terms of architectural style, building height, building mass, and landscaping. The building is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Map, as it proposes to expand a golf course ancillary use as part of an existing development which is General Plan -designated for RL (Low Density Residential) development. The site development permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the zoning standards of the RL district, and other supplemental standards as established in Title 9 of the LQMC and the PGA West Specific Plan. 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The Planning Department has reviewed this project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project is exempt pursuant to section 15332 Class 32 of the CEQA guidelines. The project is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; consists of a project site of less than 5 acres; is substantially surrounded by urban development; will have no significant impact on habitat, air quality, traffic, noise or water resources; and is served by adequate services and utilities. 4. Architectural Design The architectural design aspects of the proposed Private Clubhouse remodel and expansion provide interest through use of varied roof elements and colored roof tiles, enhanced building and facade treatments, and other design details which will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. The, Desert Territorial Modernism architecture and layout of the clubhouse expansion is for the most part compatible with the existing clubhouse design. The existing building is successful at sun shading with deep set roof overhangs for shade and 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Site Development Permit 09-911 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 3 uninterrupted panoramic views, and these design characteristics will be incorporated into the proposed expansion. 5. Site Design The site design aspects of the proposed Private Clubhouse remodel and expansion, as conditioned, will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City, in terms of interior circulation, pedestrian access, and other architectural site design elements such as scale, mass, and appearance. The expanded clubhouse areas are properly sized with regards to height and floor area, and are situated at engineer -approved locations with regards to vehicular and pedestrian access. 6. Landscape Design The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. Additionally, the assorted species of plants, most of which are taken from the approved plant list in the PGA West Specific Plan, provide diversity and add character to the proposed remodel and expansion. Although a number of proposed plants are not listed in the Specific Plan, they are also low water users and drought tolerant, and therefore are an acceptable alternative. The project landscaping for the proposed Private Clubhouse expansion, as conditioned, shall unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed community with the surrounding development. Landscape improvements are designed and sized to provide visual appeal. The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to blend with the building architecture and existing site landscaping conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Site Development Permit 09-911 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Site Development Permit 09-911 Pyramid Project Management, LLC Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22ntl day of September, 2009 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Site Development Permit 2009-911 shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"), and conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 36139, as applicable. The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-guinta.org. 3. This Site Development Permit shall expire on October 6, 2011, two years from the date of City Council approval, unless granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code 9.200.080 (Permit expiration and time extensions). 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) • Planning Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NO["), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2008-0001 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one 11) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 6. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 7. Approval of this Site Development Permit 2009-911 shall not be construed as approval for any horizontal dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically identified in the following conditions of approval. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 9. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 10. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 from the master developer or the HOA over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. 11. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street rights - of -way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 12. The private street rights -of -way to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS (OFF -SITE) 1) PGA Boulevard (Arterial, 120' and 130' ROW) — No additional off -site private street dedication is required. 13. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street rights -of -way shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such rights -of -way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights -of -way within 60 days of a written request by the City. 14. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 15. Direct vehicular access to PGA Boulevard from lots with frontage along PGA Boulevard is restricted, except for those access points identified on the Site Development Permit 2009-91 1, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map of Tentative Tract Map 36139. 16. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 17. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT 18. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development) for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 19. As proposed, Private Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flow line shall be near vertical with a 1/8" batter and a minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 20. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE PRIVATE STREETS 1) PGA Boulevard (Arterial, 120' and 130' ROW) — No additional widening of the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width. 21. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (PGA Boulevard): Full turn movements are allowed (Existing Access Drive) 21. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. 22. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 23. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall design. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. D. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. E. Parking stall lengths where new parking lot configuration is proposed shall be according to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and be a minimum of 17 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang for standard parking stalls and 18 feet with a 2-foot overhang for handicapped parking stall or as approved by the City Engineer. One van accessible handicapped parking stall is required per 8 handicapped parking stalls. F. Drive aisles between parking stalls where new parking lot configuration is proposed shall be a minimum of 26 feet with access drive aisles to Public Streets a minimum of 30 feet as shown on the Site Development Plan site plan or as approved by the City Engineer. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. 24. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic) 4.5" a.c./5.5" c.a.b. Loading Areas 6" P.C.C./4" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 25. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 26. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. 27. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 28. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans)• 29. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site SDP 2009-91 1 Clubhouse Expansion Precise Grading Plan B. PM10 Plan 1 " = 20' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP 1" = 40' Horizontal D. WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) NOTE: A through D to be submitted concurrently. 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2007 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Precise Grading Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. "Non -Residential Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements to include signing and striping, and ADA requirements. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and Design Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la- quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 30. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. 31. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer Of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 32. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 20 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 33. Depending on the timing of the development of Tentative Tract Map No. 36139, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these actions, as the City may require. Said off -site improvements shall include obligations of the PGA West Development not performed by KSL Development Corporation or any of its entities, as deemed necessary by the City of La Quinta. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction or by the issuance of the 5th Building Permit. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 21 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 34. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. PRECISE GRADING 35. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 36. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 37. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls). All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 38. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 39. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (61 of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1 . All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 40. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 41. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 42. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 43. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus five tenths of a foot (0.5') from the elevations shown on the approved Site Development Permit site plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or 23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. 45. This development shall comply with LQMC Chapter 8.11 (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish elevation certifications, as required by FEMA, that the above conditions have been met. l- : e e eft 46. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for the PGA West Development. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. 47. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 48. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 49. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001 . A. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopments Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001. 24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB- CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. UTILITIES 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 51. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 52. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 53. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. CONSTRUCTION 54. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 55. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 56. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 57. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 58. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director. Said review and approval shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer. 59. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 24 inches of curbs along public streets. 60. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 51" Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. 61. The clubhouse water features shall be designed to minimize "splash", and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. They shall be included in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations per Municipal 26 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 Code Chapter 8.13. MAINTENANCE 62. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 63. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of perimeter landscaping up to the curb, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 64. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 65. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 66. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the Coachella Valley Multi - Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee, in accordance with LQMC Chapter 3.34. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 67. As part of the building permit review process, the building plans shall be reviewed for compliance with the California Vehicle Code and other law enforcement and public safety concerns, including defensible space issues, applicable at the time of building permit issuance. Questions regarding the Sheriff's Department review should be directed to the Deputy at (760) 863-8950. FIRE DEPARTMENT 68. As part of the building permit review process, the building plans shall be reviewed for compliance with the California Fire Code and other fire prevention/suppression and public safety concerns, applicable at the time of building permit issuance. A plan check fee will be required for said review. Questions regarding Fire Marshal review should be directed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. LANNING DEPARTMENT 69. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 09-911 PYRAMID PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 the La Quinta Municipal Code. All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height, shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff, and be turned off or reduced to a level deemed appropriate by the Planning Director within one hour following closing hours. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Director for his approval. 70. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the parapet. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 71. All signs shall be approved under a separate sign permit/program application. W t CO Zw 9li 95996 VCIHOMVJ 'VJ Mf b V 1 `GWAMOH VOd 95655 'ASnoxgn19 HIVArdd ISHM HOd 4 QOMM all','111 g� 3 a 8EE A Im ATTACHMENT 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA August 5, 2009 10:04 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architecture and -Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:04 axn: by> Planning Manager David Sawyer who led the Committee in the flag salute. B. Committee Members Present: Ray Rooker ai dbavid Thoms Committee Member Absent: Jason Arnold C. Staff present: Planning Manager 'David Sawyer, Associate Planner Jay Wuu, and Secretary Monika Radeva; II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: t4{? Staff asked if there were any changes�r­to the Minutes of July 1, 2009. There being no comments ;or corrections it vas moved and seconded by Committee Member 'm= Roaker/Thoms to' 'approve the minutes as submitted. AYES: Committee Members Rooker and Thorns. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. } V. BUSINESS ITEMS'.: t`'3 A. Sitev:DeveloOment Permit 2008-907 a request submitted by Pyramid Prcject,}';Management, LLC. for consideration of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for the PGA West Golf Villas; a 54-Unit residential development consisting of single-family attached duplex units and community center located at PGA West; west side of PGA West Boulevard, south of Avenue 54. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Committee Member Thorns said he agreed with staff's recommendation to address the size of the proposed water feature for the project. He said he did not find it appropriate to introduce such a magnificent water 31 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 feature at a time that called for conservation. He suggested that the applicant use a different type of architectural focal feature. Committee Member Thorns said he liked the fact that the proposed units had a common sideyard wall. He noted there was sufficient space between the units to allow for greater deviation in the setbacks of the homes and he encouraged the applicant to do so in order to get away from having all of the homes in a row. Committee Member Thorns also recommended that the applicant be more creative with the driveway designs. He noted that he found the overall site,plan to be very well designed in terms of the streets, the entrances;'the turnaround, etc. Committee Member Rooker said he agreed'with, Committee Member Thorns' comments regarding the property ack setbs^and the driveways. He found it as a nice diversification?between the units. Committee Member Rooker < ' idthe wa! � supportive of -the proposed TI! , fountain and he did not find it to be;out of scale in relation to the rest of the project. He mentioned he found"i6e'character and the design of the fountain to be inconsistent with that of -the adjacent guest house. Committee Member Rooker" ;noted he found,, proposed parking spaces to be limited. As there wasn't roorh'tb put additional parking spaces, he recommended the.;applicant ;accentuate the connectivity between toe"=clubhouse and.the"parking; area to the north. Committee Member Rooker commented that the overall site had a total of 52 livmg�,units proposed and'`onl'q one swimming pool. He suggested smaller sirigrp6olsi�bewiritroduced that were equally pedestrian- ffiendivto all of,the living untt's. Committee''Member `'Rooker noted that the proposed architectural design was,very sophisticated, but he questioned its use in the desert area and at IPGA West. He explained that the present architectural styles in the PGA West Community consist of Traditional Mediterranean with~,stucco !build -outs, trims and wood, or a sophisticated horizontal contemporary style. He expressed his concern about introducing the proposed architectural style with the flat -top roofs which are normally associated with economical construction and building, as well as the material pallet, as he found them to be inappropriate for PGA West. He outlined a few of the major differences between the existing and the proposed styles in color and architecture. Committee Member Thorns noted he disagreed with the comments made by Committee Member Rooker regarding the proposed architectural style. He said he found the existing architectural styles at P:\Reports - ALRC\2009\10-07-09\ALRC_Draft MIN_8-5-09.doc S2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 PGA West to be boring; as everything looked the same. He commented that the introduction of a different architectural style in that community would offer a welcome variety, especially considering that the project was not very big. Committee Member Thorns said he did not find it necessary to have additional pools as suggested by Committee Member Rooker. Committee Member Thoms explained that if additional pools were incorporated into the project, the cost for their maintenance would result in higher homeowner dues. He also reiterate&his earlier comments regarding the proposed fountain. He strongly„encouraged the applicant to try to introduce some variety in the setbacks of the homes. Planning Manager Sawyer asked ,if th'e applicafit's representatives would like to respond to the any "ofthe comr�itnts made by the Committee. Mr. Ken Hoeppner, Vice President for.Pyramid Project''Management, LLC., One Post Office Square, Suite,'# 300, Boston, MA, introduced himself. He said the .,proposed water feature could definitely be replaced with a different architectural feature: He noted the suggested changes regarding the setb4ftyand the driveways could be addressed and adjusted. He discussed thee, prcts4and-cons of having one big pool versus many -tittle pools in 4,elation to cost, function, maintenance and use, anI "no their researc#% was supportive of the one big -size -pool Mr_ Hoeppnerexptained the reasons this architectural style was chosen Was bop,�u e-the projects= goal was to create a vibrant and active community„and the, applicant wanted to complement it by bringing in some perQ' G' lity, color and light with the architecture. Mr. Forrest Haag, Landscape Architect for Forrest K. Haag, ASLA, Inc., 11�54,,N. Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, CA, introduced himself and sa►d4i'a had=teen working on PGA West since its acquisition in the early 80's, Yafe' 70's. He gave a brief overview of the architectural background of PGA West and explained the intent of the architect and how it would tie in with the existing project. He mentioned a few possible issues that might arise with changing the setbacks on a few of the units, depending on the location. Mr. Hoeppner added that in order for the project to be competitive in the market place, the applicant had to keep in mind that cost associated with certain customizations, such as the variations in the setbacks, P:\Rcports - ALRC\2009\10-07-09\ALRC_Draft MIN_8-5-09.doc 333 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 might outweigh the benefit of it. He elaborated that this was a duplex - type project and customization was not an established characteristic. Committee Member Thorns questioned Mr. Haag's comment regarding possible issues and/or inability to adjust the setbacks on certain lots. He explained his recommendation was to make the adjustments only a few feet because even a one -foot adjustment would make a difference. He noted he was pleased to hear that the applicant was willing to consider the use of a different type of focal feature in lieu of the proposed water fountain. Michael Olson, AIA, Principal for Z Boulder, CO, introduced himself challenges involved in trying to creats already established, architectural env applicant's request was and hoWl"the He elaborated on the numerous, ty considered, such as the use of stone feel and how it grounded the clubhodi beautiful Santa Rosa mountains, etc. darker color palette for the materials the surrounding natural envirbijhmeot, between the already existing andttiej Desigri';Group, 1877 Broadway, ind �'talke&',about some of the a=project wj hin an existing, and ironment. He° explained what the design -team hoped to;achieve it. pes of materials``the' team had ,to create a strongdridoor/outdoor ;,e to the site and tied it in with the He, said the team had chosen a used to better blend them in with He talked about the difference ggposed architectural styles. Committee"Member Thorns commented on the choice of darker colors as he thought they might be' oo dark and heavy in comparison to the rest of tWproject. He indicated1hat shifting the setbacks might help lighten the'darkercolors a bitfhrough the movement of the homes as we11 es,cetting'avtray from the monotonous feel of the tract homes. There beirtgno further discussion, Committee Member Thorns moved to adopt Mirtute Motion 2009-007, recommending approval of Site Develop mentPermit 2008-907, with the following recommendations: 1) Replace;. -the proposed water ard4iteotural focal feature. fountain with a different type of 2) Adid the property setbacks of the homes to create some movement. 3) Use a more creative design for the driveways. Planning Manager Sawyer noted the above motion did not pass due to the lack of a second. Committee Member Rooker moved to adopt Minute Motion 2009-007, not recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2008-907, due P:\Reports - ALRC\2009\10-07-09\ALRC_Draft MIN_8-5-09.doc 34 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 to architectural inconsistency of the proposed design with the existing project. Planning Manager Sawyer noted the above motion did not pass due to the lack of a second. There being no other motions, Planning Manager Sawyer said the project would be scheduled for the next regular Planning Commission Meeting. He noted the minutes from this meeting would be included and would reflect the discussions and concerns of the Committee for the Planning Commission's consideration. B. Site Development Permit 2009-911 a, request submitted by Pyramid Project Management, LLC. for consideration of, architectural and landscaping plans for the expansion, of the PGA, West Private Clubhouse located at PGA West; west Side of PGA West Boulevard, south of Avenue 54. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented staff report, a copy of which is on file in Committee Member Thorns said;,hi concerns with the proposed parks elevationsca nizthe site plan. The aisles inA 46aWtqq lots. He found information contained in the Manning Department. liked the project, didn't have any j --an ' d' that there were a lot of sly cmment he had was on the Iem to be too long and suggested iem a rate. leAnllber Rooker said he did not have any concerns the 1 �a���s�king or the'proposed water feature, he found it to be e.and�' Ithin scale for the project. Committee`MemberlRooker said he had major concerns regarding the entry way courtyard. He said he was disappointed with the fact that it noAonger had a porte cochere entry way, which was a very elegant element, as well as providing much needed shade in the extreme dese&heat. He referenced page F-2 from the site plan and noted it did not indicate any plants for the courtyard. Mr. Haag said what was envisioned was container planting as it would sit higher in relation to the cars and would provide more visual impact and would be less likely to get run over. Committee Member Rooker said the proposed architectural design was extremely complicated in comparison to the existing style which was extremely simple, and he did not find it complimentary. He addressed P:\Reports - ALRC\2009\10-07-09\ALRC_Draft MIN_8-5-09.doe 5 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 different architectural features on the proposed buildings and explained why they were inconsistent and not complimentary to the existing project. Michael Olson, AIA, Principal for Z Design Group, 1877 Broadway, Boulder, CO, introduced himself and explained the reasons that guided them in deciding on the design, materials and color palette. Mr. Ken Hoeppner, Vice President for Pyramid Project Management, LLC., One Post Office Square, Suite #300; Boston, MA, provided additional detail regarding the applicant's request and the approach the team took to fulfill that request. Committee Member Thoms said he 'did not :see a problem with introducing a different type of architectural style in ;PGA West. He strongly recommended the Landscape Architect keep:,the center area, which was addressed by the applicant asIhe courtyard;,: ,as simple as possible. He suggested the use of -a large scale specimen with contours which could become a unique feature identified with the clubhouse.:_ General discussion followed' --regarding different landscaping alternatives for the courtyard area,:--,,. There being no,further discussion, Committee Member Thorns moved to adopt: Minute' ;Motion 2009-007, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2008-911, with the recommendation to simplify the courtyard lariiiscaping. , Plan nmg4ManagertiSawyer noted the above motion did not pass due to the lack of,a'second.>: Committee Members Rooker moved to adopt Minute Motion 2009-007, riot ecommetnding approval of Site Development Permit 2008-911, due to architectural inconsistency of the proposed design with the existing Planning Manager Sawyer noted the above motion did not pass due to the lack of a second. There being no other motions, Planning Manager Sawyer said the project would be scheduled for the next regular Planning Commission Meeting. He noted the minutes from this meeting would be included and would reflect the discussions and concerns of the Committee for the Planning Commission's consideration. P:\Reports - ALRC\2009\10-07-09\ALRC_Draft MIN_8-5-09.doc 4 6 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes August 5, 2009 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None. Vill. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker/Thoms to adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on' September 2, 2009. This meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m. on August 5, 20g9 `;;'-. Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA Secretary . k P:\Reports - ALRC\2009\10-07-09WLRC_Draft MIN_8-5-09.doc 737 10 / I MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:imothy Jonasson ublic Works Director/City Engineer DATE: September21, 2009 RE: Requested Changes to the Recommended Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 36139 and Site Development Permits (SDPs) 2008- 907 and 2009-911, Pyramid Project Management, LLC. Staff spoke with a representative of the developer team for the above mentioned project and recommends the following change to the Recommended Conditions of Approval for the above mentioned Tract Map and SDPs after publication of the Planning Commission Agenda Report. The Public Works Department recommends the following changes: 1. Delete the following paragraph from Condition 44 of Tract Map 36139, Condition 33 of SDP 09-911 and Condition 36 of SDP 08-907: "Said off -site improvements shall include obligations of the PGA West Development not performed by KSL Development Corporation or any of its entities, as deemed necessary by the City of La Quinta." T:\STAFFUoms...\Memos 2009\Memo to Commission - PGA West Villas DOC