The URL can be used to link to this page

PP 1989-421r CITY OF LA QUIN, PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 78 -105 CALLE ESTADO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 RESIDENTIAL and Case No.: 1- 4%I Date Received: $— 11-49'q COMMERCIAL FEE J g3G -- PLOT PLAN APPLICATION Sez- sr 1 .al E a►k."2 - -A z �4.8q -(4t In order to process your application in a timely manner, please complete and sign this form. The information which is required to be shown on the plans and submitted with the application is stated on the back of this form. Failure to provide the required information is justification for rejection of the application. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NON- REFUNDABLE FILING FEE OF $ 835.00 AND 25 COPIES OF THE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE PLOT PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS. Name of Applicant Landmark Land.:Co. of CA. Phone (619)564 -4500 Mailing Address 78 -150 Calle Tampico La Quinta CA 92253 Street City Zip Code Legal Owner Landmark Land Co. of Calif., Inc:. Address Same as above Proposed Use Hotel Rooms The net and gross square footage for each propoTe use apd building. 43.065 square feet -- guest rooms not inc u ing mec anical, 8tairs,patios,and balconies. The square footage allocated for sidewalks /walk ways, ' arling,. la�sF�in ind bu l . Parkin 600 n �sca in g an sca pe Location of Property (Address if known) 49 -499 Eisenhower Dr. La Quinta,;.sCA 92253 Assessor's Parcel Number 631- 380 -067 Legal Description of Property (give exact legal description as recorded in the office of the County Recorder) -- (may be attached) See attached title report 005i82 10 8316 08 -11 -89 i0 JLV 835.00 Signature of Applicant Date 8 Signature of Owner Date Stephen Caplinger Vice President of Landmark Land Co. of Calif. Inc. 9.182. �., - i Applications. Resident_ A and commercial plot plan applications shall be submitted to the planning,, and development department and provide the following in formation and exhibits: A. Complete application form; B. One copy of the preliminary title report or deed of O trust to the subject property; ` S. Sets of the site development plans (number as re- quired by the planning and development department), each set to incorporate the following: O 1. Dimensioned floor plan(s) relating to all build- ing layout aspects, showing applicable sales /display, office area, bedrooms, kitchens, hallways, bath /restrooms, etc., for the particular use under review, 0 2. Four -point elevations of any and all buildings proposed on the site, delineating any outstanding architec- tural feature(s), relationships to any existing structures and /or other adjacent properties, and listing proposed building materials, finishes, colors, etc., O 3. A detailed site plan delineating all siting aspects of the development (i..e., setbacks, topography, fencing locaitons, locations provided for ground- mounted mechanical and heating /air conditioning systems, parking, accessways, adjacent streets, utilities, drainage, and any proposed signage. O Note: In some instances, a preliminary grading plan may be required if it is determined to be necessary due to topographic considerations and other related site factors. O4. A complete site landscaping plan, showing a listing of quantities, species, location and plant sizes to be incorporated into the final landscaping of the project. The final approved landscape plan must be stamped "approved" by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office O prior to the issuance of a building permit. D. Two sets of all plans reduced to eight and one -half inches by eleven inches, and submitted on acetate or other similar format suitable for presentation. O E. One eight -inch by thirteen -inch color, material and finish sample board for the building's exterior areas, in- cluding, but not limited to, roof covering, facia boards, tile inlays, stucco finish, wood or other plant -on mater- ials, etc. Colors and materials shall be keyed on at least one set of architectural elevations. O F. One colored elevation of all sides of the build- ings, oriented to public view, in accordance with the mater- ials sample board submitted. A colored swatch (band of color on the drawings) may be substituted for a complete O colored drawing. G. If the application requires a public hearing: A.li-st of the names and addresses of all owners of real :property located within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property to be considered, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and any update issued by the City Assessor. The list must -be certified by a title company, architect, engineer, or surveyor. I. II. (3) - � S� �� -� aid- ►�- CITY OF IA QUIRPA PP 4c''' Fyopo�s ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 15A I BACKGR04ND 1. Name of Proponent: I�1 A�Iymxrll laoa 40 2. Address a,�'d Phone of Proponent: F0 j'6- y, loco LQ /nNumber 3. Date of .Checklist: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 4:4M O� S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: 414a5w ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ �( d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? x 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ X b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? _ �( b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? — �( C. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? _ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any iC water body? _ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (3) (4) Yes Maybe No h. Substantial reduction in the amount of ' water otherwise available for public water supplies? 7` is Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? x c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? k c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? x 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ x 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration.of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? _ b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk o an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (4) c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d.} Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruct n of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? 20. Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan 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? (5) Yes Maybe No X x - — Y�. VAJZ — _. x — X. V� X 0 ` � r Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, en- vironmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: _ I find 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. _ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: Signature �r�1AI-4 kxt 1d evil V1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 89 -129 A RESOLUTION OF THE -CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E, REVISED CASE SP 121 -E, AMENDMENT NO. 2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 82 -54, on October 5, 1982, and; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did, on the 21st day of November, 1989, hold a duly- noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow additional hotel units, more particularly described as follows: , A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 36 T5S, R6E, SBBM, AND; WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82 -213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta at a duly- noticed continued public hearing on October 24, 1989, did adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -064, recommending approval of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amendment #2; 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: 1. That Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amended No. 2, as conditionally' approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. BJ /RESOCC.023 - 1 - 6 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Negative Declaration should be filed; 3. That it does hereby approve the above - described Amendment request for 77 rooms for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. 4. That this Specific Plan shall comply with the following condition: "Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf -cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer." J PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Bosworth, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Bohnenberger ABSTAIN: None JOHN PENH, V4ayo City of La Quin V , California ATT S AUNDRA L. JUHOL ity Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City -Attorney City of La Quinta, California BJ /RESOCC.023 - 2 - NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Secretary for Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 or FROM: (Public Agency) CITY OF LA QUINTA P. 0. Box 1504 3.z Quint a,- 1'A�92253 XX County Clerk County of RiVPrgidp SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 22108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. LA QUINTA HOTEL (77 -room expansion) Project Title N/A State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Telephone Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Obregon Drive south of Avenida Fernando Project Location 77 -room expansion to existing hotel Project Description This is to advise that the CITY OF LA QUINTA (Lead Agency or Responsible Agency) has approved the above described project and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project will, XX will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. X_ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: La niiinta M ty 14nl 1 , U1 Qlaaltag & To *o1 o nt Department 78 -099 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California 3. Mitigation measures -XL were, were not, made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations _ was, was not, adopted for this projec Date Received for Filing Signature Principal Planner Title CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 140. 89 -129 A RESOLUTION OF THE-CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E, REVISED CASE SP 121 -E, AMENDMENT NO. 2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 82 -54, on October 5, 1982, and; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did, on the 21st day of November, 1989, hold a duly- noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow additional hotel units, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 36 T5S, R6E, SBBM, AND; WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82 -213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta at a duly- noticed continued public hearing on October 24, 1989, did adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -064, recommending approval of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amendment #2; 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: 1. That Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amended No. 2, as conditionally' approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. BJ /RESOCC.023 - 1 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Negative Declaration should be filed; 3. That it does hereby approve the above - described Amendment request for 77 rooms for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. 4. That this Specific Plan shall comply with the following condition: "Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer." PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Bosworth, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Bohnenberger ABSTAIN: None JOHN PENH, LKayo City of La Quin ATT S AUNDRA L. JUHOL ity Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: (: DAWN HONEYWELL, City -Attorney City of La Quinta, California BJ /RESOCC.023 - 2 - , California CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY NOVEMBER 21, 1989 GENERAL: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" for 77 hotel rooms as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89 -421, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances. from the above- mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. _ 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 and Environmental Assessment 89 -141, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits /final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to o ♦ nO1rr nt n - 1 13. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system. plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/ inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. _ A statement that the building(s) will be automatically tire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 16. Install a supervised waterf low alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform - Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire - lanes. _ 22. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 3 - assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by the Applicant /Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access /egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 12. A combination of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2 -1/2 ") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. - - ,-. ......... A, n - I - approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 -feet, 6- inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform, to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. �1 Coachella Valley water District:` 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella valley water District for review. This review is "- for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: 26. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with City standards and requirements. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and /or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. o T / (InurncIrr. n1 0 - d - Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps /signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and ,CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. 28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces per'' City requirements shall be provided in conjunction with proposed construction. 29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - K - DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: REQUEST: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 1990 PLOT PLAN 89 -421 BI- 1 F1 E op V LANDMARK LAND COMPANY (LA QUINTA HOTEL) APPROVAL OF A THREE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A PLOT PLAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77 HOTEL UNITS. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE MAZATLAN ON THE LA QUINTA HOTEL SITE. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS GRANTED FOR THE ORIGINAL PLOT PLAN WHICH PERMITS THE 77 ROOM EXPANSION. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE ORIGINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS APPROVED HAVE NOT CHANGED. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NEEDED. BACKGROUND: This Plot Plan was originally approved by the Planning Commission on October 24, 1990. At the same hearing, Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised, which pertains to this site was also recommended for approval. The City Council at their meeting of November 21, 1990, accepted the Planning Commission report of action on the Plot Plan. Furthermore, they approved Specific Plan 131 -E, Revised, subject to conditions Attached is the original Planning Commission report which describes the proposed hotel expansion. REQUESTED EXTENSION: The Applicants are requesting the Plot Plan be extended for three years. The Applicant has indicated due to a number of considerations, including financing, plan preparation that amount of time is needed. ANALYSIS: 1. The hotel expansion per se is acceptable to Staff. STAFFRPT. 030 1 � l � i .� i ��,�u � .. 2. The main issue was, and continues to pertain to, the relocation of the Avenida Fernando gate and addition of the Avenida Obregon gate. It has been determined that the current Hotel traffic circulation necessitated this condition as a means of mitigation. A condition is recommended which will assure that this current traffic concern is mitigated. This condition currently is required within Specific Plan 121 -E, Revision. 3. The gates have been started with the development of TT 25237 (La Quinta Joint Venture) . 4. The Conditions of Approval are acceptable with the exception of the last sentence of #9, which should be modified as follows (change underlines) : "Gates to be approved by the City Engineer and be operational within six months of the granting of this time extension". This Amendment is to insure the gates are completed if not done with Tentative Tract 25237. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends by adoption of Minute Motion 90- approval of a three year extension of time for Plot Plan 89 -421, subject to the original conditions and #9 as modified above. Attachments: 1. Letter of request 2. Vicinity Map 3. Conditions of Approval 4. Excerpts from Planning Commission Staff report dated October 10, 1990 5. Plans STAFFRPT. 030 2 October 3, 1990 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning 3 Development Director CITY OF LA QUINTA 78 105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92 53 KEC1D CITY OF LA t UINTA PUNNIMP 8 DEVROPUM DEPT. RE: Plot Plan #89421 a La uinta Hotel 77 -Room Expansion Files #201.11 103 } 109 } J_2S } Dear Mr. Herman: On behalf of Landmark Land Company, I would like to request a three -year extension of the approval for Plot Plan #89 -421. The current expiration date is November 21, 1990. Please advise me as to the necessary procedures needed to implement this request. Tank you, in advance, for your assistance in this matter. Regards, LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. Vice Preside Design J ri ss cc: Gary I erney John Ghanian - - Ernie Vossler Joe Walser Joe Woodard Forrest Hoog Vice President Design & Planning LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Land Planning, Engineering, Design & Construction 78 -150 Calle Tampico, P.O. Box 1000, La 9ulnta, California 92253 (619) 564 -4500 FAX (619) 564 -8052 .r ..+F y,Y_ Wit %�!•_�....:.:�_ .:';: �..e.l.: ",.:E T -.i'•: .. - - _ _ - ..R . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY NOVEMBER 21, 1989 GENERAL: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" for 77 hotel rooms as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89 -411, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: 0 0 0 0 0 City Fire Marshal City of La Quinta Public works Department Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions Coachella Valley water District Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above - mentioned -agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building - permits. 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 and Environmental Assessment 89 -141, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits /final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to 13. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of thg water system plans to the Fire Department for review, Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, locatior and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flo& requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by & registered civil engineer and the local water company witx the following certification: "I certify that the desigr of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/ inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. _ A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 26. Install a supervised waterflow alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers per KFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AJOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform) Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative) Code. 21. Certain _ designated _. areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 22. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by the Applicant /Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access /egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west) of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which trust be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system -is ---capable —of ___deliverin9- -2500- �-gM fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide these. 12. A combination 4" X 2 -1/2 ") wi more than 165 measured along required fire two hydrants in of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 11 be located not less than 25 feet or feet from any portion of the building(s) as approved vehicular travelways. The flow -shall be available from any adjacent the system. approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 -feet, 6- inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform. to . the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Coachella Valley Water District: 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella valley water District for review. This review is"- for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: 26. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with City standards and requirements. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading- of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and /or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps /signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and ,CVwD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. 28. A minimum of 44 new parkin spaces aces p per' City requirements shall be provided in conjuncti& with proposed construction. 29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. n 1 /I- ^%,r%nn't rr n.1 n r.� i' a, STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989 ITEM: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E (AMENDMENT #2) PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (LA QUINTA HOTEL) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77 HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO -STORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE WHERE THE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT PRESENTLY EXISTS ON 1.7+ ACRES. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE MAZATLAN ON THE LA QUINTA HOTEL SITE. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) EXISTING ZONING: R -3* (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, 1,200 SQ. FT. MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE REQUIRED). ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89 -141 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT. ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED BY REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT AND IMPOSITION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. BACKGROUND: The original Specific Plan No. 121 -E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) was approved by River side .County in_197.5. The.. Plan. -authorized construction of 637 condominiums, 496 hotel rooms, golf course with clubhouse, and service facilities. The Plan was subsequently amended in 1982. The City Council authorized the addition of 279 condominiums and 146 hotel rooms (Council Resolution No. 82 -54 - Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised). The revised Specific Plan was approved to increase project acreage and to add additional dwelling units and hotel rooms. In December, 1987, Plot Plan No. 87 -387 was approved by the City expanding the hotel by 336 rooms to 609 units of which 603 rooms were constructed. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 1 - In September, 1988, Plot Plan No. 88 -393 and Specific Plan 121 -E (Amendment #1) was granted which permitted a new maintenance facility and overflow employee parking lot just south of the site presently under consideration. In May, 1989, Plot Plan No. 89 -412 was approved expanding the hotel by 38 rooms to a total of 641 rooms. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is proposing to eliminate the championship tennis court, a small Tennis Club building, and several adjacent parking spaces and replace them with a 43,065 square foot two- story, 77 -room hotel addition. Additionally, a small mechanical room addition is proposed to be added to the adjacent maintenance building to the south and several tennis courts to the west will need to be relocated to the west to accommodate the new hotel units. Adjacent land uses are as follows: North: Tennis Club South: Maintenance Facility East: Hotel Units (detached) West: Tennis Courts & Vacant Land The hotel structure would be rectangular in shape with a large central courtyard reminiscent of a Spanish hacienda. The courtyard would have a pool, spa and sunning area. The typical guest room would be 495 square feet with one 2 -room suite with 990 square feet. All units would have a balcony or patio. Materials for the Spanish style building would match the 1989 -90 hotel expansion. 44 new parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the proposed construction. ANALYSIS: 1. The building would replace a championship tennis court that is no longer needed since major tournaments are not held there any longer. 2. The architecture and materials would, be compatible with adjacent existing buildings. 3. The recently approved maintenance building and overflow parking area have been completed. A weekday morning inspection of the parking lot found it to be 78 -85 percent full. It appeared to be used by employees and /or construction workers. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 2 - 4. Over the past there has been problems due to hotel employees and to an extent guests driving through the condominium area to the south. The proposed expansion may increase the concerns. This can be greatly alleviated by restricting access to the condominium area by installation of an "emergency only" vehicular gate across Avenida Obregon at or near the border between the hotel and condominium area. Additionally, relocation of the existing Avenida Fernando gate arm to the area west of Avenida Obregon will facilitate access for hotel guests and employees while maintaining security for the residential areas west of Avenida Obregon. A condition requiring this has been drafted to achieve this. 5. The 44 new spaces are proposed in front of the new hotel rooms on both sides of Avenida Obregon. This will provide convenient parking for most of the new rooms. The new 154 space lot and other nearby lots could provide additional parking. 6. Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141 has been prepared in conjunction with this request. No significant affects will be created that cannot be mitigated through the recommended conditions of approval. 7. The proposed plans indicate a small landscape strip between the new parking spaces on the west side of Avenida Obregon and the patio walls of the proposed building. Staff feels this landscape strip should be increased by 10 -feet as required for front yards in the R -3 Zone. This will decrease the mass of the building, provide a more attractive streetscape, and increase distance between patios and parked cars. FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the amended Specific Plan No. 121 -E can be supported and found in the attached Resolution. The findings necessary to approve Plot Plan No. 89 -421 are as follows: 1. The proposed hotel units are consistent with revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposal is consistent with the standards of the R -3 Zone and Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, as conditioned. 3. Environmental impacts from the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment provided traffic impacts as noted are mitigated through new and relocated gate locations. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 3 - RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment #2, subject to approval of Plot Plan No. 89 -421. 2. By minute motion, approve Plot Plan No. 89 -421, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Letter from Applicant dated September 6, 1989. 3. Comments from various City Departments and other agencies. 4. Initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141. 5. Plans and Exhibits for SP 121 -E (Amendment #2) & PP 189 -421. 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending SP #121 -E (Amendment #2). 7. Recommended conditions of approval for PP #89 -421. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 4 - LA OVINTA HOTEL EXPANSION - 1990 PLOt PIMI/P uA&oRr L osc4t PUN e � - G J CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 NOVEMBER 2% rM 1: I A46 * Added November 27, 1990 by Planning Commisison (Time Extension) + Amended by Planning Commission on November 27, 1990 by Minute Motion 90 -046. GENERAL: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" for 77 hotel rooms as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89 -421, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal Code.* 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above - mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, as amended to date, shall be complied with._ 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 1 - f Conditions c- Approval- Adopted - PP #89 .21 November 21, 1989 those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 and Environmental Assessment 89 -141, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits /final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by the Applicant /Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street,` improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm), on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access /egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. +9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational within six months of granting of this extension. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 2 - Conditions c,__ Approval- Adopted - PP #89 .21 November 21, 1989 1 12. A combination of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2 -1/2 ") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. 13. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 16. Install a supervised waterflow alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 3 - r Conditions u. Approval- Adopted - PP #89 _21 November 21, 1989 22. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure., All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 -feet, 6- inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Coachella Vallev Water District: 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: 26. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with City standards and requirements. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 4 - L ' Conditions 41 Approval- Adopted - PP #89 _21 November 21, 1989 B. Location and design detail of any proposed and /or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A ") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps /signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. 28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces per City requirements shall be provided in conjunction with proposed construction. 29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. *30. Gates to be approved by the City Engineer and be operational within six months of the granting of this time extension. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 5 - LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1989 Regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at the hour of 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Pena, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Council Members Bosworth, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena ABSENT: Council Member Bohnenberger MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff /Bosworth to excuse Council Member Bohnenberger. Motion carried unanimously. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Mr. Kiedrowski asked that a couple of items be added to the agenda that came up after the posting of the agenda: a. Resolution accepting guest badges to the Skins Game. b. Consideration of Advertising in the Bob Hope Classic Program. He also asked that No. 3 of the Business Session agenda be removed as it isn't complete at this time. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff / Rushworth, that consideration of advertising be added to the Business Session agenda and adoption of the Resolution accepting the badges to the Skins Game be added to the Consent Calendar as the need to take action arose after the posting of the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 89 -129. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Pena advised that Councilman Bohnenberger is in Northern California helping the people who were affected by the earthquake, in restoring water to their community in his capacity as Engineer for the Coachella Valley Water District. Mrs. Juhola announced that the City's Open House is scheduled for December 14th from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. and the public is invited. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIFIC PLAN 121-El- AMENDMENT NO. 2 AND PLOT PLAN 89 -421 TO ALLOW' ELIMINATION OF TENNIS COURTS AND SMALL STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF 77 ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO -STORY STRUCTURE AT LA QUINTA HOTEL - APPLICATION BY LANDMARK LAND CO. Mr. Herman, Planning Director, presented staff's report and began by giving a brief history of this Specific Plan. He presented the drawings of the proposed hotel complex and described the changes being requested in this application for 77 hotel units. The Planning Commission considered the request on x' City Council Min,--a. Page 2 November 21, 1989 October 10th and October 24th. On October 10th, the matter was continued with the applicant being asked to meet with the surrounding residents in order to resolve their differences. On October 24th, they determined that the 77 rooms should be approved and added a condition that deals with circulation issues. The condition would place an emergency gate at the southerly end of Obregon with a cart /pedestrian access only and that the existing gate at Avenida Fernando be relocated to the west of Obregon. This would prevent the hotel guests utilizing the 77 hotel rooms to enter into the Santa Rosa Cove entrance. FORREST HAAG, Vice President of Design and Planning for Landmark Land Co. addressed the Council and explained the architectural design of the proposed buildings advising that their plans will broaden their market in this competitive desert. One of the issues was the number of tennis courts in the ultimate build -out. Presently, there are 23 courts and one stadium court. The stadium court will be removed. There will be 22 added courts and 44 additional parking spaces in front of the new hotel rooms. The problem of employee parking has brought on the concern about traffic on Obregon and through the Santa Rosa Cove gate and the exit gate to the north of the property. He noted that the number of parking spaces provided exceed the City's requirement by 33 spaces. He felt that the solution to the concern of the residents, is for hotel management to let the employees know that they are not to park to the south of the 77 room expansion. This will eliminate the use of the Santa Rosa Cove Gate and Avenida Fernando Gate. He referred to Condition No. 9 of the Plot Plan and suggested that instead of it, that the hotel advise the employees of proper parking and to position the guard gate, manned, on Avenida Fernando with some sort of participation being worked out. This would solve the problem without a massive internal problem in the flow of hotel guests as well as membership at Santa Rosa Cove. In response -to Councilwoman Bosworth, Mr. Haag advised that the parking is 300' from the clubhouse center court. Council Member Sniff questioned why only the minimum number of parking spaces are being provided and why only 44 spaces for 77 hotel rooms. Mr. Haag responded that they will be exceeding the parking requirements by 33 spaces. He then reviewed the philosophy behind parking requirements and how there are peaks and valleys in hotel parking. Mayor Pena questioned how they justify the number of tennis courts and asked if some can be replaced with parking. Mr. Haag advised that tennis courts are like parking spaces, there are times when all the courts are being used and times when only a few are being used. In further response to the Mayor, Mr. Haag advised that they have not explored the use of mass transit for their employees and have not discussed double -deck parking. City Council Min4 -,6- Page 3 November 21, 1989 The Mayor declared the public hearing OPEN. HERB LIEBERMAN, 77 -210 Avenida Fernando, felt the character of the area has changed and this proposed amendment is going to directly affect the neighborhood. There's violations of speeding and failure to stop at stop signs plus the noise coming from hotel employees using the Santa Rosa Cove gate and Mazatlan. He suggested that they relocate and man the Fernando Gate to just beyond Obregon with expenses shared by the hotel and homeowners; 2) restriction of vehicular traffic on Obregon terminating at the end of the hotel property and through traffic being allow only for emergency vehicles, golf carts, bicycles and hotel service carts only; 3) restriction of hotel employees ingress and egress to the use of Fernando and to Obregon and the employee parking lot only. Hotel employees should not have access to the private roads within Santa Rosa Cove; 4) that the Council mandate renegotiation of the contract between the hotel and the homeowners with regard to future security gates expenses as well as maintenance of roads used by hotel guests, employees and vendors. DALE WALTERS, resident of Santa Rosa Cove, advised that they are not here to oppose the hotel expansion, but rather support the Planning Commission recommendations regarding Condition No. 9, which will allow the hotel guests and employees free access to any area in the hotel and will prohibited people from using their "front door ". JUDY BLUM, 76 -941 Mazatlan, advised that they are not here to be antagonistic, but rather to protect their property. She advised that the employees are having to use security gates which are intended for the residents. However, Landmark does have ingress and egress rights, but these rights were intended for the benefit of golf club members,.. tennis club members, staff and hotel guests wishing to use the facilities. When this right was agreed upon the hotel was much smaller. By turning La Casa into a major entertainment facility, Landmark turned an extremely narrow street into a fairly major traffic throughway. The Planning Commission proposed a compromise with Condition No. 9, which the homeowners support. However, they are concerned about the location on this narrow street of a large hotel building designed to accommodate large groups. The General Plan Land Use Plan for this 1.7 acre site states medium density residential 4 -8 dwellings per acre and the proposed amendment would increase the density to 44 units per acre. She felt that such a radical change in density is not appropriate on this site. RON PATTON, 49 -986 Obregon, advised that he lives near the corner of Obregon and Mazatlan. He presented pictures he's taken showing the traffic flow which starts about 5:30 A.M. and ends about 7:30 P.M.. He also noted that the hotel used the Santa Rosa Cove entrance on halloween for their haunted house. He believed that 95% of the traffic is employees and service people. He urged Council's acceptance of the Planning Commission's recommendations. City Council Minu -ab' Page 4 November 21, 1989 ELLIE DOWD, 50 -015 Rosarita, presented brochures that were given to her prior to her purchase of property, advising that the development would have limited access. She is a single lady who wants her security. There is no way to know who is entering the Cove - whether they are employees, service people or people who shouldn't be there. She described the traffic circulation and urged the Council to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission. JAMES LLOYD, 77 -313 Mazatlan, advised that he works out of town, so his wife is here alone during the week, and he wished to be assured of her security. He commented on the limited stacking provided at the Santa Rosa Cove gate on Eisenhower and believed that there is going to be an accident there because of the number of people using that gate. He urged the Council to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission. MR. WALTERS submitted petitions signed by the 325 homeowners expressing support of the Planning Commission decision. There being no one else wishing to speak, the hearing was CLOSED. Mayor Pena asked who controls the gate on Mazatlan and Mr. Haag advised that it is controlled by Santa Rosa Cove in a joint contract that has an expiration date of 12/15/91, at which point eliminates Landmarks participation obligation in it. Mayor Pena asked how the employees are getting through the gate and Mr. Haag advised that they typically have a sticker on their car. Mayor Pena questioned why the objection to a gate at the end of Obregon and Mr. Haag advised that it's in the wrong place for the flow of traffic that occurs internally to the project. Discussion then-ensued regarding traffic circulation with the proposed gates. Council Member Sniff felt that these problems should have been worked out by management as a good neighbor responsibility and that recommendations of the Planning Commission are not perfect, but are livable. Council Member Rushworth agreed stating that Landmark has not fulfilled their obligation to the people in Santa Rosa Cove according to their brochures where the sales people don't seem to be aligned with management. He didn't see it as a question as to who's driving through the gate, but how many, and if they're all going in and out at the same time, it's not a good situation. He fully supported the Planning Commission decision. Councilwoman Bosworth found many problems with this proposal and hoped that the City can assist in working them out. She personally felt that the density is far too great. Landmark has done a good job with all they've done, but this particular building is not in keeping with the rest of the hotel. She wished to send it back to staff to come up with a different architectural plan that wouldn't block views and be more City Council Min " -db Page 5 l November 21, 1989 See Page 10 for clarifica- tion Mayor Pena didn't see that as the real issue, but rather that of traffic. He believed that the architectural style will be compatible with the two story units already there. The problem is traffic, access and circulation. If the Council supports the decision of the Planning Commission and Landmark decides not to build the additional units, then the problem will still exist. He questioned whether conditions could be imposed retroactively to establish some parameters that the homeowners could live with. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that once the Council approves the amendment to the Specific Plan, they have to abide by all the conditions in the plan whether or not they go ahead and build the particular 77 units. Mr. Haag advised that if Council is leaning towards accepting the Planning Commission's decision, that he would like to request a continuance so they can study the issue more clearly and present a more reasonable solution, as they can't live with the blocked Obregon. Mayor Pena stated that he couldn't support a continuance unless they set up a committee including homeowners and representatives from the City. Council concurred on proceeding with the issue at this time. Mr. Kiedrowski suggested that if the Council wishes to address the entrance of employees, that a condition could be imposed stating that the applicant /developer require hotel guests to enter from Avenida Fernando gate. Another concern is to put another condition on the project that says that the traffic circulation as recommended by the Planning Commission be further studied or analyzed at a date certain to see if it's working and if it isn't, then it goes back to the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Bosworth stated that if the people think that the gates are the answer to the concerns, then the Council should proceed. MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff /Rushworth that RESOLUTION NO. 89 -129 BE ADOPTED - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E, REVISED - CASE SP 121 -E, AMENDMENT NO. 2 - LANDMARK LAND CO. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bosworth, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Council Member Bohnenberger City Council Min,--c.. ag 1"O Mrs. Juhola asked for clarification regarding Public Hearing Item No. 1. She noted that approved the amendment to Specific Plan 121 -E asking for a minute motion accepting the Commission action on Plot Plan No. 89 -421. November 21, 1989 the action taken on the resolution adopted, and staff was also report of the Planning Council concurred that the intent of the motion was to include acceptance of the Planning Commission's action on Plot Plan No. 89 -421. PUBLIC COMMENT- None Council adjourned to closed session at 9:50 P.M. pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9 (c) to discuss litigation - in particular: City of Indio /Indio Case No. 57496 and to discuss personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and potential property acquisition pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. Council reconvened to regular session at 10:42 P.M. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Bosworth /Sniff that to clarify the motion approving Specific Plan 121 -E and accepting the Planning Commission's action on Plot Plan No. 89 -421 that the intent was to provide that Condition No. 9 of Plot Plan 89 -421 shall also be included and made a part of the approval of Specific Plan 121 -E and therefore, included in Resolution No. 89 -129. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 89 -135. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. upon, motion by Mayor Pena, seconded by Council Member Rushworth and carried unanimously. Respectfully submi ed, �UNDRA L. JUHOLCity Clerk City of La Quinta, California �C Vm 10Ut-d?-qs 0 i, ` 4- 1 11 I impact. Cannot agree with Resolution Findings and 8. Also noted that she wants a Study Session with the City Council on the entire GA West Specific Plan. Chairfan Walling: ABSENT. motion was carried as a denial of the est by a vote of 3 -1 -1; 3 for, 1 against, B. Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment No. 2, and Plot Plan 89 -041; a request by Landmark Land Company for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to allow elimination of a tennis court and construction of additional hotel units; and Plot Plan approval to allow construction of 77 of the 80 requested hotel units in a two -story structure on the site where a championship tennis court presently exists, in the R -3 zone on 1.7+ acres; on the west side of Avenida Obregon, approximately midway between Avenida Fernando and Calle Mazatlan (championship tennis court site). 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Moran reopened the Public Hearing. Forrest Haag and Alejandro Martinez, representing the Applicant, addressed the Commission to explain the request. Melissa Layton, Property Association Manager for Santa Rosa Cove, addressed the Commission and read a statement from the Association's Board of Directors asking for a 30 -day continuance, and a letter of protest from the President of the Board. Eleanor Dowd, Judy Blum, Elaine Lloyd, Nels Sandstrom, Genevieve Lucas, and Walter Freidis addressed the Commission in opposition to the request. Ms. Dowd also presented to the Commission photos of parking and through- traffic /emergency access problems on Avenida Obregon. MR /MIN10- 24.DFT Commissioner Steding asked Staff what is the required additional parking for a 77 -room addition. Planning Director Herman responded that the parking meets the minimum requirement for the total project. We �� f� �. Commissioner Moran asked if the location of required parking spaces is regulated. Mr. Herman responded no. Commissioner Moran asked if additional employee parking was addressed. Mr. Herman responded yes. Ms. Moran asked if the type of hotel is considered. Mr. Herman responded no. Commissioner Bund asked if the parking analysis takes into account additional hotel expansion. Mr. Herman responded that a new analysis was done for this expansion. Commissioner Bund asked the Applicant if the parking analysis takes into account the parking at the tennis club. Mr. Haag responded yes. Commissioner Zelles commented that growth in the area is inevitable. Vice Chairman Moran polled the Commission for a consensus regarding continuing the Hearing versus making a recommendation. The consensus was unanimously against continuance. There being no further comment, Vice Chairman Moran closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Commissioner Steding stated that she had no problem with approving the project, and that the problems aired need to be addressed at. the management level with all involved agencies. Commission Zelles stated that he agreed with Commissioner Steding. Vice Chairman Moran also agreed, and stated that parking seems to be a problem - that the hotel needs to take a hard look and consider additional parking. Commissioner Bund also agreed, and recommended to all involved to get together, and if that results in no satisfaction, bring the issue to the City Council and City Staff. MR /MIN10-24.DFT A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Steding to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89 -064, recommending approval of Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment No. 2. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted, with Chairman Walling absent. A Minute Motion was Steding and seconded to recommend approval subject to conditions Condition 1 that the -7- made by Commissioner by Commissioner Zelles of Plot Plan 89 -041, modified to specify in approval is for 77 � r 1 units, and an addition to Condition 9 to include a golf cart /pedestrian access. Unanimously adopted. IV. P%PTJI C COMMENT V. VII. VIII. No Bme wished to address the Commission. A potion ',was made by Commissioner Steding and se nded 16 Commissioner Bund to approve the mi utes of t e September 12, September 25, and Oc Pber 10, 1989, Planning Commission meetings. Un��nimous . �� OT ER Co issioner Moran ask` d that the Specific Plan for PGA West be the subject of a future discussion. Co pissioner Bund asked lif - safety support desi circulation, public and a future discussion. at a review of the City's \, including access and Avate, be the subject of A motion was made by Commiss inner Steding and se -onded by Commissioner Bund tyo adjourn to a re lar meeting on November 14, 1984\ 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78 -105 � lle Estado, La Q rota, California. This meeting of t e La Quinta P finning Commission was adjourned a 11:15 p.m., O tober 24, 1989. MR /MIN10- 24.DFT :PH -2 F- Z MEMORANDUM Of tt+� TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 24, 1989 CONTINUED HEARING FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E AMENDMENT #2 AND PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -041 s matter was continued from the October 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting to permit the Applicant and property owners the opportunity to resolve their concerns. Therefore, the matter is now before the Commission. The Commission has various options available, such as the following: 1. Continue the Hearing. 2. Approve the request as presented. 3. Modify the request. 4. Deny the request. Attachment: BJ /MEMOJH . 014 1. Letters of protest received since October 10, 1989, meeting. 2. October 10, 1989 Planning Commission Staff Report October 10, 1989 As a permanent resident of Santa Rosa Cove since February 1986, I am deeply concerned about Landmark's intention to build a further 77 -80 hotel units on Avenida Obregon. As a concerned homeowner, I would like to call your attention to the following facts and comments: 1) Property owners were given minimal notice of this project. 2) This meeting was scheduled at a time when very few property owners are able to attend. 3) Inspite of Landmarks considerable political "clout," as property owners we have rights that need to be respected and addressed and action taken to implement BEFORE this project is allowed to commence. The issues that need to be dealt with in order to protect our rights are: 1) Parking 80 units /14 parking spaces? Please clarify. 2) Traffic Santa Rosa Cove should not be subjected to hotel traffic-- eithe_ employee or guest. 3) Density The project description states "Medium density residential 4 -8 dwellings per acre. Net acreage 1.79" Please clarify. Between Landmark and La Quinta Joint Venture, Santa Rosa Cove is beginning to look more like a city than a beautiful desert community. This "progress" undoubtedly brings in dollars, but over - developing a unique area does not enhance the City of La Quinta longterm. 4) Security It is imperative, if Landmark goes ahead with this project, that they first ensure our security by removing the existing "joke of a guard- gate" on Avenida Fernando and building (and landscaping) a new guard -gate on Fernando beyond Avenida Obregon, and another gate at the other end of Obregon. That way their staff, their guests, and anyone visiting their tennis club would not jeopardize our security. 5) Drainage We have existing drainage problems which are being checked and which may be due at least in part to Landmarks tennis courts. It is therefore necessary that their drainage plans for this project and for any further tennis courts they plan to build be carefully studied and implemented so they do not create drainage problems on our streets. I would like to add that I f eel like I am being steam - rolled, and I would like to feel that the City of La Quinta is truly concerned about protecting my rights as a homeowner and permanent resident here. I love my home. And I dontt want it spoiled. Judy Blum 76-941 Calle Mazatlan La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Tel. 564 -1921 RECEI! Al Celle Mazatlan ` La Quint& OCT 16 1989 California 92253 CITY OF LA quiNTA October 12, 1989 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. To the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, I want to thank you all very much for your extraordinary patience and willingness to listen to our problems (especially at such a late hour and involving issues not on your agenda!), and for your decision to give us time to meet with Landmark with the hope of resolving our most pressing issues. I also want to "put in writing" my personal feelings about what it looks like, to me, is happening not only in Santa Rosa Cove but in La Quinta as a whole. Yes, I agree I have been very "naive" about the likelihood of new development here. Also I do not believe I could have foreseen quite this kind of rape of the land. When I chose to buy my home in Santa Rosa Cove (rather than at PGA West) it was because I was led to believe this cove would retain its natural beauty and would not be "over - built." I was told specifically that "there would be a total of just over 300 units in Santa Rosa Cove." No mention was made of the "legendary" La Quinta Hotel changing its image and changing this cove by adding over seven hundred units. No mention was made of the other projected developments by La Quinta Joint Venture - -Los Estados, The Enclave, and the soon -to-be development off Fernando. I cannot help feeling I was purposely misled, and I learned, at the meeting on Tuesday night, that I am far from being alone. Misrepresentation seems to be rampant among major developers here in the desert. As it turns out this unique cove, once truthfully called "the gem of the desert," now has buildings and projected buildings of one kind or another packed and /or stacked on every available piece of land. I feel very strongly that this is an assault on my home and on the lard. I am not against "progress. At the same time I am very much against spoiling a place of such natural beauty by over- building out of pure financial greed. In our hearts I feel those of us who live here because we love it (and not because our property value is increasing --for now...) want it to continue to be a special place. I also feel strongly that the City of La Quinta will not benefit, longterm, by allowing the two largest developers in this area to assert their political /financial power to essentially "take over" our community. And I am grateful to be able to say that I feel slot better after Tuesday nights meeting because I felt "heard," and because I feel you too are concerned, we all understand that Sunrise and Landmark benefit our City. And we give them great credit for their standard of design and building. But there has to be some kind of control, now, if we are to safeguard our homes and our lifestyle. Landmarks La Quinta Hotel advertises itself as a "Do Not Disturb Sign." As a permanent resident of La Quinta and, specif ically, of Santa Rosa Cove, I would really appreciate it if they would respect my home and their own advertising. Thank you again for listening to us, S cere y, ti Judy Blum John W. Lucas 77 -253 Calle Mazatlan La Quinta, CA 92253 October 17, 1989 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RECEIVED OCT 19 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Reference: Case No. EA 89 -141, Specific Plan 121E, Amendment #2, Plot Plan 89 -421 Dear Commissioners: This letter follows the Planning Commission Public Hearing which was held on October 10th on the Reference item which is the request by Landmark Land Company to be allowed to construct 77 hotel units on the west side of Avenida Obregon at the La Quinta Hotel. My condominium is at 77 -253 Calle Mazatlan in Santa Rosa Cove. We believe that this is one of the finest developments and we feel that the hotel adds greatly to it. First of all, I am a member of the Hotel Tennis Club and I am concerned that this request will mean that the present championship court as well as other tennis courts will be razed. When I became a member it was my understanding that courts were to be added rather than taken away. I hope this is not a new trend but that new courts will be added as was stated at the hearing. As I told you at the hearing, I am especially concerned about water drainage as this project goes ahead. The entire area surrounding the proposed site is almost flat. Currently water is punTed periodically from the 'Dennis Club through a pipe which empties onto the east side of Calle Mazatlan just to the south of the existing tennis villas. The recent addition of an employee parking area and a utility area just north of the site have added to drainage problems. The proposed construction will only make them worse unless, as Landmark representatives stated at the Hearing, they have a plan for disposing of the additional run -off. I respectfully ask that you make sure that Landmark has a workable plan and that it is implemented. It is my understanding that my neighbors are sending you letters addressing other issues which must be resolved such as traffic, parking, security and entrance gates. I want to take this opportunity to thank each of you for your personal time in helping to keep La Quinta a gem in the desert. Sincerely, cc: ly Dowd Melissa Layton Elaine Lloyd Jane Redner Dale Walter ' :ECEIVE® OCT 19 1989 77321 Camino Quintana CITY OF LA QUINTA La Cuinta, CA 92253 PLANNING G DEVELOPMEyT DEPT. La Quinta Planning Commission La Duinta, CA 92253 After the last marathon meeting of gripes and emotion, ourrespect and admiration for the members of this commission has magnified. You displayed knowledge of the situations discussed and maintained control of the meeting with tact and authority. We, too, have a lot of respect for Landmark and their developments. The main reason we bought in Santa Rosa Cove was the proximity to and availabilty of their facilities. However, in their pursuit of profits, to which we fully acknowledge they are entitled, we feel they are sacrificing some of these amenities without fully considering the residents of the Cove, their neighbors. They seem to be viewing their added units to the hotel and now the motel only from the commercial aspect and insensitive to the already existing parking problems, especially on Los Arbolles. I walked down Los Arbolles this morning, October 14, 1989, at 7:10 a.m. and at that time there were 16 cars parked along the street on the hotel side. This is only one time and one example. Iz / -��- �� ad•rfcrk r' 4;hc� ire t* Q_ LOQ r3 PL-PL" ?-A c rJ One concern voiced by Landmark at the last meeting seemed to be with the proposed relocation of the Fernando gate below the turn at Obregon, as outlined in the staff report, also, a new gate to be installed at the south end of Obregon. If their problem is with the movement of their service vehicles with proposed gate barriers, a possible solution would be to install gates such as the one at the entrance to The Enclave. These gates would not need to be as large nor as elaborate. Small service vehicles could then move freely, yet auto traffic would be controlled. In addition, and very important to us, it should reduce traffic through the front gate by routing motel traffic via Fernando. Landmark indicated they did not feel it feasible to request a motel resident to drive aj the way out to Fernando, to Eisenhower and the front gate, thence to the golf club, yet these same people undoubtedly drive an average of ten miles to get to their golf course in their home area. If this really would be an item, the motel /hotel should offer van or small vehicle transportation to and from the pro shop, a service already being done by the hotel. With regard to noise pollution, some better control should be exercised at the many outdoor festivities of the hotel. we live close to the Tennis Club, La Casa, and now the motel and benefit from the fall-out on all of these many occasions. Several evenings there were two such parties and on one occasion I recall there were three bands, one at La Casa, one at the Tennis C1uF- and one outside at stop at 11 a. w., however there have played longer. Recently California had signed a bill carried more than a distance of exceeds that. the i -Itel. Post times they do have een tirAm when the bands I read that the Governor of prohibiting outdoor music that fifty feet. The hotel certainly Others have already mentioned the need for additional security and traffic control. We are not secure if the'Fernando is inoperable, as it has been so much of time. All of us are extremely concerned and will support your efforts in helping solve these problems. Respectfully, i Y ANDSTROM � NELS E. SANDSTROM 6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 OCTOBER 10, 1989 GENERAL: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" for 77 hotel rooms as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89 -421, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions o Coachella Valley Water District- 0 Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above - mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 and Environmental Assessment 89 -141, _ which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits /final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 1 - Conditions of Approval- Adopted - PP #89 -421. October 10, 1989 assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by the Applicant /Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access /egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 12. A combination of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2 -1/2 ") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 2 - i Conditions of Approval- Adopted - PP #89 -421 October 10, 1989 13. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 16. Install a supervised waterflow alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 22. whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 3 - Conditions of Arnroval- Adopted - PP #89 -421 October 10, 1989. approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 -feet, 6- inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Coachella Valley Water District: 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: 26. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with City standards and requirements. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and /or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 4 - Conditions of Ap- roval- Adopted - PP #89 -421 October 10, 1989 Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps /signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. 28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces per City requirements shall be provided in conjunction with proposed construction. 29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 5 - C. Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment No. 2, and Plot Plan 89 -041; a request by Landmark Land Company for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to allow elimination of a tennis court and construction of additional hotel units; and Plot Plan approval to allow construction of 77 hotel units in a two -story structure on the site where a championship tennis court now exists, in the R -3 zone on 1.7+ acres; on the west side of Avenida Obregon, approximately midway between Avenida Fernando and Calle Mazatlan (championship tennis court site). 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. The following citizens addressed the Commission in opposition to the request: Melissa Layton, representing the Santa Rosa Cove Homeowners Association, Ellie Dowd, John Lissberger, Nels Sandstrum, Elaine Lloyd, Ed Warnsides, John Lucas, Ann Melvin, Toni Warnsides, and Judy Blum. They expressed various concerns regarding parking problems, traffic, security, density, drainage, and emergency access. John Curtis addressed the Commission to urge both sides to reach a compromise. Forrest Haag and Greg Abadie, representing Landmark Land Company, addressed the Commission to state Landmark's position on some of the matters raised by those in opposition. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Commissioner Bund commented that he is disappointed with this situation and does not like the lack of communication between Landmark and the residents. Commissioner Zelles commented that the residents have to expect other development, that it would be unrealistic to think that such progress should not occur. A motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Bund to continue the Public Hearing on Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment No. 2, and Plot Plan 89 -041 to October 24, 1989. Commissioner Moran also suggested that the parties involved get together to discuss their concerns, and inform the Planning Commission of the MR /MIN10- 10.DFT -4- �, 1 -, 70 outcome. Commissioner Zelles said he felt the Hearing should not be continued,' but rather the requests be approved and sent to the City Council for further resolution. A roll call vote was held for the motion on the floor, Commissioners Bund, Moran, and Chairman Walling voting aye, and Commissioner Zelles voting no. The motion was carried by a 3 -to -1 vote, with Commissioner Steding absent. IV. eahe fact it was now 11:30 made by Commissioner Moran Commissioner Zelles to contin, agenda items to the next Planning Commission meeting on Unanimously adopted. V. ADJOURNMENT p.m., a motion was and seconded by se the remaining regularly - scheduled October 24, 1989. A �'tion was made by Commissioner Moran and second � by Commissioner Zelles to adjourn to a continue regular meeting on October 24, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78 -105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:32 p.m., October 10, 1989. MR /MIN10- 10.DFT -5- :aep� r- 4:y 1: DATE: ITEM: APPLICANT: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1989 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E (AMENDMENT #2) PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (LA QUINTA HOTEL) a: PH -3 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77 HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO -STORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE WHERE THE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT PRESENTLY EXISTS ON 1.7+ ACRES. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE MAZATLAN ON THE LA QUINTA HOTEL SITE. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) EXISTING ZONING: R -3* (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, 1,200 SQ. FT. MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE REQUIRED). ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89 -141 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT. ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED BY REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT AND IMPOSITION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. BACKGROUND: The original Specific Plan No. 121 -E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) was approved by Riverside County in 1975. The Plan authorized construction of 637 condominiums, 496 hotel rooms, golf course with clubhouse, and service facilities. The Plan was subsequently amended in 1982. The City Council authorized the addition of 279 condominiums and 146 hotel rooms (Council Resolution No. 82 -54 - Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised). The revised Specific Plan was approved to increase project acreage and to add additional dwelling units and hotel rooms. In December, 1987, Plot Plan No. 87 -387 was approved by the City expanding the hotel by 336 rooms to 609 units of which 603 rooms were constructed. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 1 - . w } fps? . In September, 1988, Plot Plan No. 88 -393 and Specific Plan 121 -E (Amendment #1) was granted which permitted a new maintenance facility and overflow employee parking lot just south of the site presently under consideration. In May, 1989, Plot Plan No. 89 -412 was approved expanding the hotel by 38 rooms to a total of 641 rooms. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is proposing to eliminate the championship tennis court, a small Tennis Club building, and several adjacent parking spaces and replace them with a 43,065 square foot two - story, 77 -room hotel addition. Additionally, a small mechanical room addition is proposed to be added to the adjacent maintenance building to the south and several tennis courts to the west will need to be relocated to the west to accommodate the new hotel units. Adjacent land uses are as follows: North: Tennis Club South: Maintenance Facility East: Hotel Units (detached) West: Tennis Courts & Vacant Land The hotel structure would be rectangular in shape with a large central courtyard reminiscent of a Spanish hacienda. The courtyard would have a pool, spa and sunning area. The typical guest room would be 495 square feet with one 2 -room suite with 990 square feet. All units would have a balcony or patio. Materials for the Spanish style building would match the 1989 -90 hotel expansion. 44 new parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the proposed construction. ANALYSIS• 1. The building would replace a championship tennis court that is no longer needed since major tournaments are not held there any longer. 2. The architecture and materials would be compatible with adjacent existing buildings. 3. The recently approved maintenance building and overflow parking area have been completed. A weekday morning inspection of the parking lot found it to be 78 -85 percent full. It appeared to be used by employees and /or construction workers. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 2 - 4. Over the past there has been problems due to hotel employees and to an extent guests driving through the condominium area to the south. The proposed expansion may increase the concerns. This can be greatly alleviated by restricting access to the condominium area by installation of an "emergency only" vehicular gate across Avenida Obregon at. or near the border between the hotel and condominium area. Additionally, relocation of the existing Avenida Fernando gate arm to the area west of Avenida Obregon will facilitate access for hotel guests and employees while maintaining security for the residential areas west of Avenida Obregon. A condition requiring this has been drafted to achieve this. 5. The 44 new spaces are proposed in front of the new hotel rooms on both sides of Avenida Obregon. This will provide convenient parking for most of the new rooms. The new 154 space lot and other nearby lots could provide additional parking. 6. Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141 has been prepared in conjunction with this request. No significant affects will be created that cannot be mitigated through the recommended conditions of approval. 7. The proposed plans indicate a small landscape strip between the new parking spaces on the west side of Avenida Obregon and the patio walls of the proposed building. Staff feels this landscape strip should be increased by 10 -feet as required for front yards in the R -3 Zone. This will decrease the mass of the building, provide a more attractive streetscape, and increase distance between patios and parked cars. FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the amended Specific Plan No. 121 -E can be supported and found in the attached Resolution. The findings necessary to approve Plot Plan No. 89 -421 are as follows: 1. The proposed hotel units are consistent with revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposal is consistent with the standards of the R -3 Zone and Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, as conditioned. 3. Environmental impacts from the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment provided traffic impacts as noted are mitigated through new and relocated gate locations. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 3 - RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment #2, subject to approval of Plot Plan No. 89 -421. 2. By minute motion, approve Plot Plan No. 89 -421, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Letter from Applicant dated September 6, 1989. 3. Comments from various City Departments and other agencies. 4. Initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141. 5. Plans and Exhibits for SP 121 -E (Amendment #2) & PP #89 -421. 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending SP #121 -E (Amendment #2). 7. Recommended conditions of approval for PP #89 -421. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 4 - .............. CASE No. 8 F is September E; 1959 Stan Sara Planning Dept. CITY OF LA QUINTA 78 -105 Ca 1F Eat-ado La Quints, CL 92253 Dear St -n, RECEIVED SEP 7 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA '.ANN!N!, R DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Landmark: Lend "om, any is proposing a 7, ro•)m addition to the La Quirta Hotel which will include several tennis saites, a courtyard with swimming pool and spas, additional paiiking. The Ch�+��r- }�snar ��Einis Cl` -,b and T.. ^.9 bas :,atop G'. Sants Rosa Cove a p)aasant and relaxed seztin-; f:•r the Spani -sh Courtyard. The Sparnis;• �' chitecturai motif is modelcd afrcrz the style of the existing he cl. The courtyard allows for a varie *_v or �ses including large intimate parties, or :.=ivete The guest rooms 1 :•ok dor n cntc a landscaped court.ya.r.,i ; F ;tu c i :gig a l.erge p ^el, spa, and suns irg_ area. Pri gate guestrc•.�np anc suite= incljie. z: n terraces and balconies fcr entertaining while and courtyard be - ^w. Additional parking for the wi= 1 e 1. _ stc^ a: ;;ng hLendia C:;re ; ;ci, ..r•d at thle new parking _04 ` �4C.,,_ 4 , ,_ �./ . _2;o A :air:tenanee facii_t ;. ?access `.o the parkins l �t�l_'. }•? Y.__� _ _. �nP brcF�rewa✓ or the soLthw« -sr _ _ raer of the building .. __ -� _. -` -`; �d �':� cu <; . t'wr= La Quint& Hotel Parkin,: Study, the addi.tic•r• -1 44 "r.nar _ne total hotel ..! i..y couy;t to 1065 spaceb, with The City of La zoning ordinance chapter Sir,, rely, Z? Alex ondos Landmark Land Design & Pla::nirc cc: Stephen Caplinger Paul Quill Forrest R.ag Gene ::eiver Gary E3rney ATTACHMENT LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Land Planning, Engineering, Design & Construction 78 -150 Calle Tampico, P.O. Box 1000, Lo Quinta, California 92253 (619) 564 -4500 FAX (619) 564 -8052 Y1ATEA 01STRIC� ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 - COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 - TELEPHONE (619) 39&2651 DIRECTORS TELLIS CODEKAS. PRESIDENT RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT JOHN P. POWELL DOROTHY M.NICHOLS THEODORE J. FISH Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: August 29, 1989 OFFICERS THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY KEITH H. AINSWORTH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS P File: 0163.1 C� L r pZ4N41/N^ OF fh7 OFili,l1p� ti`�Tq T�FPT Subject: Plot Plan 89 -421, Portion of Southwest Quarter, Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes maintained by the developer, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. RF:gh cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 46 -209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 0 You s very truly, r Tom Levy General Manager -C F4 TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY ATTACHMENT 3 -.i lovmoo;fe �-o <aqi o4o;sae W' RECEIVED AUG - 91989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. RECEIVED AUG 2 9 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. CC 171 /14 F4 is C/ � Aysle"d "l, D 8 -20 -pf o/ pcp /"on o N AaaA A -- A& �. We � or.5 . 0 N6, Z-41 41 a-*Vi ? -�h17 rs sSFf/ -dlyp RECEIVED AUG 2 2 19% CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. PUnninS & En§r xinS Office 46.209 Oasis Street, Suite 405 Indio, CA 92201 (619) 342 -8886 To: City of La Quinta Planning Division Re: Plot Plan 89 -421 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT t IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION 4'}� GLEN NEWMAN t1RE Clflff ;.:" i= August 21, 1989 4080 Lemon Street, Suet I I L Riverside, CA 92501 R ECE ' V jd (714) 787 -6606 AUG 2 3 1959 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Plot Plan, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection_ measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and /or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 2. The applicant /developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant /developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 3. A combination of on -site and off -site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2}" x 2}") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. 4. Applicant /developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 5. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 6. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. City of La Quinta - Planning Div. Re: Plot Plan 89 -421 11/21/89 Page 2. 7. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 8. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A1OBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 10. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, 1503. 11. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 13. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6 ". 14. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagramatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4' x 4' in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning b Engineering Staff at (619) 342 -8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By lim Reeder Fire Protection Specialist to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COMPANY IM UJGONIA AVENUE. REDLANIX CWFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS P 0 BOX 3003, REDLANDS. CALIFORNIA 923734306 August 18, 1989 City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 ATTENTION: Stan Sawa RE: Specific Plan 121E The Southern California Gas Company has a gas main in Eisenhower Drive near the project. Distribution lines could be extended from these mains to serve the propcied development without. -any significant impact_ on the. environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension - rules- on -- file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average /Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms /year dwelling unit Multi - Family 4 or less units 482 therms /year dwelling unit Multi - Family 5 or more units 483 therms /year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. To insure the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the new development, an engineering study will be required. Detailed information including tract maps and plot plans must be submitted to the Gas Company Market Services Representa- tive, 1 -800- 624 -2497, six months prior to the actual construction of the natural gas pipeline. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Area Market Services Manager, P.O. Box 3003, Redlands, CA 92373 -0306, phone 1 -800- 624 -2497. RLBsvjs -- _ — cc: Environ Affairs - ML209B r y Sincerely, Roger L. B Technical Supervisor _ CI" OF Ll QUIMI PP ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM gam(' I. BACKGRa4ND I 1. Name of Proponent: LAAAWAV LOI V'kf� CIC 2. Address �jd Phone Number of Proponent: 3'D 60y, forgo (A ;5 (A — q( 0. C) T--- 3. Date of Checklist: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: t4 S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? _ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _ �C c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ x e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ x 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? S. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? _ �( b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? _ c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ K g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ATTACHMENT 4 (3) h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? is Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Li t and GIare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of 2eset. Does the proposal involve a risk o an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, cheaicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, istd r— Mution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housin . Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (4) Its Haabe No K Y X k X X X K X (S) Yes Maybe No c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ X d., Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? _ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ b. Police protection? _ c. Schools? _ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ f. Other governmental services? — 1S. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ b. Communications systems? c. Water? _ d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ x e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? _ x 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the o struction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result n an alteration o a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan 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? X (S) Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, en- vironmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ 1� d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation; I find 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: 10— 3 — exq Signature 1 a RESPONSE TO "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89 -141 FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 6.a. Noise: During the demolition and construction phase there will be a temporary increase in noise levels. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall comply with prescribed work hours permitted by City ordinance to minimize nuisance caused by noise impacts. 7.a. Light & Glare: New building and exterior lighting will be provided with proposed construction. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall submit exterior lighting plan in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 8. Land Use: The proposed hotel use of the site will alter the existing recreational use (tennis court) of the site. Mitigation Measure: Amendment of the Specific Plan to allow the hotel use will mitigate any adverse impacts. 13.a.b.Transportation /Circulation: The proposed use will generate additional hotel and employee traffic hazards and parking demand on Avenida Obregon and surrounding streets. Mitigation Measures: Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. 19. Recreation: The proposed construction will necessitate removal of at least two tennis courts. Mitigation Measure: The extensive number of tennis courts mitigates the loss of the two tennis courts. Additionally, they may be relocated. BJ /RSPCMT.001 - 1 - ' � � M'14 �d✓�sarVl �NWrf?3�?Kld �Qld 0661 - NOI "dx3 1310H v1NIRo Yl 1, 4 C 0 a- �? z I 1 .W IU F- Ln ' = I X W ATTACHMENT 5 RECEIVED SEP 2 6 1989 CITY OF LA QUANTA 'TANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT DEPT. rrurr u►o 00 0 m v+ z 0 N z Q a x W J W O 2 Q 2 � f O Q J FIRST FLOOR PLAN 4M'�r•T �� A -1 RECEIVED = ~co Mrs SEP 2 6 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA 'LANNING L DEVELOPMENT DEPT. b - - -- u ri - - --D SECOND FLOOR PLAN A -7 N Z Q CL O X O� W b - - -- u ri - - --D SECOND FLOOR PLAN A -7 N Z Q CL X W J W O Q H _Z O J b - - -- u ri - - --D SECOND FLOOR PLAN A -7 iAJS5l0NCLAYTlL1 - . -.,,. !�� Ell ID ..... . . . . . 'll , [D [D 111q 11111a111u1p! I pllll111!I!plll!pllll !I!U!luglll! IIUI1111 1.I!ullU Ilpll � IIIpIL'lllllgq I I !III I � Ilii I II II I III III! IIU II I !III -- ------ ------- I r A FL LL LLL tEli[H[Hitai lillgUluivallua;wjw I'M k jlffi�IHEuq M, MJI' lire; ITIJ1111ill llrTjFnR_fl.Pj1,9ll -A 71,11,117 FRONT (AVENIDA OBREGON) ELEVATION NORTH FI I-VAT ION 1i -'11 Jg-Tq-) r1nl m nil 111 m mil m ml nil ml lnlql Inirill nn ml nil�l ninil ng III m RECEIVED SEP 2 6 196 CITY OF LA QU PLANNING & DEVELOPME REAR ELEVATION m (M I I I I I 1.VA I I ()N F- F-IT=v U�7 l , f 171j, r5if-i-14b 7 MT� 1 -177 FL LL LLL tEli[H[Hitai lillgUluivallua;wjw M, MJI' lire; ITIJ1111ill llrTjFnR_fl.Pj1,9ll FT-1:111111 71,11,117 1 Mill-TO I NORTH FI I-VAT ION 1i -'11 Jg-Tq-) r1nl m nil 111 m mil m ml nil ml lnlql Inirill nn ml nil�l ninil ng III m RECEIVED SEP 2 6 196 CITY OF LA QU PLANNING & DEVELOPME REAR ELEVATION m (M I I I I I 1.VA I I ()N PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E, REVISED. CASE SP 121 -E, AMENDMENT #2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 82 -54, on October 5, 1982, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did, on the 10th day of October, 1989, hold a duly - noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to to allow 77 additional hotel units, more particularly described as follows: A portion of the east half of the southwest one - quarter of Section 36 T5S, R6E, SBBM, and; WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82 -213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: 1. That Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amended No. 2, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: BJ /RESOPC.020 - 1 - 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Negative Declaration should be filed; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above - described to approval of Plot Plan No. 89 -4 forth in this Resolution, and labeled Exhibit "A ", on file Development Department. to the City Council Amendment request subject 21 for the reasons set as illustrated in the map in the Planning and PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10th day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ /RESOPC.020 - 2 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OCTOBER 10, 1989 GENERAL: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89 -421, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above - mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 and Environmental Assessment 89 -141, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits /final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 1 - assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by the Applicant /Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access /egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 12. A combination of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2 -1/2 ") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 2 - 13. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 16. Install a supervised waterflow alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 22. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 3 - approved by the Fire shall be 12 -feet, 13 -feet, 6- inches. Department. Minimum opening width with a minimum vertical clearance of 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Coachella Valley Water District: 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: 26. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with City standards and requirements. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and /or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 4 - Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps /signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. 28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces per City requirements shall be provided in conjunction with proposed construction. 29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 5 - April -26, 1994 78-495 CALLE TA4 4a MPICO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 3992�L E (bZ V7�7000 FAX (619) 777 -7101 Mr. Forrest Haag Landmark Land Company P. O. Box 645 Calimesa, CA 92320 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 89 -421 (77 ROOM ADDITION AT LA QUINTA HOTEL) Dear Mr. Haag: Back in November, 1993 through January, 1994, you indicated a desire to obtain an extension for approval of Plot Plan 89 -421 which allows a 77 room addition to the La Quinta Hotel. Although a check for $75.00 was submitted for the filing fee, the application was never completed. The required plans were not submitted as required and as a result the application was not processed. Since we have not heard from you since January 14, 1994, we have no choice at this time but to consider your request void. The approval has expired as of November 21, 1993. Please note that in order to construct these 77 units, a new plot plan application will need to be filed and approved. We are enclosing your uncashed check #/65914 for $75.00. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1% . 43 atN� STAN B. SAWA Principal Planner SBS:bjs cc: La Quinta Hotel, General Manager Enclosure MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 LTRSS.510 January 13, 1994 Mr. Stanley Sawa .vcp The City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 .i,%. L[L uilu a, 1-41.; lla [ tl_'t : �atk UJ•`t:. i. iwlsai-t-,ui.11llCJi Dear Stan: I have located the drawings for the La Quinta Hotel Plot Plan 89 -421 - 77 Room Addition as were previously approved by your department, however, the copies that I have,are blueline copies and not originals. As such, I will send them out to be reproduced in order to retain a record copy after which I will forward a copy on to you. If I may N of further assistance in this matter, plea so call me at (909) 795 -8941. Sincerely Forrest K. fj 3ag .ASIA Forrest K. Haag AsLA JAN 9 b 99� P1.d+:c IN ids LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. P. O. Box 645, Calimesa, California 92320 (909) 795 -8941 December 16, 1993 Mr. Stanley Sawa Ajc? The City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Re: La Quinta Hotel Plot: Plan 89 -421 - 77 Room Addition Dear Stan: •;rte ^.^G "rr �i<._ . .. i, z DEC 17 03 CITY OF LR au tdrA PLANNING OEFARTMENT In furtherance of the request for an extension of the current entitlement for the Plot Plan (89 -421) on the 77 room addition to the La Quinta Hotel, I am providing a fee check in the amount of $75.00 as requested. I have not been able to locate the drawings previously approved by your department, however, I will continue to search our archives for a record copy for your use. If I?N, y be of further assistance in this matter, please call me at (909) 795 -8941. Forrest )K. Haag ASLA Forrest K. Haag ASLA Design and Land Planning LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. P. O. Box 645; Calitnesa, California 92320 (909) 795 -8941 11/24/1993 12:02 * * ** OAK. VALLEY * * ** 164 795 7248 P.01 November 24; 190-, Mr. Stanley Sawa i�(v The City 0f. Qty' #j, Jpni ig & Development DepLulment 78 -495 Calle { La Quinta, C 19/253 Re. La Quint4,ki ► Plan 89421 - 77 Room Addition Dcar Stan; In furtherance of the *nest for an extension of the current entitlement for the Plot Plan (89 -421) on the 77 room addtdoh tb the La. Quinta Hotel, l am anticipating the fee chuck to he delivered can Monday, November' 29th 7-at which time I should have the archived documents recovered as requested and4kio*04 a copies for your use. If I may be of further assistance in this matter prier to the issuance and delivery of the processing fee check, plesiso. G4U. iggq (909) 795 -8941, " r 4it �. Haag Ate+ CC'.: r. Abaft, M. $ y ., S. Chevis Hosea, L, Wat„un P.R. L A1�9�93 CITY Of LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Forrest K, Ilaag ASIA Dosign and Land Planning LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. P.�WBox low, La Quinta, California 92:420 (619) 504 -4500 November 12, 1993 Mr. Stanley Sawa mcp The City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Re: La Quinta Hotel Plot Plan 89 -421 - 77 Room Addition Dear CtAn• 1(46 V 5 1903 M1N6�pU17'ifA .�Rtq�NT I would like to request an extension of the current entitlement for the Plot Plan (89 -421) on the 77 room addition to the La Quinta Hotel. I will process a check request to address the $75.00 processing fee and will forward the funds to your department as soon as I receive the check. Additionally, I will begin the research through the archives for the original approval documents as requested and will provide copies for your use when I locate the files. I may be of further assistance in this matter prior to the issuance and delivery of the processing check, please call me at (909) 795 -8941. Forresj K. Haag CC: G. Aiadie, M. Bradley Esq., S. Chevis Hosea, L. Watson P.E. Forrest K. Haag AsLA Design and Land Planning LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. P. O. Box 1000, La Quinta, California 92320 (619) 564 -4500 A749 626' Golf & Tennis Resort March 29, 1993 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning & Development Director CITY OF LA QUINTA 78 -105 Calle Estado Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Jerry, r cY0 i10L �. PEAR 3 0 1993 "' i i Lr 1A ! `U)N rA PLANNItJG DEPART&4ENT This letter is to confirm our recent telephone conversation regarding the replacement of the palm trees in the north parking lot behind the La Quinta Hotel Plaza shops. Weather and availability of the lot permitting, we plan to start the replacement planting by late April or early May 1993. In an attempt to avoid the infestation problem that we experienced with the date palm trees, will will plant 15 foot Washingtonia Robustas (Mexican Fan Palms). If you need further information, please let me know. JVW /gk Sincerely, Judy Vossler Woodard General Manager 49-499 Eisenhower Drive P.O. Box 69 La Qtiinta, California 92253 (619) 564 -4111 t 4 -VIE CUPW 7 8-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564 -2246 December 6, 1990 Mr. Forrest Haag Landmark Land Company PO Box 1000 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 89 -421 (TIME EXTENSION) Dear Mr. Haag: On December 3, 1990, a letter of Planning Commission action was sent to you for the above case. The attached conditions of approval sent were in error. Attached are the corrected conditions of approval. Pursuant to your discussion with Jerry Herman, Planning & Development Director, on November 28, 1990, you may appeal the Planning Commission action to the City Council within 15 days. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Stan B. Sawa Principal Planner SBS:ccs Attachment cc: City Council Ron Kiedrowski; City Manager Engineering Department MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 LTRSS.054 /CS ^ � , l t Ali � '.:] c'' ja 0 le 0 4 6(4� 78 -105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564 -2246 December 3,.1990 Mr. Forrest Haag Landmark Land Company. P. O. Box 1000 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON PLOT PLAN 89 -421 (TIME EXTENSION) Dear Mr. Haag: The Planning Commission at their meeting of November 27, 1990, approved your request for a three year extension of time, subject to the original conditions, with the following additional condition: "Gates to be approved by the City Engineer and be operational within six months of the granting of this time extension." Attached is a copy of the updated conditions. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Stan Sawa Principal Planner SS: bja cc: City Council City Manager Engineering Department LTRSS.027 MAILING ADDRESS. - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 89 -064 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 NOVEMBER 27, 1990 * Added November 27, 1990 by Planning Commisison (Time Extension) GENERAL: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial dompliance with Exhibit "A" for 77 hotel rooms as c9ntained in the file for Plot Plan 89 -421, unless ot$erwise amended by these conditions. 2. The'�approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year tim period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quin a Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant .shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: 0 0 0 0 0 City Fire Marshal City of La Quinta Public Works Department Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions Coachella Valley Water District Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above- mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. 6. Pri:?r to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 and Environmental Assessment 89 -141, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits /final inspections. The Planning and Development Director, may require inspection or other monitoring to AJ /CnNAPRVT,.n19 - 1 - k� Conditions of roval- Adopted - PP #89 -4" November 27, 1990 assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated. shall be borne by the Applicant /Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to. issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access /egress on Avenida Obregon and determine. if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 -hour. duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 12. A combination of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X. 4" X 2 -1/2 ") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 2 - w Conditions oroval- Adopted - PP #89 - November 27, 1990 13. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/ inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s') will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 16. Install a supervised waterflow alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install. portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be. maintained as fire lanes. 22. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter_ located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 3 - r' Conditions of oval- Adopted - PP #89 -42 November 27, 1990 approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 -feet, 6- inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. . 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Coachella Vallev Water District: 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review.' This review is for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: 26. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with City standards and requirements. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and /or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 4 - f ' Conditions o roval- Adopted - PP #89- November 27, 1990 Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps /signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. 28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces per City requirements shall be provided in conjunction with proposed construction. 29. Any removed. tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. *30. Gates to be approved by the City Engineer and be operational within six months of the granting of this time extension. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 5 - To: TRANSMITf - -- CITY ENGINEER �- FIRE MARSHAL --- C"l I TY SAFETY IV --- CITY MOM Date: io- 22 -dio F=rom : PL.AN" & DEVELOPMENT Subject: PROJECT REVIEW Case : 104- Ran $q - La.raymrl` Lave 6o. r -�- 3 s�� on ae� roy' - �x.rn r�s o✓ � I ,1� Zo:^- Az to V1, PLEASE REVIEW AND OVIDE ANY COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE ON THE ATTACHED ITEM. COMMENTS o NOcoMMIENY 9 -� DEPUTY Fl At MARSHA OCT. 2 8 19 90 0. { - b� October 3, 1990 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning 3 Development Director CITY OF LA QUINTA 78 105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 921253 OCT 0 5 1990 CITY OF LA Q UINTA PLANNINS R OEVELOPMFNT DFPT. RE: Plot Plan #89 -421 La Quinta Hotel 77 -Room Expansion Files #201.11 � 03 � 09 } S 28 Dear Mr. Herman: On behalf of Landmark Land Company, I would like to request a three -year extension of the approval for Plot Plan #89 -421. The current expiration date is November 21, 1990: Please advise me as to the necessary procedures needed to implement this request. T ank you, in advance, for your assistance in this matter. Regards, LAND CONS ANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. Vice Pres Design :j ss cc: Gary 1jerney John Ohaniar Ernie Vossler Joe Walser Joe Woodard Forrest Haag Vice President Design & Planning LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Land Planning, Engineering, Design & Construction 78 -150 Calle Tampico, P.O, Box 1000, La Quinta, California 92253 (�19) 564 -4500 FAX (619) 564 -8052 _ . r. ��. ,; , , , _,.;,:,� {' ? &n � � ,. � a � �'i a�� . -:r Richard Fredericks APR ' 1990 P. 0. Box 3541 C11 Y L Palm . Desert, CA. 92261 PLANNING & DEVE!OP SUN TA March 12, 1990 Mayor, City of La Quinta Planning Commission, La Quinta City Council La Quinta, California Dear Sirs, I have been advised by my neighbors that there is a planning commission meeting scheduled to be attended by the public on Tuesday, March 13, 1990, to review the matter of installation of gates on Avenida Obregon. I have been further advised that a city council meeting to be attended by the public on March 20, 1990 has been scheduled to discuss the afore mentioned gate installation. I have not received a notification of the above referenced meetings from the city-of La Quinta and would appreciate being advised if this is the case. Unfortunately, since I am out of the area today and tomorrow I obviously will be unable to attend the planning commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 13, 1990.. If the above scenario is correct I do not believe the city has acted properly because I, as a home owner living on Avenida Obregon, should be and am entitled to proper notice regarding any modification to existing traffic routes. If my neighbors have informed me incorrectly as to the city agenda kindly disregard this letter. Otherwise, I would expect proper notice. Thank you for your consideration. If you would be so kind, please clarify this matter by telephoning me at 564 -6080. Respectfully Submitted, Richard Fredericks Page - 1 �- '�.J wr a Richard Fredericks P. 0. Box 3541 Palm Desert, CA. 92261 March 22, 1990 Wallace H: Nesbit Associate Planner City of La Quinta Dear. Mr. Nesbit, I am in receipt of your letter dated March 16, 1990, which I received a day after the city .council meeting of March 21, 1990. I understand your position with regard to the proposed subdivision on Aveinda Fernando. However, since as a condition of any approval by the city and /or planning commission regarding the above referenced development involves the installation of an emergency gate which directly affects the ingress and egress to my property, I definitely believe the intent of the statute requires. that I be notified, in order to adequately prepare and respond to both the planning commission and the city council. Since there was no response from anyone connected with the city to my hand delivered letter of March 12, 1990, I did call the city late Tuesday afternoon March 20, 1990, to double check and was informed that there was a council meeting scheduled that evening. I was further informed that issues directly relating to my property interests were to be discussed. Namely: the installation of a gate on Avenida Obregon which certainly encompasses the three hundred foot issue as enumerated in you letter. I would appreciate it if you would notify me as to future purposed projects within the boundaries of the La Quinta Cove Golf Club. Naturally, I believe that had I been given proper notice regarding the issues affecting my property, I would have been in a better position to provide the city council and /or the planning commission sufficient documentation and testimony to effect a decision consistent with my property rights.. Page - 1 ,it. r Regardless. of the abo dealing with the impos or south of my proper from the city, which fundamentally unfair, accepted norms of land ve, it appears ition of a gate ty by any developer I did not receive contrary to statute use planning. obvious in front Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Q, Richard Fredericks Page - 2 to me that issues of, or north of, requires notice to me and believe to be and inconsistent with I 1141) rI / Richard Fredericks P. 0. Box 3541 Palm Desert, CA. 92261 March 22, 1990 To: John Pena, Mayor Dale Bohnenberger, Mayor pro tem Ms. Joyce Bosworth Dr. William Rushworth Stanley Sniff City of La Quinta Planning Commission Ms. Celeste Brady, City Attorney From: Richard Fredericks RE: Installation of gates on Avenida Obregon ":2441 A/VGNU RFCLF1VFO APR _7 1990 C11 Y OF LA � 1��T,q PLANNING & n- `VEIOPMFNT pfPT. I attended the city council meetinq of March 20, 1990, to register my opposition to the installation of an emergency gate on Avenida Obregon which would deprive me of access to my property, as well as significantly diminish the value of my property. At the council meeting I pointed out the following: 1. My property located at 49 -875 Avenida Obregan would effectively become part of the La Quinta Hotel if the gate was approved as requested, diminishing it's unique characteristics. 2. That I had written a letter to the council indicating that I had received no notice as to the planning commission hearings or the city council meeting as required by statue (copy enclosed). 3. That my property of approximately two acres was residential and it characteristics should remain independent of the La Quinta Hotel. 4. That upon purchasing the property I requested and received written assurances from the seller that my access through the Santa Rosa Cove gates would not be restricted (The seller in a hand delivered document to Chicago Title dated March 12, 1987, and executed by Judy Vossler on behalf of Landmark Land, had been given those rights, which were then assigned to me). Page - 1 5. That I had previously spoken to the planning department in November, 1989, and was assured that the department recognized the location of my property and that the recommendation for a gate on Avenida Obregon would be north of my property near the La Quinta Hotel's overflow parking area, thus not interfering with the access to my property. 6. That my property and unobstructed access to it had been in effect for approximately sixty years since the residence was constructed in the 1920's. Nevertheless, the city council apparently approved the installation of a security gate to the south of my property, thus denying me access through the Santa Rosa Cove gates, access which I have been using for the past three years and access which previous owners also enjoyed. The above action by the city council contradicts the recommendation of the planning department. It further contradicts city council resolution No. 89 -129 which states "emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot- to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic." Emphasis added. Indeed, the installation of a gate to the south of the overflow parking area as originally approved makes much more sense than depriving me of access to my property through the Santa Rosa Cove gates. As you know, my property is located directly across the street from "La Casa ". Although there are parking places in front of "La Casa ", these spaces were never intended to be used as public parking. The staff report to the planning commission dated October 11, 1988, indicates as follows: "additional parking will be provided along Obregon for banquet service deliveries and staff vehicles ". It further states that "a minimum of one handicapped space will be required, although parking will be primarily limited to staff and delivery vehicles." Accordingly, it would seem that if a gate is required on Avenida Obregon; installing it north of my property would be appropriate, cause the least disruption to all concerned, and would be consistent with previous city council actions and planning department recommendations. I would request that the city council require the installation of a gate property through Santa Rosa Cove gates further public comment. Page - 2 reconsider its decision to denying me access to my and reopen this issue to I would appreciate a timely response to this request in order to take the necessary precautions to protect my property rights should it be necessary. If the city persists in requiring any developers to install a gate depriving me of access to my property through Santa Rosa Cove gates and changing my property's entire character, as well as diminishing it's value, I will naturally exercise all of the rights available to me through law or equity. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerel , Richard Fredericks Page - 3 ° e � J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc. MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING DIVISION June 28, 1990 Ms. Melissa Layton Chief Executive Officer Desert Resort Management 49 -200 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Ms. Layton: ra 9012103 As discussed we have determined the percentage of traffic to be generated by each of contributing developments based on the information provided. Trips generated by the hotel, golf course, tennis club and four (4) condominium sites were determined using Trip Generation, Fourth Edition, a publication by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and represents national data collected for many different land uses including commercial, industrial, and residential. The trips were calculated for AM and PM peaks during an average weekday. The traffic assumed to be generated by these developments along with the percent contribution to the total traffic is illustrated in the attached Table. The resulting contribution is based upon the daily traffic. If you have any question regarding the report,- please contact me at (714) 683 -0209, extension 103. Sincerely, J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES /'James "Ben" Dobbins, P.E. / /;Director of Traffic Engineering J JBD:MT:mc:AL6 3426 Tenth S1ree1 • P.O. Box 493 • Riverside. CA 92502 • 17141683 -0209 • FAX 714- 686 -5807 e . . , TRIP GENERATION TABLE Daily AM PEAK Traffic Size Enter Exit Total Santa Rosa Cove Assoc. 1,775 334 RM 22 117 140 Enclave 280 37 RM 4 20 24 Los Estados 298 40 RM 4 21 26 La Quinta Hotel 348 48 RM 5 25 30 Jennis villas La Quinta Hotel 5,573 640 RM 440 227 667 Golf Club 1,312 339 AC 72 18 90 Tennis Club 1,058 30 Courts 25 13 38 Total 10,644 572 442 1,014 i . PM PEAK % Contribution Enter Exit Total of Daily Traffic 116 57 173 16.68 18 9 27 2.63 19 10 29 2.80 23 11 34 3.27 280 238 518 52.35 11 120 131 12.33 36 67 103 9.94 503 512 1,015 100.0 � c a�" Of Of COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E, AMENDMENT NO. 2 AND PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF TENNIS COURTS AND SMALL STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF 77 ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO -STORY STRUCTURE AT THE LA QUINTA HOTEL. APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meetings of October 10th and 24th, 1989. At the first hearing, after extensive discussion between the Applicant, audience and Commission, the Planning Commission continued the hearing. It was suggested that the Applicant meet with the surrounding Santa Rosa Cove homeowners and try to resolve their differences. At the October 24th, continued hearing, the Planning Commission approved the request for 77 hotel units, subject to revised conditions. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt City Council Resolution No. 89- , approving Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment No. 2 and by minute motion, accept report of Planning Commission action on Plot Plan No. 89 -421. Submitted by: atu BJ /CC #11/21.F3 Approved for submission to City Council: RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER r MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1989 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E, AMENDMENT NO. 2, AND PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF TENNIS COURTS AND SMALL STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF 77 ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO -STORY STRUCTURE AT THE LA QUINTA HOTEL. APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY BACKGROUND: The 1.7 acre site is in the R -3 zone within the La Quinta Hotel area on the west side of Avenida Obregon, approximately midway between Avenida Fernando and Calle Mazatlan. The site is bordered on the north and west by the Tennis Club and construction would require the removal of a small club building and old championship court, and relocation of several tennis courts. In addition to the 77 rooms proposed in the two -story structure, a small mechanical room addition (for the rooms) to the adjacent maintenance building to the south, and 44 parking spaces adjacent to Avenida Obregon are proposed by the Applicant. The hotel structure would be rectangular in shape with a large central courtyard reminiscent of a Spanish hacienda. The courtyard would have a pool, spa and sunning area. The typical guest room would be 495 square feet with one two room suite with 990 square feet. All units would have a balcony or patio. Materials for the Spanish style building would match the 1989 -90 hotel expansion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission reviewed this item a-t their meeting of October 10, 1989. At that time a number of Santa Rosa Cove residents and their homeowners association representative spoke in opposition due to various concerns regarding parking, traffic, security, density, drainage and emergency access. BJ /MEMOSS.014 - 1 - �J �� After extensive discussion, the Commission continued the item to October 24th, and suggested that the parties involved meet and try to resolve their differences. At the October 24th continued hearing it was noted that the Applicant and homeowners had met but came to no resolution. At the continued hearing, the main item of discussion pertained to the relocation of the Avenida Fernando gate arm from the east side to the west side of Avenida Obregon and installation of a new "emergency only" vehicular gate across Avenida Obregon near the southern boundary of the hotel area. The homeowners felt this would reduce their concerns about traffic circulation and safety. The Commission on a unanimous (4 -0) vote (with Chairman Walling absent), adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -064 amending Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amendment No. 2, to allow an additional 77 hotel rooms, and by minute motion approved Plot Plan No. 89 -421 subject to amended conditions, including provisions for a relocated and new vehicular gates as recommended by Staff. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Move to adopt City Council Resolution No. 89- approving Specific Plan NO. 121 -E, Amendment No. 2 and by minute motion accept report of the Planning Commission action on Plot Plan No. 89 -421. Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution approving Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment #2 2. Conditions of Approval for PP #89 -421 3. Planning Commission minutes for October 10th & 24th, 1989 4. Planning Commission report for October 24, 1989 5. Correspondence received since October 24, 1989 hearing BJ /MEMOSS.014 - 2 - I- CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 121 -E, REVISED CITY COUNCIL OF THE CALIFORNIA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. CASE SP 121 -E, AMENDMENT NO. 2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Revised,. as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 82 -54, on October 5, 1982, and; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did, on the 21st day of November, 1989, hold a duly- noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow additional hotel units, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 36 T5S, R6E, SBBM, AND; WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82 -213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta at a duly- noticed continued public hearing on October 24, 1989, did adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -064, recommending approval of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amendment #2; 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: 1. That Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amended No. 2, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. BJ /RESOCC.023 - 1 - i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Negative Declaration should be filed; 3. That it does hereby approve the above - described Amendment request subject to approval of a Plot Plan for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A ", on file in the Planning and Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California BJ /RESOCC.023 - 2 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY NOVEMBER 21, 1989 GENERAL: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" for 77 hotel rooms as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89 -421, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: 0 0 0 0 0 City Fire Marshal City of La Quinta Public Works Department Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions Coachella Valley Water District Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above - mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 and Environmental Assessment 89 -141, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits /final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 1 - r � r assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by the Applicant /Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access /egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 12. A combination 4" X 2 -1/211) wi more than 165 measured along required fire two hydrants in of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 11 be located not less than 25 feet or feet from any portion of the building(s) as approved vehicular travelways. The flow shall be available from any adjacent the system. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 2 - 13. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet .from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically Ifire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 16. Install a supervised waterflow alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual by the Uniform Association. 18. Install portable #10, but not certified exting equipment. pull, Build fire less sisher smoke detection system as required ing Code and National Fire Protection extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet than 2A10BC in rating. Contact company for proper placement of 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 22. whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 3 - approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 -feet, 6- inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform= to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. .1 Coachella Valley Water District: 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley water District for review. This review is','-' for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: 26. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with City standards and requirements. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and /or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 4 - r , Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps /signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and _CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. 28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces perw` City requirements shall be provided in conjuncti& with proposed construction. 29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. r HJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 5 - a C. Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment No. 2, and Plot Plan 89 -041; a request by Landmark Land Company for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to allow elimination of a tennis court and construction of additional hotel units; and Plot Plan approval to allow construction of 77 hotel units in a two -story structure on the site where a championship tennis court now exists, in the R -3 zone on 1.7+ acres; on the west side of Avenida Obregon, approximately midway between Avenida Fernando and Calle Mazatlan (championship tennis court site). 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. The following citizens addressed the Commission in opposition to the request: Melissa Layton, representing the Santa Rosa Cove Homeowners Association, Ellie Dowd, John Lissberger, Nels Sandstrum, Elaine Lloyd, Ed Warnsides, John Lucas, Ann Melvin, Toni Warnsides, and Judy Blum. They expressed various concerns regarding parking problems, traffic, security, density, drainage, and emergency access. John Curtis addressed the Commission to urge both sides to reach a compromise. Forrest Haag and Greg Abadie, representing Landmark Land Company, addressed the Commission to state Landmark's position on some of the matters raised by those in opposition. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Commissioner Bund commented that he is disappointed with this situation and does not like the lack of communication between Landmark and the residents. Commissioner Zelles commented that the residents have to expect other development, that it would be unrealistic to think that such progress should not occur. MR /MIN10- 10.DFT A motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Bund to continue the Public Hearing on Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment No. 2, and Plot Plan 89 -041 to October 24, 1989. Commissioner Moran also suggested that the parties involved get together to discuss their concerns, and inform the Planning Commission of the -4- outcome. Commissioner Zelles said he felt the Hearing should not be continued, but rather the requests be approved and sent to the City Council for further resolution. A roll call vote was held for the motion on the floor, Commissioners Bund, Moran, and Chairman walling voting aye, and Commissioner Zelles voting no. The motion was carried by a 3 -to -1 vote, with Commissioner Steding absent. IV. he fact it was now 11:30 p.m., a motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to continue the remaining agenda items to the next regularly - scheduled Planning Commission meeting on October 24, 1989. nanimously adopted. V. AD URNMENT A m ion was made by Commissioner Moran and second by Commissioner Zelles to adjourn to a continue regular meeting on October 24, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78 -105 Calle Estado, L Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:32 p.m., October 10, 1989. MR /MIN10- 10.DFT -5- S� t4itt4t*es CL a4. t Iq$q impact. Cannot agree with Resolution Finding/YGA nd 8. Also noted that she wants a Studssion with the City Council on the entire est Spec ific Plan. Chairjfan Walling: ABSENT. Th motion was carried as a denial of the r quest by a vote of 3 -1 -1; 3 for, 1 against, B. Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment No. 2, and Plot Plan 89 -041; a request by Landmark Land Company for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to allow elimination of a tennis court and construction of additional hotel units; and Plot Plan approval to allow construction of 77 of the 80 requested hotel units in a two -story structure on the site where a championship tennis court presently exists, in the R -3 zone on 1.7+ acres; on the west side of Avenida Obregon, approximately midway between Avenida Fernando and Calle Mazatlan (championship tennis court site). 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. vice Chairman Moran reopened the Public Hearing. Forrest Haag and Alejandro Martinez, representing the Applicant, addressed the Commission to explain the request. Melissa Layton, Property Association Manager for Santa Rosa Cove, addressed the Commission and read a statement from the Association's Board of Directors asking for a 30 -day continuance, and a letter of protest from the President of the Board. Eleanor Dowd, Judy Blum, Elaine Lloyd, Nels Sandstrom, Genevieve Lucas, and Walter Freidis addressed the Commission in opposition to the request. Ms. Dowd also presented to the Commission photos of parking and through- traffic /emergency access problems on Avenida Obregon. MR /MIN10- 24.DFT Commissioner Steding asked Staff what is the required additional parking for a 77 -room addition. Planning Director Herman responded that the parking meets the minimum requirement for the total project. �= t Commissioner Moran asked if the location of required parking spaces is regulated. Mr. Herman responded no. Commissioner Moran asked if additional employee parking was addressed. Mr. Herman responded yes. Ms. Moran asked if the type of hotel is considered. Mr. Herman responded no. Commissioner Bund asked if the parking analysis takes into account additional hotel expansion. Mr. Herman responded that a new analysis was done for this expansion. Commissioner Bund asked the Applicant if the parking analysis takes into account the parking at the tennis club. Mr. Haag responded yes. Commissioner Zelles commented that growth in the area is inevitable. Vice Chairman Moran polled the Commission for a consensus regarding continuing the Hearing versus making a recommendation. The consensus was unanimously against continuance. There being no further comment, vice Chairman Moran closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Commissioner Steding stated that she had no problem with approving the project, and that the problems aired need to be addressed at the management level with all involved agencies. Commission Zelles stated that he agreed with Commissioner Steding. Vice Chairman Moran also agreed, and stated that parking seems to be a problem - that the hotel needs to take a hard look and consider additional parking. Commissioner Bund also agreed, and recommended to all involved to get together, and if that results in no satisfaction, bring the issue to the City Council and City Staff. MR /MIN10-24.DFT A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Steding to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89 -064, recommending approval of Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment No. 2. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted, with Chairman walling absent. A Minute Motion was Steding and seconded to recommend approval subject to conditions Condition 1 that the -7- made by Commissioner by Commissioner Zelles of Plot Plan 89 -041, modified to specify in approval is for 77 units, and an addition to Condition 9 to include a golf cart /pedestrian access. Unanimously adopted. IV. PfByIC No e NENT shed to address the Commission. V. CO ALEND AR VII. A otion \as ade by Com missioner Steding and se nded ommissioner Bund to approve the mi tes of September 12, September 26, and Oc ber 19, Planning Commission meetings. Un imous. Co issioner Moran as d that the Specific Plan for PG west be the subjec of a future discussion. Co issioner Bund asked hat a review of the City's lif - safety support desig including access and cir ulation, public and p 'vate, be the subject of a f ture discussion. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A otion was made by Commiss ner Steding and MR /MIN10- 24.DFT -8- se nded by Commissioner Bund adjourn to a Jrelar meeting on November 14, 198 at 7:00 p.m., the La Quints City Hall, 78 -105 lle Estado, La ta, California. This meeting of t e La Quints ning Commission was adjourned a 11:15 p.m., ber 24, 1989. STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FRITZ R. STRADLING JULIE WCOY AKINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW NICK E. YOCCA DAWN C. HONEYWELL C. CRAIG CARLSON OWEN B. LUBOW 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1600 WILLIAM R. RAUTH 111 LAWRENCE B. COHN POST OFFICE BOX 7680 K. C. SCHAAF HARLEY J. BJELLAND RICHARD C. GOODMAN STEPHEN T. FREEMAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 02660-6441 JOHN J. MURPHY PERRY J. TARNOFSKY THOMAS A CLARK, JR. ROBERT A. WILSON TELEPHONE (714) 725-4000 BEN A. FRYOMAN CHER"L A. DOW DAVID R. MCEWEN NICHOLAS J. YOCCA TELEPHONE (714) 640-7035 PAUL L. GALE LISA M. KITSUTA RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD JULIE M. PORTER FAX NUMBER ROBERT J. KANE MARK T. PALIN M. D. TALBOT JOHN D. STEINBERG (714) 725 -4100 BRUCE C. STUART ROBERT C. FUNSTEN DOUGLAS F. HIGHAM ALETA LOUISE BRYANT E. KURT YEAGER RONALD A. VAN BLARCOM ROBERT J. WHALEN STEPHEN M. MCNAMARA ROBERT E. RICH GARY A. PEMBERTON THOMAS A. PISTONE J. MICHAEL VAUGHN 8COTT E. MCCONNELL CINDY R. HUGHES RANDALL J. SHERMAN DENISE E. HARBAUGH BRUCE W. FEUCHTER BARBARA L. ZEID MARK J. HUEBSCH ERIC T. SALTZMAN KAREN A. ELLIS MICHAEL J. RUBINO January 24, 19 9 0 ELIZABETH C. GREEN ANDREW P. RIFKIN BRUCE D. MAY GARY R DOWNS DONALD J. HAMMAN JOHN D. IRELAND JOHN J. SWIGART, JR. MICHAEL J. PENDERGAST MICHAEL A. ZABLOCKI DAVID H. MANN NEILA R. BERNSTEIN GALE I. SCHLESINGER CELESTE 8TAHL BRA DY DANA M. KEZMOH CHRISTOPHER J. KILPATRICK DARRYL S. GIBSON JOEL H. GUTH Walter F. Freitas, Esq. 1002 Rodeo -Road Pebble Beach, California 93953 Re: Notice Requirements Pursuant to Gov. Code sections 65090 et seq. Dear Mr. Freitas: JOHN E. BRECKENRIDGE RENA C. STONE ERNEST C. BROWN OF COUNSEL *72EY-S 41 RECT2DIAL: 9090 � P C9T y ` 1 IVNIIVG � pFdf�pp �'��,A �f�T pfPr This letter is being sent to you in response to your letter dated November 26, 1989, in which it is alleged that the notice provided to David Fauvre by the City of La Quinta in connection with public hearings to be held on October 10., 1989, did not comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65090 et seq. It is also alleged in your letter that section 65093, providing that failure to receive notice is not grounds for invalidating actions of a local agency, does not apply to the facts of this case. It is the City's position, based on sections 65010(b) and 65093, that the proceedings in question cannot be invalidated on the grounds that the notice sent to Mr. Fauvre was allegedly defective (in that it contained the proper street address and zip code, but not the correct city). Government Code section 65010(b) provides that "[n]o action ... by any public agency ... on any matter subject to this title shall be held invalid...by reason of, any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or omission ... as to any matter pertaining to ... notices ... unless the court finds that the error was prejudicial and that the party complaining... suffered substantial injury from that error ... and that a different result would have been probable if the error had not occurred." This section further provides that a court is not to presume either Walter F. Freitas, Esq. January 24, 1990 Page Two that the error was prejudicial or that injury was done if the error is shown. Thus, the burden of proof is on the complaining party (in this case, Mr. Fauvre) to establish prejudice, substantial injury, and the probability of a different outcome. In Mitchell v. City of Indio (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 881, the court considered whether failure to comply with notice requirements invalidated the proceedings which had taken place. The facts of the case are these: The city had mailed each registered voter and landowner in the area of the proposed annexation a notice that a public hearing to consider the annexation would be held 19 days later. Fourteen days before the hearing, the city published a notice of the hearing. A hearing was then held at which the city council unanimously adopted a resolution ordering the annexation. The plaintiffs, landowners- and /or voters, alleged that the proceedings were defective because the city had not given at least 15 days notice of the hearing as required by statute. The court noted that the purpose of sections 57002 and 56154, requiring notice of a local government reorganization, was to give opponents of a proposed annexation an opportunity to organize and mount an opposition. A successful opposition would trigger the provisions of section 57075, providing that if a sufficient number of written protests are received by the city clerk, then the proposed annexation becomes subject to confirmation by the voters of the district (e.g., an election). The court turned to Government Code section 56107, which contains language similar to Government Code section 65010(b), in order to assess the affect of the defective notice on the proceedings which had taken place. Section 56107 states: No ... reorganization ... shall be invalidated because of any defect, error, irregularity, or omission in any act, determination or procedure which does not adversely and substantially affect the rights of any person. The court agreed with the opinion of the trial court that the complaining parties had not offered evidence that a one -day variation substantially affected their rights. In other words, they had not established that "but for" lack of compliance with the notice requirements, a majority protest could have been assembled so that an election pursuant to section 57075 would have been ordered. Walter F. Freitas, Esq. January 24, 1990 Page Three Mr. Fauvre will have an extremely difficult time convincing a court that had he received notice "a different result would have been probable (Gov. Code section 65010(b)." In comparison to the Mitchell case, the Government Code sections relating to amending specific plans do not provide for the submission of the issue to voters and /or affected landowners in the event that a sufficient number of them protest. Government Code sections 65350 et seq. simply provide for the "involvement" of the public during the proceedings culminating in the amendment of the specific plan; it is the legislative body of the city which ultimately decides whether or not to amend a specific plan by resolution. Moreover, Government Code section 65093 provides independent grounds fox refuting Mr. Fauvre's contention that the inadvertent. defect in the notice sent to him requires the invalidation of the proceedings at issue. Section 65093 provides: "[t]he failure of any person ... to receive notice given pursuant to this title ... shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the actions of a local agency for which the notice was given." The general rule with respect to defective notice has been stated as this: Where a clear statutory requirement is omitted from the initial... process which is the means of imparting notice of adverse proceedings, the rule of liberal construction must yield to the constitutional guaranty of due process of law. [Although courts] cannot in a particular case dispense with any element of notice which the legislature has enacted...[if] ... there is not an entire omission of a statutory requirement, but merely a defect, a court may properly determine there has or has not been a substantial compliance with the statute. (Beck v. Ransome - Crummey Co., (1919) 42 Cal. App. 674, 682 (emphasis added)). Clearly "substantial compliance" exists in the present case where, although one individual's notice was inadvertently misaddressed, the procedures outlined in Government Code sec. 65090 et. seq. were followed. As observed by the court in Palo Alto Com. for Fair Assessment v. City Council (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 384: Walter F. Freitas, Esq. January 24, 1990 Page Four Literal compliance with the [notice requirements of Sts. & Hy. Code sec. 365221 would ... be unreasonably burdensome to cities ... [I]f we were to demand strict compliance with the statute, failure to send the requisite notice to a single business in the proposed improvement area could result in the invalidity of the entire procedure. Nothing in the statutory scheme suggests that the Legislature intended such a harsh result. Similarly, the City of La Quinta has substantially complied with the notice provisions of Government Code sections 65090 et seq., and -nothing in the statute suggests that invalidation of proceedings is in order where a city inadvertently misaddresses the notice sent to one individual. Very truly yours, STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH 4v'x-. Dawn Honeywell cc: Ron Kiedrowski Jerry Herman 0205m/2588/00 CITY OF LA QUINTA NOV 161989 PATON COMPANY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. CITY MANAGER P.O. BOX 3498 November 10, 1989 City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: John Pena, Mayor Dear Mr. Pena, We are city residents residing at 49 -986 Ave Obregon, La Quinta, California since December 1987. The purpose of this letter is to clearly register a deep concern on an up- coming issue, that will be heard by the La Quinta City Council on November 21, 1989, regarding the La Quinta Hotel's, Tennis Stadium, to be replaced with hotel rooms. While I am not opposed to our neighbor, the La Quinta Hotel, developing more new rooms, I am truly concerned with regard to the impact of additional heavy traffic of hotel employees through our residen- tial streets and parking of new hotel guests. We reside on the corner of Ave Mazatlan and Ave Obregon and the current traffic flow, comprising of approximately 95% hotel employees, from 5:30 am. to 7:00 pm. is absolutely unbelievable. To allow this continued passage with the additional impact of new employees and service personnel down Ave Mazatlan, to turn right on Ave O.bregon would be proposterous. During these past two weekends I have taken pictures for your perusal which clearly indicate the flow is primarily hotel employees and service person- nel and is subsequently quite busy during these shift changes. More Import- (continued on page 2) 1.11 (continued from page 1) antly with the proposed new construction (not to speak of the construction traffic flow) the new hotel employee traffic would be more than could be imagined. Our entire family is in favor of the decision made on October 10, 1989 by the La Quinta Planning Commission which proposes the La Quinta Hotel to in- stall gates at Ave Obregon and Ave Fernando to allow the heavy traffic to only remain on the La Quinta Hotel property, where it belongs. Mr. Pena, please help us keep the heavy traffic off our residential streets by voting in favor of the La Quinta Planning Commissions proposition to have the La Quinta Hotel install gates and provide additional parking spaces nearer to the new proposed 38 units. Thank you for your considerations in this matter. Ronald D. Paton 49 -986 Ave Obregon La Quinta, CA 92253 (619) 564 -1494 P.S. I will bring all the additional photos to our Council Meeting on November 21, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. RDPlk h cc: ale Bohnenberger, City Councilman, La Quinta, California William Rushworth, City Councilman, La Quinta, California Joyce Bosworth, City Councilman, La Quinta, California Stanley S.niff, City Councilman, La Quinta, California .1 � RRfe 4. op� ......... . . . . . . . s. N t.f 1. � )A. r• T4t�t " 78 -105 CALLE ESTADO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564 -2246 FAX (619) 564 -5617 December 15, 1989 Mr. Forrest Haag Landmark Land Company P. O. Box 1000 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, AMENDMENT #2 AND PLOT PLAN 89 -421 (LA QUINTA HOTEL - 77 ROOM ADDITION) Dear Mr. Haag: The City Council at their meeting of November 21, 1989, took the following action on your request for a 77 -room addition: 1. Adopted City Council Resolution No. 89 -129, approving Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment #2 subject to conditions. 2. Accepted the Planning Commission approval action on Plot Plan No. 89 -421. 3. Adopted Minute Order No. 89 -135, clarifying above two actions. Attached is a copy of the City Council minutes, an unsigned copy of Resolution No. 89 -129, and a copy of the Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan 89 -421. Should you need a copy of the signed City Council Resolution, contact the City Clerk. BJ /LTRSS.022 - 1 - MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 Should you have any questions, undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR e a2/Y SCWA Stan Sawa Principal Planner SS:bja feel free to contact the Attachment: City Council Resolution No. 89 -129 Conditions of Approval for PP #89 -421 Minutes of November 21, 1989 meeting cc: File Engineering Department BJ /LTRSS.022 - 2 - C LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1989 Regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at the hour of 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Pena, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Council Members Bosworth, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena ABSENT: Council Member Bohnenberger MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff /Bosworth to excuse Council Member Bohnenberger. Motion carried unanimously. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Mr. Kiedrowski asked that a couple of items be added to the agenda that came up after the posting of the agenda: a. Resolution accepting guest badges to the Skins Game. b. Consideration of Advertising in the Bob Hope Classic Program. He also asked that No. 3 of the Business Session agenda be removed as it isn't complete at this time. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff /Rushworth, that consideration of advertising be added to the Business Session agenda and adoption of the Resolution accepting the badges to the Skins Game be added to the Consent Calendar as the need to take action arose after the posting of the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 89 -129. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Pena advised that Councilman Bohnenberger is in Northern California helping the people who were affected by the earthquake, in restoring water to their community in his capacity as Engineer for the Coachella Valley Water District. Mrs. Juhola announced that the City's Open House is scheduled for December 14th from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. and the public is invited. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, AMENDMENT NO. 2 AND PLOT PLAN 89 -421 TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF TENNIS COURTS AND SMALL STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF 77 ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO -STORY STRUCTURE AT LA QUINTA HOTEL - APPLICATION BY LANDMARK LAND CO. Mr. Herman, Planning Director, presented staff's report and began by giving a brief history of this Specific Plan. He presented the drawings of the proposed hotel complex and described the changes being requested in this application for 77 hotel units. The Planning Commission considered the request on City Council Minute. Page 2 November 21, 1989 October 10th and October 24th. On October 10th, the matter was continued with the applicant being asked to meet with the surrounding residents in order to resolve their differences. On October 24th, they determined that the 77 rooms should be approved and added a condition that deals with circulation issues. The condition would place an emergency gate at the southerly end of Obregon with a cart /pedestrian access only and that the existing gate at Avenida Fernando be relocated to the west of Obregon. This would prevent the hotel guests utilizing the 77 hotel rooms to enter into the Santa Rosa Cove entrance. FORREST HAAG, Vice President of Design and Planning for Landmark Land Co. addressed the Council and explained the architectural design of the proposed buildings advising that their plans will broaden their market in this competitive desert. One of the issues was the number of tennis courts in the ultimate build -out. Presently, there are 23 courts and one stadium court. The stadium court will be removed. There will be 22 added courts and 44 additional parking spaces in front of the new hotel rooms. The problem of employee parking has brought on the concern about traffic on Obregon and through the Santa Rosa Cove gate and the exit gate to the north of the property. He noted that the number of parking spaces provided. exceed the City's requirement by 33 spaces.. He felt that the solution to the concern of the residents, is for hotel management to let the employees know that they are not to park to the south of the 77 room expansion. This will eliminate the use of the Santa Rosa Cove Gate and Avenida Fernando Gate. He referred to Condition No. 9 of the Plot Plan and suggested that instead of it, that the hotel advise the employees of proper parking and to position the guard gate, manned, on Avenida Fernando with some sort of participation being worked out. This would solve the problem without a massive internal problem in the flow of hotel guests as well as membership at Santa Rosa Cove. In response to Councilwoman Bosworth, Mr. Haag advised that the parking is 300' from the clubhouse center court. Council Member Sniff questioned why only the minimum number of parking spaces are being provided and why only 44 spaces for 77 hotel rooms. Mr. Haag responded that they will be exceeding the parking requirements by 33 spaces. He then reviewed the philosophy behind parking requirements and how there are peaks and valleys in hotel parking. Mayor Pena questioned how they justify the number of tennis courts and asked if some can be replaced with parking. Mr. Haag advised that tennis courts are like parking spaces, there are times when all the courts are being used and times when only a few are being used. In further response to the Mayor, Mr. Haag advised that they have not explored the use of mass transit for their employees and have not discussed double -deck parking. City Council Minute- Page 3 November 21, 1989 The Mayor declared the public hearing OPEN. HERB LIEBERMAN, 77 -210 Avenida Fernando, felt the character of the area has changed and this proposed amendment is going to directly affect the neighborhood. There's violations of speeding and failure to stop at stop signs plus the noise coming from hotel employees using the Santa Rosa Cove gate and Mazatlan. He suggested that they relocate and man the Fernando Gate to just beyond Obregon with expenses shared by the hotel and homeowners; 2) restriction of vehicular traffic on Obregon terminating at the end of the hotel property and through traffic being allow only for emergency vehicles, golf carts, bicycles and hotel service carts only; 3) restriction of hotel employees ingress and egress to the use of Fernando and to Obregon and the employee parking lot only. Hotel employees should not have access to the private roads within Santa Rosa Cove; 4) that the Council mandate renegotiation of the contract between the hotel and the homeowners with regard to future security gates expenses as well as maintenance of roads used by hotel guests, employees and vendors. DALE WALTERS, resident of Santa Rosa Cove, advised that they are not here to oppose the hotel expansion, rather support the Planning Commission recommendations regarding Condition No. 9, which will allow the hotel guests and employees free access to any area in the hotel and will prohibited people from using their "front door ". JUDY BLUM, 76 -941 Mazatlan, advised that they are not here to be antagonistic, but rather to protect their property. She advised that the employees are having to use security gates which are intended for the residents. However, Landmark does have ingress and egress rights, but these rights were intended for the benefit of golf club members, tennis club members, staff and hotel guests wishing to use the facilities. When this right was agreed upon the hotel was much smaller. By turning La Casa into a major entertainment facility, Landmark turned an extremely narrow street into a fairly major traffic throughway. The Planning Commission proposed a compromise with Condition No. 9, which the homeowners support. However, they are concerned about the location on this narrow street of a large hotel building designed to accommodate large groups. The General Plan Land Use Plan for this 1.7 acre site states medium density residential 4 -8 dwellings per acre and the proposed amendment would increase the density to 44 units per acre. She felt that such a radical change in density is not appropriate on this site. RON PATTON, 49 -986 Obregon, advised that he lives near the corner of Obregon and Mazatlan. He presented pictures he's taken showing the traffic flow which starts about 5:30 A.M. and ends about 7:30 P.M.. He also noted that the hotel used the Santa Rosa Cove entrance on halloween for their haunted house. He believed that 950 of the traffic is employees and service people. He urged Council's acceptance of the Planning Commission's recommendations. City Council Minute- Page 4 • � November 21, 1989 ELLIE DOWD, 50 -015 Rosarita, presented brochures that were given to her prior to her purchase of property advising that the development would have limited access. She is a single lady who wants her security. There is no way to know who is entering the Cove - whether they are employees, service people or people who shouldn't be there. She described the traffic circulation and urged the Council to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission. JAMES LLOYD, 77 -313 Mazatlan, advised that he works out of town, so his wife is here alone during the week, and he wished to be assured of her security. He commented on the limited stacking provided at the Santa Rosa Cove gate on Eisenhower and believed that there is going to be an accident there because of the number of people using that gate. He urged the Council to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission. MR. WALTERS submitted petitions signed by the 325 homeowners expressing support of the Planning Commission decision. There being no one else wishing to speak, the hearing was CLOSED. Mayor Pena asked who controls the gate on Mazatlan and Mr. Haag advised that it is controlled by Santa Rosa Cove in a joint contract that has an expiration date of 12/15/91, at which point eliminates Landmarks participation obligation in it. Mayor Pena asked how the employees are getting through the gate and Mr. Haag advised that they typically have a sticker on their car. Mayor Pena questioned why the objection to a gate at the end of Obregon and Mr. Haag advised that it's in the wrong place for the flow of traffic that occurs internally to the project. Discussion then ensued regarding traffic circulation with the proposed gates. Council Member Sniff felt that these problems should have been worked out by management as a good neighbor responsibility and that recommendations of the Planning Commission are not perfect, but are livable. Council Member Rushworth agreed stating that Landmark has not fulfilled their obligation to the people in Santa Rosa Cove according to their brochures where the sales people don't seem to be aligned with management. He didn't see it as a question as to who's driving through the gate, but how many, and if they're all going in and out at the same time, it's not a good situation. He fully supported the Planning Commission decision. Councilwoman Bosworth found many problems with this proposal and hoped that the City can assist in working them out. She personally felt that the density is far too great. Landmark has done a good job with all they've done, but this particular building is not in keeping with the rest of the hotel. She wished to send it back to staff to come up with a different architectural plan that wouldn't block views and be more considerate in environmental impacts. City Council Minute Page 5 November 21, 1989 Mayor Pena didn't see that as the real issue, but rather that of traffic. He believed that the architectural style will be compatible with the two story units already there. The problem is traffic, access and circulation. If the Council supports the decision of the Planning Commission and Landmark decides not to build the additional units, then the problem will still exist. He questioned whether conditions could be imposed retroactively to establish some parameters that the homeowners could live with. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that once the Council approves the amendment to the Specific Plan, they have to abide by all the conditions in the plan whether or not they go ahead and build the particular 77 units. Mr. Haag advised that if Council is leaning towards accepting the Planning Commission's decision, that he would like to request a continuance so they can study the issue more clearly and present a more reasonable solution, as they can't live with the blocked Obregon. Mayor Pena stated that he couldn't support a continuance unless they set up a committee including homeowners and representatives from the City: Council concurred on proceeding with the issue at this time. Mr. Kiedrowski suggested that if the Council wishes to address the entrance of employees, that a condition could be imposed stating that the applicant /developer require hotel guests to enter from Avenida Fernando gate. Another concern is to put another condition on the project that says that the traffic circulation as recommended by the Planning Commission be further studied or analyzed at a date certain to see if it's working and if it isn't, then it goes back to the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Bosworth stated that if the people think that the gates are the answer to the concerns, then the Council should proceed. ** MOTION See Page 10 for It was moved by Council Members Sniff /Rushworth that RESOLUTION clarifica- NO. 89 -129 BE ADOPTED - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, tion CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E, REVISED - CASE SP 121 -E, AMENDMENT NO. 2 - LANDMARK LAND CO. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bosworth, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Council Member Bohnenberger City Council Minut, -- Page 10 November 21, 1989 Mrs. Juhola asked for clarification regarding the action taken on Public Hearing Item No. 1. She noted that the resolution adopted, approved the amendment to Specific Plan 121 -E and staff was also asking for a minute motion accepting the report of the Planning Commission action on Plot Plan No. 89 -421. Council concurred that the intent of the motion was to include acceptance of the Planning Commission's action on Plot Plan No. 89 -421. PUBLIC COMMENT- None Council adjourned to closed session at 9:50 P.M. pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9 (c) to discuss litigation - in particular: City of Indio /Indio Case No. 57496 and to discuss personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and potential property acquisition pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. Council reconvened to regular session at 10:42 P.M. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Bosworth /Sniff that to clarify the motion approving Specific Plan 121 -E and accepting the Planning Commission's action on Plot Plan No. 89 -421 that the intent was to provide that Condition No. 9 of Plot Plan 89 -421 shall also be included and made a part of the approval of Specific Plan 121 -E and therefore, included in Resolution No. 89 -129. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 89 -135. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. upon motion by Mayor Pena, seconded by Council Member Rushworth and carried unanimously. Respectfully submi ted, ``ZNDRA L. JUHOLA City Clerk City of La Quinta, California CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 89 -129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 121 -E, REVISED CITY COUNCIL OF THE CALIFORNIA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. CASE SP 121 -E, AMENDMENT NO. 2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 82 -54, on October 5, 1982, and; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did, on the 21st day of November, 1989, hold a duly- noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow additional hotel units, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 36 TSS, R6E, SBBM, AND; WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has compiled with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82 -213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta at a duly- noticed continued public hearing on October 24, 1989, did adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -064, recommending approval of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amendment #2; 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: 1. That Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amended No. 2, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. BJ /RESOCC.023 - 1 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Negative Declaration should be filed; 3. That it does hereby approve the above - described Amendment request for 77 rooms for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. 4. That this Specific Plan shall comply with the following condition: "Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer." PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California BJ /RESOCC.023 - 2 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY NOVEMBER 21, 1989 GENERAL: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" for 77 hotel rooms as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89 -421, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions o Coachella Valley water District o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above- mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 and Environmental Assessment 89 -141, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits /final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 1 13. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department.for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. _ A statement that the building(s) will be automatically Mire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 16. Install a supervised waterflow alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 22. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 3 - C assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by the Applicant /Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access /egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near sout hern - urdary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 12. A combination 4" X 2 -1/2 ") wi more than 165 measured along required fire two hydrants in of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 11 be located not less than 25 feet or feet from any portion of the building(s) as approved vehicular travelways. The flow shall be available from any adjacent the system. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 2 - 0 approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 -feet, 6- inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform- to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. �1 Coachella Valley Water District:` 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley water District for review. This review is',,, for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: 26. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with City standards and requirements. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and /or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 4 - J _ Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps /signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and ,,.CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. 28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces per" City requirements shall be provided in conjuncti& with proposed construction. 29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. V a BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 5 - i. December 14, 19A,-9 RECEIVED 1 89 La Quinta City Counc i`1 - DEC 1 9 9 78 105 Calle Estado CITY OF LEA QUIMTA La Quinta, Ca. 92253 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council: On December 5, 1989, the La Quinta Hotel hosted a Christmas party which was open to the public and advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper. Several residents of Santa Rosa Cove Association attended the party and everyone agreed that it was a wonderful affair. The newspaper stated that guests should go to the main entry of the La Quinta Hotel. However, when guests arrived at the hotel, a man standing in the parking lot with a flashlight sent them to the Santa Rosa Cove Association main guard gate on Calle Mazatlan. Anyone pulling up to the main gate that evening was asked if they were there for the Christmas party. If so, they were directed down Calle Mazatlan to Avenida Obregon. There were for most of the evening 10 to 12 cars backed up on Calle Mazatlan waiting to turn on Avenida Obregon and there was a considerable line of traffic on Obregon waiting to park. The residents living on Avenida Obregon couldn't get in or out of their driveways. The worst part of all was that there was absolutely no notice given the Santa Rosa Cove Association by Landmark or the Hotel that this event was going to take place. So, once again, in spite of Landmarks promises to work with the Association, they are still not attempting to. It seems that if the gate on Avenida Fernando could be moved now and the gate installed on Obregon, traffic for events such as the Christmas party could be contained on the Hotel or Landmark streets rather than using the Association. We ask that you give consideration to ammending the resolution that approved the building of 77 hotel rooms with the condition of moving and adding the above described gates to state that the gates must be taken care of prior to construction of the hotel units. That would certainly be a great step forward in solving the traffic problems at Santa Rosa Cove. Sincerely, The La Quinta Hotel Expansion Committee by: Melissa Layton, Manager of the Santa Rosa Cove Association cc: Mayor John Pena I December 4, 1989 The Honorable John Pena Mayor of La Quinta City Hall 78105 Calle Espado La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Mayor Pena: CC: c.c. c In CROFAAMWA CITY MWAGER My wife and I live at 77 -600 Avenida Fernando, just west of Eisenhower in La Quinta. On the weekend following Thanksgiving we learned for the first time about the expansion plans of the La Quinta Hotel from an article in the Desert Sun. Because our property is beyond the three hundred foot distance from the site of the proposed expansion, there was no legal requirement to notify us of the pending action. However, the compromise that was evidently worked out to satisfy the problems of the Santa Rosa Cove Homeowners will surely affect us adversely and we are very concerned. Following the initial hotel expansion in 1988, it has appeared to us that employee access to the Obregon parking lot has been by way of the gated entrance at Avenida Mazatlan, which also happens to be the closest route from Eisenhower. Avenida Fernando has provided the entrance to the large parking lot for employees as well as deliveries and service trucks. If we understand the proposed plan correctly, the new gates that would be installed on Fernando and Obregon would result in Avenida Fernando effectively becoming the exclusive means of access by employees and delivery trucks. The noise that is already generated by the auto and truck traffic as well as the speeding that occurs as a result of the straight -away afforded by Fernando are real nuisances that we would be delighted to live without. The current arrangement which uses both Avenida Mazatlan and Fernando at least seems CUSHMAN REALTY CORPORATION 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4000 • Los Angeles, California 90071-1544 • 2131613 -1505 .� �. �- r 1 '. .. ., \. r CUSHMAN REALTY CORPORATION Mayor Pena December 4, 1989 Page 2 fair even if the conditions are annoying. To have to bear the entire burden of such operation seems entirely unfair and, from a personal perspective, diminishes the value of the considerable amount of blood, sweat and tears that my wife and I have invested in our home. In their effort to resolve their own problems, I feel reasonably sure that the Homeowners did not reach their compromise with the Hotel with intentional disregard of how their agreement would impact those of us on Fernando. It is my intention to contact someone with the Homeowners Association and convey our serious reservations. While we understand that the City Council has already voted on the matter, we would suspect that the broader impact which will result from the conditions imposed on the expansion would entitle us to be involved in the process. We hope you understand our position and will help us find a solution that will be acceptable to everyone affected. Sincerely, William L. Puget ' J Vice President WLP /smm cc: Mr. Dale Bohnenberger, Councilman Ms. Joyce Bosworth, Councilwoman Dr. William Rushworth, Councilman Mr. Stanley Sniff, Councilman w . 1 .f C' LAW OFFICES OF PAUL MATHIS, P.C. 561 EAST JEFFERSON DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226 (313) 962 -3993 November 20, 1989 VIA EXPRESS MAIL La Quinta City Council 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 RECOO VED NOV 2 7 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Re: Pacific Plan 121 -E, Amendment No. 2; Plot Plan 89 -421 Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: I received, via mail on Monday, November 20, 1989, the Notice of Public Hearing concerning the request for approval of a specific plan and amendment thereto to allow elimination of the "Champion- ship Tennis Court" and the construction of additional hotel units as referenced therein. This letter shall serve as my official legal notice to you, that as a property owner (property address: 77 -351 Avenida Fernando, La Quinta, CA), I am vehemently opposed to the destruction and demolition of the Championship Tennis Court and the replacement thereon of expanded hotel units. In May of this year, my wife traveled to La Quinta to enjoy what proved to be a memorable "tennis" vacation at the resort. Convincing me to return with her to look at property and, likewise, enjoy the resort, we travelled to La Quinta in July of this year and decided almost immediately, to purchase a "tennis villa" at the resort. In September of this year, we purchased what we assumed to be the ultimate vacation and retirement home with all of the tennis amenities and qualities we had been searching for for quite sometime. Obviously, the receipt of this proposed "destruction and elimination" of the serene peace and tranquility which we found is not only disturbing, but disastrous to a substantial financial investment that we've made of $233,000. La Quinta City Council November 20, 1989 Page Two Not only is the proposed destruction of the Championship Tennis Court an abomination of the major attractiveness of La Quinta as a major tennis resort facility, it, in effect, would constitute (the public sanctioning by this Council body), inverse condemnation (for private purposes) by the very company, Landmark Land /Real Estate, which guided us through this purchase acquisition. We were sold this property without so much as a whisper of disclosure of this plan, the very nature of which I can assure you would have prompted me to not purchase my condominium. This failure to disclose, alone, is a substantial and material misrepresentation on the part of Landmark. Moreover, the proposed development will substantially and drastically change the originally intended residential harmony of the limited number of tennis units, significantly increase traffic, pose security and maintenance problems, increase noise and reduce significantly the value of privately owned property (not to mention, the reduction of value in my property, having only made one mortgage payment) and immediately accelerate the overall reduction in the marketability of the resort and a certain loss in prestige for the resort as a five -star tennis resort. There cannot be a five -star resort without a Championship Court. I, therefore, respectfully urge you to reject the proposed hotel unit development and if necessary, have same moved to another site which does not impact upon residential housing. I can only assume that there is no protection for tennis condo owners such as me (aside from this Honorable body protecting the rights of the property owners) from being later told that "we want to construct over a few more 'vacant' courts for additional hotel units." I submit to you that this is totally unacceptable! PMJ/ s j cc: La Quinta Planning and Development Department ✓ La Quinta Tennis Villas Association Melissa Layton, Manager- Desert Resort Management r of La Quints ERV, IN U. CHARMUN lGV l� 1989 2962 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 540 -1588 City Council City Hall 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen, c c /bN /c /Yi D1R / ,eln PZAA11YA%y �omi14/ , November 10, 1989 RECEIVED NOV 14 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. As an early home owner in Santa Rosa Cove, we are quite concerned about the negative impact we believe the proposed enlargement of the facilities of the La Quinta Hotel will have on our property and our enjoyment of it. We do not oppose properly controlled growth, and hotels in that total area apparently find it necessary to expand in order to stay competitive. However, the La Quinta Hotel should be forced to provide ample parking for both over -night and special event guests and also its employees. The streets in our subdivision were not approved by the city to accommodate hotel guests. Our home is on Calle Estrella, close to the south side of the La Quinta Hotel, and even now on weekends there are cars on our street with hotel guest cards on their dashboards. If this becomes a serious problem, I would propose all such cars be towed away by order of the Santa Rosa Cove Association. The hotel would be the loser with irate guests, but if they do not provide proper parking, they would deserve it. Now is the time to require ample and not just minimum parking for the total requirements of the hotel when the present and proposed developments are utilized. Also, in the construction of the proposed new "motel" type structure by the Tennis Club, all trucks and the cars of construction workers should be forced to use Fernando and not be permitted through our gate. The streets are now the responsibility of our Association, I am told, and are not constructed with the proper base for the heavy traffic that would be generated by such construction. .� .. r City Council page two November 10, 1989 We have purchased our home because of its quiet area, secluded in a pocket of the mountains to the west and north. If Landmark and the Hotel have to build a parking structure to accommodate their guests and employees, so be it, but the parking should not be on our streets. We thank you for your co- operation. Sincerely, IRVIN C. CHAPMAN ICC:am 1 Y ,N �!QV a 3 1969 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT, November 9,1989 City of La Quinta Planning Commission P.o. Box 1504 La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Re: LANDMARK /SANTA ROSA COVE Gentlemen: It is my opinion as a Homeowner in Santa Rosa Cove that the proposed two -story structure to be constructed by the LANDMARK CO. alongside the LA QUINTA TENNIS CLUB is too large for the area and should be reduced to a one story structure. A seventy Seven unit building would create additional traffic and parking problems. In addition, I believe the existing card gate at FERNANDO should be moved forward to a point on the west side of OBREGON and a second gate should be installed at the south end of OBREGON. By doing this the Santa Rosa Cove Homeowners would enjoy the security that they were originally promised. Please advise the LANDMARK CO. before they commence any construction that the problems of proper security gates and adequate parking spaces should be addressed. Z d' y, t N. Burmeister 76 -989 Calle Mazatlan La Quinta, Ca. t 1 November 6, 1989 3131 Midland Dr., S.E. Grand Rapids, MI 49506 Joyce Bosworth and : E C EIV E1) LaQuinta Planning Commission NOV 15 1989 LaQuinta City Hall 78 -105 Calle Estado CITY O� LA QUINTA LaQuinta, CA 92253 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT Dear Joyce and Members of LaQuinta Planning Commission: The speed that the LandMark "Motel" plan raced through the Planning Commission is unbelievable! LandMark planned carefully, it is obvious, to suddenly reveal completed architectural drawings for the building and have it voted on by the commission in October when 90% of Santa Rosa Cove homeowners would not be in residence. It was a procedure that did not provide reasonable notice to interested parties. The word reasonable means reasonable under the circumstances and at that time 90% of Santa Rosa homeowners were living in states from the Midwest to the Atlantic Coast. It was obvious and well known to LandMark that home owners were not there. Had we known that such a plan was in the making months ago, we would have been prepared with a majority objection. We think you should reconsider your decision and let us present our reasons for objecting. They may call it another name, but its size and projected usage is for a motel. We have invested heavily in Santa Rosa Cove. We pay taxes for the assessed value of our property. The proposed motel will certainly cause a decline in the value of the property and consequently the diminshed value of all Santa Rosa Cove real estate. That will be an enourmous tax loss for the City of LaQuinta. The powerful . influence of presteige that Santa Rosa Cove has enjoyed with its lovely homes and grounds will-be lost forever. - -. Build .,a liability,*- and it all goes crashing down. The tax money from the motel would not for long support the loss of the property taxes of homes. This motel is a denial of the responsibility LandMark has to maintain standards appropriate to the life style and cost of Santa Rosa homes. If the motel is built we will certainly put our home on the market soon after we arrive December 5th. We will be very sad to do it but we can only live where a planning commission will protect us and our investment. Hoping you will reconsider your decision and let the majority of Santa Rosa residents be heard. I remain respectfull , � f Margaret G. Bertsch 1 • FRITZ R. STRADLING NICK E. YOCCA C. CRAIG CARLSON WILLIAM R. RAUTH 11. K.C. SCHAAF RICHARD C. GOODMAN JOHN J. MURPHY THOMAS P. CLARKS JR. BEN A. FRYOMAN DAVID R. M-EWEN PAUL L. GALE RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD ROBERT J. KANE M, D. TALBOT BRUCE C. STUART DOUGLAS F HIGHAM E. KURT YEAGER ROBERT J. WHALEN ROBERT E. RICH THOMAS A. PISTONE SCOTT E. M-CONNELL RANDALL J. SHERMAN BRUCE W. FEUCHTER MARK J. HUEBSCH KIRK F. MALDONADO KAREN A. ELLIS ELIZABETH C. GREEN ERNEST C. BROWN BRUCE D. MAY PEGI A. GROUNDWATER DONALD J. HAMMAN JOHN J. SWIGART, JR. MICHAEL A. ZABLOCKI $TRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & 13AUTH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION NEILA R. BERNSTEIN CELESTE STAHL BRADY CHRISTOPHER J. KILPATRICK WILLIAM A. MAROUIS JOEL H. GUTH JULIE M. MCCOY DAWN C. HONEYWELL OWEN B. LUBOW LAWRENCE B. COHN STEPHEN T. FREEMAN PERRY J. TARNOFSKY ROBERT A. WILSON CHERYL A. DOW NICHOLAS J. YOCCA LISA M. KITSUTA JULIE M. PORTER JOHN D. STEINBERG ROBERT C. FUNSTEN ALETA LOUISE BRYANT RONALD A. VAN BLARCOM STEPHEN M. MCNAMARA J. MICHAEL VAUGHN CINDY R. HUGHES DENISE E. HARBAUGH BARBARA L. ZEI0 ERIC T. SALTZMAN MICHAEL J. RUBINO MICHAEL J. LALISERTE GARY P. DOWNS JOHN D. IRELAND MICHAEL J. PENDERGAST ANDREW P. RIFKIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVES SUITE 1600 POST OFFICE BOX 7680 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-6441 TELEPHONE (714) 640.7036 FAX NUMBER (714) 723.4100 November 2, 1989 Walter F. Freitas 77 -321 Avenida Fernando La Quinta, California 92253 JOHN E. BRECKENRIDGE RENA C. STONE or COUNSEL WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: n W W. Nov 3 1989 CITY 'OF LA Q`UINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT, Re: Response to Your Letter of October 31, 1989 Dear Mr. Freitas: In response to your letter dated October 31, 1989: It is a general principle of constitutional law that where an individual is claiming failure to give proper notice and yet that individual attends a hearing on the matter under question, that individual has waived any claim to procedural defect in the notice as they have obviously obtained actual notice of the hearing. Even if it were not for the above general principal which renders your complaint, a moote point, the mere inclusion in an address label of "Landmark Land Co. of Calif." where the address and the name is the same is unlikely to be considered such a defect in the notice that the City could be found to have not complied with Government Code Section 65091. In addition, there is no mention in your letter whether you actually received the notice even though it had.the clerical error of the additional line in the address. It should be obvious that the purpose of giving notice is not to-meet some - exacting clerical standard on the hundreds of addresses that need to be sent out, but rather to allow • -•� ..�, ,� �{ Sri _ ..'a�: '�'i'.. . ;r Mr. Walter F. Freitas November 2, 1989 Page Two anyone with any concerns to speak at.public hearings on this matter. The fact that you are well aware of the public hearing which is scheduled before the City Council will allow you to express any objections or concerns that you may have. It is this expression of your concerns that the purpose of the law is directed at, not an exacting and impossible to reach clerical standard placed on public entities at the cost of public funds. I hope the.above explains our office's position on this matter. DCH:cmp cc: Ron Keidrowski Jerry Herman Very truly yours, STRADLING, BYO %CCA, CARLSON & RAUTH Dawn C. Honeywe1 City Attorney, City of .La Quinta. Irl. i TO: IWIMM A MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ;1 H - 2 DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1989 SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E AMENDMENT #2 AND PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -041 1, -_- _Thus matter was continued from the October 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting to permit the Applicant and property owners the opportunity to resolve their concerns. Therefore, the matter is now before the Commission. The Commission has various options available, such as the following: 1. Continue the Hearing. 2. Approve the request as presented. 3. Modify the request. 4. Deny the request. Attachment: 1. Letters of protest received since October 10, 1989, meeting. 2. October 10, 1989 Planning Commission Staff Report BJ /MEMOJH.014 10/23/89 City Council City of La Quinta PO Box 1504 La Quinta, Cal. 92253 Dear Members of the Council, C '�-' C-A M /,T R/ty f/, -R^4 1v �.::4 of La Quinta OCT 2 G 1989 RECEIVED OCT 2 7 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. My name is Sheldon Diller and I have a second home in Santa Rosa Cove. I have a great concern over the proposed further expansion of the La Quinta Hotel. I have been a resident of Santa Rosa Cove for over seven years and have seen, of late, many problems develop in our area due to a tremendous increase in hotel guests. We live at 77680 Los Arboles and traffic to the hotel in front of our home has increased f ive fold, and this is at all hours of the night. Although we live 50 yards from the nearest hotel rooms, the parking has become such a problem that it is not uncommon to have hotel guests parking on the street near our house. The traffic through the main Santa Rosa gate now begins at 6 AM, due to the huge number of hotel employees using that entrance, thus making it too noisy to leave a window open at night. Security is a problem as well. Saturday night, Octoberl4th, we arrived home from dinner and as we were entering the house a hotel security guard came up to us wheeling one of my bikes that had been in the garage and said that he found it on the hotel grounds and that a hotel guest "must have taken from my garage!" I can't understand how he knew it came from my house other than this guest's friend, or the guest himself, must have told the guard where the bike came from. We have been awakened, on occassions, by drunken guests walking down our Santa Rosa Cove streets yelling or singing. Hotel guests drive our streets as if it was a freeway. We have a great fear that the addition of 70 or 80 more hotel rooms added in what is virtually the center of Santa Rosa Cove will greatly increase the traffic and security problem,. The proposed design maximises occupancy at the expense of all the surrounding neighbors. We residents of the Cove understand that things change, but when these changes create traffic and safety problems we hope the City Council and Building Commission will take action. I ould appreciate someone responding to me with their comments. t4n Diller Phone 564 -1902 s October 10, 1989 As a permanent resident of Santa Rosa Cove since February 1986, I am deeply concerned about Landmark's intention to build a further 77 -80 hotel units on Avenida Obregon. As a concerned homeowner, I would like to call your attention to the following facts and comments: 1) Property owners were given minimal notice of this project. 2) This meeting was scheduled at a time when very few property owners are able to attend, 3) Inspite of Landmarks considerable political "clout," as property owners we have rights that need to be respected and addressed and action taken to implement BEFORE this project is allowed to commence. The issues that need to be dealt with in order to protect our rights are: 1) Parking 80 units /14 parking spaces? Please clarify, 2) Traffic Santa Rosa Cove should not be subjected to hotel traffic -- either employee or guest. 3) Density The project description states "Medium density residential 4 -8 dwellings per acre. Net acreage 1.7." Please clarify, Between Landmark and La Quinta Joint Venture, Santa Rosa Cove is beginning to look more like a city than a beautiful desert community. This "progress" undoubtedly brings in dollars, but over - developing a unique area does not enhance the City of La Quinta longterm. 4) Security It is imperative, if Landmark goes ahead with this project, that they first ensure our security by removing the existing "joke of a guard - gate" on Avenida Fernando and building (and landscaping) a new guard -gate on Fernando beyond Avenida Obregon, and another gate at the other end of Obregon. That way their staff, their guests, and anyone visiting their tennis club would not jeopardize our security. 5) Drainage We have existing drainage problems which are being checked and which may be due at least in part to Landmarks tennis courts. It is therefore necessary that their drainage plans for this project and for any further tennis courts they plan to build be carefully studied and implemented so they do not create drainage problems on our streets. I would like to add that I feel like I am being steam - rolled, and I would like to feel that the City of La Quinta is truly concerned about protecting my rights as a homeowner and permanent resident here. I love my home. And I don't want it spoiled. Judy Blum 76 -941 Calle Mazatlan " La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Tel. 564 -1921 S RECEI! Al Calle Mazatlan OCT 16 19S9 La Quinta California 92253 CITY OF LA QUINTA October 12, 1989 PUNNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. To the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, I want to thank you all very much for your extraordinary patience and willingness to listen to our problems (especially at such a late hour and involving issues not on your agenda:), and for your decision to give us time to meet with Landmark with the hope of resolving our most pressing issues. I also want to "put in writing" my personal feelings about what it looks like, to me, is happening not only in Santa Rosa Cove but in La Quinta as a whole. Yes, I agree I have been very "naive" about the likelihood of new development here. Also I do not believe I could have foreseen quite this kind of rape of the land. When I chose to buy my home in Santa Rosa Cove (rather than at PGA West) it was because I was led to believe this cove would retain its natural beauty and would not be "over- built." I was told specifically that "there would be a total of just over 300 units in Santa Rosa Cove." No mention was made of the "legendary" La Quinta Hotel changing its image and changing this cove by adding over seven hundred units. No mention was made of the other projected developments by La Quinta Joint Venture - -Los Estados, The Enclave, and the soon -to -be development off Fernando. I cannot help feeling I was purposely misled, and I learned, at the meeting on Tuesday night, that I am far from being alone. Misrepresentation seems to be rampant among major developers here in the desert. As it turns out this unique cove, once truthfully called "the gem of the desert," now has buildings and projected buildings of one kind or another packed and /or stacked on every available piece of land. I feel very strongly that this is an assault on my home and on the land. I am not against "progress." At the same time I am very much against spoiling a place of such natural beauty by over - building out of pure financial greed. In our hearts I feel those of us who live here because we love it (and not because our property value is increasing - -for now...) want it to continue to be a special place. I also feel strongly that the City of La Quinta will not benefit, longterm, by allowing the two largest developers in this area to assert their political /financial power to essentially "take over" our community. And I am grateful to be able to say that I feel alot better after Tuesday nights meeting because I felt "heard," and because I feel you too are concerned. We all understand that Sunrise and Landmark benefit our City. And we give them great credit for their standard of design and building. But there has to be some kind of control, now, if we are to safeguard our homes and our lifestyle. Landmarks La Quinta Hotel advertises itself as a "Do Not Disturb Sign." As a permanent resident of La Quinta and, specif ically, of Santa Rosa Cove, I would really appreciate it if they would respect my home and their own advertising. Thank you again for listening to us, I Sincerely, Judy Blum t- �1 John W. Lucas 77 -253 Calle Mazatlan RECEIVED La Quinta, CA 92253 C October 17, 1989 OCT 19 1989 Planning Commission CITY OF LA QUINTA City of La Quinta PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Reference: Case No. EA 89 -141, Specific Plan 121E, Amendment #2, Plot Plan 89 -421 Dear Commissioners: This letter follows the Planning Commission Public Hearing which was held on October 10th on the Reference item which is the request by Landmark Land Company to be allowed to construct 77 hotel units on the west side of Avenida Obregon at the La Quinta Hotel. My condominium is at 77 -253 Calle Mazatlan in Santa Rosa Cove. We believe that this is one of the finest developments and we feel that the hotel adds greatly to it. First of all, I am a member of the Hotel Tennis Club and I am concerned that this request will mean that the present championship court as well as other tennis courts will be razed. When I became a member it was my understanding that courts were to be added rather than taken away. I hope this is not a new trend but that new courts will be added as was stated at the hearing. As I told you at the hearing, I am especially concerned about water drainage as this project goes ahead. The entire area surrounding the proposed site is almost flat. Currently water is pumped periodically from the Tennis Club through a pipe which empties onto the east side of Calle Mazatlan just to the south of the existing tennis villas. The recent addition of an employee parking area and a utility area just north of the site have added to drainage problems. The proposed construction will only make them worse unless, as Landmark representatives stated at the Hearing, they have a plan for disposing of the additional run -off. I respectfully ask that you make sure that Landmark has a workable plan and that it is implemented. It is my understanding that my neighbors are sending you letters addressing other issues which must be resolved such as traffic, parking, security and entrance gates. I want to take this opportunity to thank each of you for your personal time in helping to keep La Quinta a gem in the desert. Sincerely, cc: ally Dowd Melissa Layton Elaine Lloyd Jane Redner Dale Walter . , *- t i RL4E1VE® OCT 19 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. La Quinta Planning Commission La Quinta, CA 92253 77321 Camino Quintana La Guinta, CA 92253 After the last marathon meeting of gripes and emotion, ourrespect and admiration for the members of this commission has magnified. You displayed knowledge of the situations discussed and maintained control of the meeting with tact and authority. We, too, have a lot of respect for Landmark and their developments. The main reason we bought in Santa Rosa Cove was the proximity to and availabilty of their facilities. However, in their pursuit of profits, to which we fully acknowledge they are entitled, we feel they are sacrificing some of these amenities without fully considering the residents of the Cove, their neighbors. They seem to be viewing their added units to the hotel and now the motel only from the commercial aspect and insensitive to the already existing parking problems, especially on Los Arbolles. I walked down Los Arbolles this morning, October 14, 1989, at 7:10 a.m. and at that time there were 16 cars parked along the street on the hotel side. This is only one time and one example. fi� A -Anre= io ud• �.fr_ fxc�fc,,,9 c.;hy ire Ae- One concern voiced by Landmark at the last meeting seemed to be with the proposed relocation of the Fernando gate below the turn at Obregon, as outlined in the staff report, also, a new gate to be installed at the south end of Obregon. If their problem is with the movement of their service vehicles with proposed gate barriers, a possible solution would be to install gates such as the one at the entrance to The Enclave. These gates would not need to be as large nor as elaborate. Small service vehicles could then move freely, yet auto traffic would be controlled. In addition, and very important to us, it should reduce traffic through the front gate by routing motel traffic via Fernando. Landmark indicated they did not feel it feasible to request a motel resident to drive alj the Way out to Fernando, to Eisenhower and the front gate, thence to the golf club, yet these same people undoubtedly drive an average of ten miles to get to their golf course in their home area. If this really would be an item, the motel /hotel should offer van or small vehicle transportation to and from the pro shop, a service already being done by the hotel. With regard to noise pollution, some better control should be exercised at the many outdoor festivities of the hotel. We live close to the Tennis Club, La Casa, and now the motel and benefit from the fall -out on all of these many occasions. Several evenings there were two such parties and on one occasion I recall there were three bands, one at La Casa, one at the r� �_ -' �, Y; Tennis Club, d one outside at the hot Most times they do stop at 10 p.m., however there have been times when the bands have played longer. Recently I read that the Governor of California had signed a bill prohibiting outdoor music that carried more than a distance of fifty feet. The hotel certainly exceeds that. Others have already mentioned the need for additional security and traffic control. We are not secure if the Fernando is inoperable, as it has been so much of time. All of us are extremely concerned and will support your efforts in helping solve these problems. Respectfully, 'AIX 1 0 /-�. Y .— SANDSTROM NELS E. SANDSTROM �f f� r STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989 ITEM: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E (AMENDMENT #2) PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (LA QUINTA HOTEL) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77 HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO -STORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE WHERE THE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT PRESENTLY EXISTS ON 1.7+ ACRES. LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: BACKGROUND: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE MAZATLAN ON THE LA QUINTA HOTEL SITE. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) R -3* (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, 1,200 SQ. FT. MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE REQUIRED). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89 -141 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT. ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED BY REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT AND IMPOSITION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. The original Specific Plan No. 121 -E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) was approved by Riverside County in 1975. The Plan authorized construction of 637 condominiums, 496 hotel rooms, golf course with clubhouse, and service facilities. The Plan was subsequently amended in 1982. The City Council authorized the addition of 279 condominiums and 146 hotel rooms (Council Resolution No. 82 -54 - Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised). . The revised Specific Plan was approved to increase project acreage and to add additional dwelling units and hotel rooms. In December, 1987, Plot Plan No. 87 -387 was approved by the City expanding the hotel by 336 rooms to 609 units of which 603 rooms were constructed. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 1 - f y In September, 1988, Plot Plan No. 88 -393 and Specific Plan 121 -E (Amendment #1) was granted which permitted a new maintenance facility and overflow employee parking lot just south of the site presently under consideration. In May, 1989, Plot Plan No. 89 -412 was approved expanding the hotel by 38 rooms to a total of 641 rooms. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is proposing to eliminate the championship tennis court, a small Tennis Club building, and several adjacent parking spaces and replace them with a 43,065 square foot two- story, 77 -room hotel addition. Additionally, a small mechanical room addition is proposed to be added to the adjacent maintenance building to the south and several tennis courts to the west will need to be relocated to the west to accommodate the new hotel units. Adjacent land uses are as follows: North: Tennis Club South: Maintenance Facility East: Hotel Units (detached) West: Tennis Courts & Vacant Land The hotel structure would be rectangular in shape with a large central courtyard reminiscent of a Spanish hacienda. The courtyard would have a pool, spa and sunning area. The typical guest room would be 495 square feet with one 2 -room suite with 990 square feet. All units would have a balcony or patio. Materials for the Spanish style building would match the 1989 -90 hotel expansion. 44 new parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the proposed construction. ANALYSIS: 1. The building would replace a championship tennis court that is no longer needed since major tournaments are not held there any longer. 2. The architecture and materials would be compatible with adjacent existing buildings. 3. The recently approved maintenance building and overflow parking area have been completed. A weekday morning inspection of the parking lot found it to be 78 -85 percent full. It appeared to be used by employees and /or construction workers. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 2 - 4. Over the past there has been problems due to hotel employees and to an extent guests driving through the condominium area to the south. The proposed expansion may increase the concerns. This can be greatly alleviated by restricting access to the condominium area by installation of an "emergency only" vehicular gate across Avenida Obregon at or near the border between the hotel and condominium area. Additionally, relocation of the existing Avenida Fernando gate arm to the area west of Avenida Obregon will facilitate access for hotel guests and employees while maintaining security for the residential areas west of Avenida Obregon. A condition requiring this has been drafted to achieve this. 5. The 44 new spaces are proposed in front of the new hotel rooms on both sides of Avenida Obregon. This will provide convenient parking for most of the new rooms. The new 154 space lot and other nearby lots could provide additional parking. 6. Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141 has been prepared in conjunction with this request. No significant affects will be created that cannot be mitigated through the recommended conditions of approval. 7. The proposed plans indicate a small landscape strip between the new parking spaces on the west side of Avenida Obregon and the patio walls of the proposed building. Staff feels this landscape strip should be increased by 10 -feet as required for front yards in the R -3 Zone. This will decrease the mass of the building, provide a more attractive streetscape, and increase distance between patios and parked cars. FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the amended Specific Plan No. 121 -E can be supported and found in the attached Resolution. The findings necessary to approve Plot Plan No. 89 -421 are as follows: 1. The proposed hotel units are consistent with revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposal is consistent with the standards of the R -3 Zone and Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, as conditioned. 3. Environmental impacts from the have a significant impact traffic impacts as noted are relocated gate locations. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 3 - proposed project will not on the environment provided mitigated through new and RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment #2, subject to approval of Plot Plan No. 89 -421. 2. By minute motion, approve Plot Plan No. 89 -421, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Letter from Applicant dated September 6, 1989. 3. Comments from various City Departments and other agencies. 4. Initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141. 5. Plans and Exhibits for SP 121 -E (Amendment #2) & PP #89 -421. 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending SP #121 -E (Amendment #2). 7. Recommended conditions of approval for PP #89 -421. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 4 - .may■ TW.W0 CASE NM S F' 111 -t PP 89 -421 LOCATION MAP September E. 1959 Stan Sawa Planning Dept. CITY Of LA QT,;IN:A 78 -105 Callfw ra` ado La Quintd, CL ?2253 Dear Stan, RECEIVEu S E P 7 1989 CITY O1 LA QUINTA 'IANNiNC, R DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Landman T. -,c,.T, -any is prof %osir+.? a 77, ro•)m addition to the La Quinta Hotel u.`.ich will include several tC'nni5i suites, a courtyard with swimming pool and-4 spas, d additional pai:.inq. The Che;nr,-j ci,s*h1 ' i'' :lnls cl - -,b and r_. _ b_ch—_r .p G-f "anta Rosa Cove p.:aasant and relaxed sLttin,; f. :•r the Spanish Courtyard. The Spanis ". A, : titectural motif is modeled aftc- , the stv1P of the existing hctcl. :he courtyard allow; for a N►ariet% o f -ses including large Intimate parties, or ..r ivete The guest roorss I :ok dorn on-:s 3 landscaped courtyard ;F;t11ci ;iq a ?erge p ^ol, spa, and sunning zrea. Pri -ate guestrc,�nr ar:d suites include t;:n terraces and baiC:OnleS for entertaining Wh11E V.Fw-1 ;.?',,,E C7 +2r`.5 and COUrtydlj be!-:!w. Additisnal parking for the wi:? :e _. stn a,; ;no t,vendia v �cyGU ;%r•d &t the new parking _o4 :?ccn.; tf,L Ei�: _ i _T,G ri:clt:tet:a'1Ce faCi iit AcCes3 to the parkins t- ec—zewa✓ or the southwt -st r,.-raer of the buil inn_ t:,E La Quint Hotel Parkin,: Study, the addi.tiUr• 44 ^yr %i... r��a::s_ -r :;.c^ ne total hotel :'.:i..y cou,:t to 1065 sPacez with The City of La zoning ordinance char ter _c.:60. Sin, rely, Alex ondos Landmark Land Design e, Plan -ning CC: Stephen Caplinger Pain Quill Forrest Hoag Gene ::eive: Gary F3rney ATTACHMENT LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Land Planning, Engineering, Design & Construction 78 -150 Calle Tampico, P.O. Box 1000, Lo Quinta, California 92253 (619) 564 -4500 FAX (619) 564 -8052 ,$ATFA '0 /STRICT ESTABLISHED IN 1916 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 3982651 DIRECTORS TE L L IS CODE KAS. PRESIDENT RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT JOHN P. POWELL DOROTHY M. NICHOLS THEODORE J. FISH Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California Gentlemen: OFFICERS THOMAS E. LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER BERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY KEITH H. AINSWORTH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS August 29, 1989 File: 0163.1 92253 Pl Subject: Plot Plan 89 -421, Portion of Southwest Quarter, Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes maintained by the developer, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. RF:gh cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 46 -209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 You s very truly, Tom Levy General Manager-Chie gineer TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY ATTACHMENT ��', �q , �ecr Z. e5�06,A�x � * arc��m,� �.(.��(�� ..rte ow 7a / O RECEIVED AUG ' 9 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT DEPT. RECEIVED AUG ?. 9 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVtOMENT DEPT. i ° Ia �// n f/ o� �4a6 /.c► �S.0 -,� Add, �iof 7 G%� S ?r'lj � 1, C S , 7,( .. X A e PRO] SF�/ -r1 yp Vo /Ve, RECEIVEJ) AUG 2 2 1989 CITY OF Cq C?UIWA PANNING & DfftPMENT DEPT. RuminS & bjinee� Office 46-209 Oasis Street, Suite 405 Indio, CA 92201 (619) 342 -8886 To: City of La Quinta Planning Division Re: Plot Plan 89 -421 RIVERSIDE COUN7Y FIRE DPAR'i ENT &Wro* IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY C AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN NEWMAN� FIR>: (HEY tai ftR PanninsBrim Off" August 21, 1989 4080 Lemon Street, Suik 11 L Riverside. CA 92501 RECEIVED (114) 187 -6606 AUG 23 1959 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING b DEVELOPMENT DEPT. With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Plot Plan, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in — accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and /or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 2. The applicant /developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant /developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 3. A combination of on -site and off -site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 21" a 2} ") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. 4. Applicant /developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 5. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 6. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. City of La Quinta - Planning Div. Re: Plot Plan 89 -421 11/21/89 Page 2. 7. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 8. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 10. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, 1503. 11. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 13. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6 ". 14. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagramatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4' x 4' in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. A11- questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning 6 Engineering Staff at (619) 342 -8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Z- im Reeder Fire Protection Specialist to f i SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COMPANY tw LL;GONU *AMA, FIEDLUM CAUFORNtA MAILING ADDRESS P 0 BOX 3003. REDLANDS. CALIFORNIA 923730306 August 18, 1989 City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 ATTENTION: Stan Sawa RE: Specific Plan 121E The Southern California Gas Company has a gas main in Eisenhower Drive near the project. Distribution lines could be extended from these mains to serve the Proposed development without _any significant impact. on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average /Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms /year dwelling unit Multi - Family 4 or less units 482 therms /year dwelling unit Multi- Family 5 or more units 483 therms /year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. i ,' 7 To insure the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the new development, an engineering study Will be required. Detailed information including tract maps and plot plans must be submitted to the Gas Company Market Services Representa- tive, 1 -800- 624 -2497, six months prior to the actual construction of the natural gas pipeline. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Area Market Services Manager, P.O. Box 3003, Redlands, CA 92373 -0306, phone 1 -800- 624 -2497. RLB :vjs _- cc: Environ Affairs - ML209B Sincerely, Roger L. B Technical Supervisor • %/r �,,, Q�om,,J_ CM Of u V - 4`' J QUIarI it c C ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROtW 1. Name of Proponent: I� Im4;- , L�a L/G �Q Cj(' 2. Address d Phone Number of Proponent: JD F--,Ox loco F2� -q_1Iq0 3. Date of Checklist: 10 — S _9 j? 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 4.40 .0; S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: 1.-d' Czusr/Y'GL 44=, II. ENVIRO*ENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or X overcovering of the soil? _ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ �( d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ X e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, X inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of x ambient air quality? _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ 11 c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ S. water. will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? _ e. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? _ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any X water body? _ _ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ATTACHMENT 9 (3) 1� f (4) Yes Maebe !b h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? is Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ )( 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic X plants)? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ Y S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? _ k c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ X 7. Li et and Clare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X _ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? _ b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? k 10. Risk of 2eset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, 31-s—t-r-3.9'ution, density, or growth rate of the X human population of an area? _ 12. Housinj Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? )C (4) (5) Yes Maybe No c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ X do Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? _ Z( c. Schools? _ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need _ for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? _ c. Water? _ d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ x e. Storm water drainage? _ A. f. Solid waste and disposal? — x 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _..._ K la. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the o struction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public vier? _ X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration o a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? _ 21. Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan 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? r X (5) Yes !!!A--e Ib b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, en- vironmental goals.? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is — significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. k _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this use because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MILL BE PREPARED. _ I find the proposed project W1Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRO* ENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: Signature V2144 RESPONSE TO "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89 -141 FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 6.a. Noise: During the demolition and construction phase there will be a temporary increase in noise levels. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall comply with prescribed work hours permitted by City ordinance to minimize nuisance caused by noise impacts. 7.a. Light & Glare: New building and exterior lighting will be provided with proposed construction. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall submit exterior lighting plan in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 8. Land Use: The proposed hotel use of the site will alter the existing recreational use (tennis court) of the site. Mitigation Measure: Amendment of the Specific Plan to allow the hotel use will mitigate any adverse impacts. 13.a.b.Transportation /Circulation: The proposed use will generate additional hotel and employee traffic hazards and parking demand on Avenida Obregon and surrounding streets. Mitigation Measures: Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. 19. Recreation: The proposed construction will necessitate removal of at least two tennis courts. Mitigation Measure: The extensive number of tennis courts mitigates the loss of the two tennis courts. Additionally, they may be relocated. - BJ /RSPCMT.001 - 1 - PROPOBI oPLAW Urr .� rrww Wr1� Ir r.�1.lY �r r ti W � M1rw V W.YwYr rrr b�.rlA. /.rr�. rY M YW 1rr. tr• �. •�� rr�1r rrrrr' MY rY r.r4 �..r.r✓ W._Y Irt M.A� �.tt. Mtir LIH il! D -i D' n m. z 01 1 eft- ^clefCr% 1 Act 910 pop" MAW OV f rw+twwCe r�canr 1 �-al Mr I ' 1 i n • t J v.. -L1.11 h'ilQv C.Oid -AAO 4J on; - 'I,,1:, I�11., 1, . , AVl.At OMIOOM 1 � =oVf `JB�F3 r�l�I «J� IAIO /� IMF A�1 ArAw §3 pW 2 L J o_� N° r t-1 - d0►Aiy ------ van EXHIBIT A CASs: P -O. Pp -4. i ---,�� j 8 R' RECEIVED SEP 2 6 1989 CITY OF LA QUiNTA 'LANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. I�I I l � uuowi ur � Yr�• � o+ a r FIRST FLOOR PLAN M L Y� � i 0 so RECEIVED S E P 2 6 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA 'LANNING L DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1 vc r uno' m R N Z a x x W J W /p- 2 1-- 7 0 t J SECOND FLOOR PLAN '—mss Ttllr� naw Yo..ia Ysi. iariariar Ns. Ibi. 11biw.lseu. ariari Mme. arioriawY.n Ids. 1{s. Yom. in�Y..� �. Mew. rs. idsi. a (tip �m�• • �YIIII:II, III1111� • ' • 3 ` /I • • � � 7 a • G. • • �:��• I.W./.49 I I.. ...W1.I . II.".I.W.t.1 . .I WIM.t� 6 C • �II�IIIIIII �:��IIII��' 4rYrr�Y.+r i.arioriariari.�.r awi -_ 0 so RECEIVED S E P 2 6 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA 'LANNING L DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1 vc r uno' m R N Z a x x W J W /p- 2 1-- 7 0 t J SECOND FLOOR PLAN '—mss Ttllr� j COTIAGE,WN I TE MISSION CLAY I ILE SAX ... ..... .... 1::l r-1 7`1 rl ID ID FRONT (AVENIDA OBREGON) ELEVATION -t-Eiiafffi iaiii�- -1, J,21i�i t, fill: ultiltillifi[L , tdL�l LL I . L I IL,Ik ILI LI li,ILL.1111 f I i-7n m jr, n� M I 11111, 17111111-11 119o, 1 rig m I 11-ni Inni; 11!111-11 m I m F NORTH FIFVAIION rvj F-11 1,1 1- 11, rTI I Ir 11 T1 P1711 I m no I m mi m mi nil mI lrllq fl Ir. , III m ml ml 1111111 I Irin Iqp m nil Im RECEIVED SEP 26 196! CITY OF LA QU PLANNING & DEVELOPME' REAR ELEVATION mmoffilas imimmImImIlqu PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E, REVISED. CASE SP 121 -E, AMENDMENT #2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of. La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 82 -54, on October 5, 1982, and;. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the .City of La Quinta did, on the 10th day of October, 1989, hold a duly- noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to to allow.77 additional hotel units, more particularly described as follows: A portion of the east half of the southwest one- quarter of Section 36 T5S, R6E, SBBM, and; WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment.has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82 -213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be . heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: 1. That Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amended No. 2, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: BJ /RESOPC.020 - 1 - s • 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Negative Declaration should be filed; 3.. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above - described to approval of Plot Plan No. 89 -4 forth in this Resolution, and labeled Exhibit "A ", on file Development Department. to the City Council Amendment request subject 21 for the reasons set as illustrated in the map in the Planning and PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10th day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ /RESOPC.020 - 2 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - .PROPOSED PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OCTOBER 10, 1989 GENERAL: 1. The development of the sit shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89 -421, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The. approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal.Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above - mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 and Environmental Assessment 89 -1411 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits /final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 1 •i a 4b assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by.the Applicant /Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be. retained (100 -year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access /egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate rms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from exis�ing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. Emergency only vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them.. 12. A combination of on- site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2 -1/211) will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 2 ilk 13. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the' front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the. title page of the building plans. 16. Install a supervised waterflow alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 22. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved' by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio- controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 3 - 4b approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening- width shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 -feet, 6- inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building. designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to . the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Coachella Valley Water District: 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: 26. All on -site utilities shall be accordance with City standards and 27. Prior to issuance of any building shall submit to the Planning approval a plan (or plans) showing installed underground in requirements. permits, the Applicant Division for review and the following: 'A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation. system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design required walls. C. Exterior lighting adopted "Dark minimization of surrounding propert detail -of any proposed and /or plan, in compliance with any Sky" Ordinance emphasizing light and glare impacts to ies. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 4 - 4b Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit. "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps /signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. 28. A. minimum of 44 new parking spaces per City requirements shall be provided in conjunction with proposed construction. 29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. BJ /CONAPRVL.019 - 5 - October 10, 1989 As a permanent resident of Santa Rosa Cove since February 1986, I am deeply concerned about Landmark's intention to build a further 77 -80 hotel units on Avenida Obregon. As a concerned homeowner, I would like to call your attention to the following facts and continents: 1) Property owners were given minimal notice of this project. 2) This meeting was scheduled at a time when very few property.owners are able to attend. 3) Inspite of Landmarks considerable political "clout," as property owners we have rights that need to be respected and addressed and action taken to implement BEFORE this project is allowed to commence. The issues that need to be dealt with in order to protect our rights are: 1) Parking 80 units /14 parking spaces? Please clarify. 2) Traffic Santa Rosa Cove should not be subjected to hotel traffic -- either employee or guest. . 3) Density The project description states "Medium density residential 4 -8 dwellings per acre. Net acreage 1.7." Please clarify. Between Landmark and La Quinta Joint Venture, Santa Rosa Cove is beginning to look more like a city than a beautiful desert community. This "progress" undoubtedly brings in dollars, but over - developing a unique area does not enhance the City of La Quinta longterm. 4) Security It is imperative, if Landmark goes ahead with this project, that they first ensure our security by removing the existing "joke of a guard- gate" on Avenida Fernando and building (and landscaping) a new guard -gate on Fernando beyond Avenida Obregon, and another gate at the other end of Obregon. That way their staff, their guests, and anyone visiting their tennis club would not jeopardize our security. 5) Drainage We have existing drainage problems which are being checked and which may be due at least in part to Landmarks tennis courts. It is therefore necessary that their drainage plans for this project and for any further tennis courts they plan to build be carefully studied and implemented so they do not create drainage problems on our streets. I would like to add that I feel like I am being steam - rolled, and I would like to feel that the City of La Quinta is truly concerned about protecting my rights as a homeowner and permanent resident here. I love my home. And I don't want it spoiled. 7� Judy Blum 76 -941 Calle Mazatlan " La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Tel. 564 -1921 e C SANTA ROSA COVE ASSOCIATION OCTOBER 1,1989 NEWSLETTER Enclosed in this packet is an important notice regarding the proposed expansion of the La Quinta Hotel by Landmark. A Planning Commission Meeting will take place October 10, 1989 at La Quinta City Hail City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. All interested homeowners should plan to attend. The October Board meeting will be held Saturday,.October 21, 1989 at 10:30 a.m. in the La Quinta Hotel Tennis Library. The 1990 budget will be reviewed at the meeting. The Board of Directors and Public Relations Committee welcomes new members of the Association for September 1989. They are: Desert Cove Partners Craig Sardella and Harry Duncan 2400 22nd Street Ste. 200 Sacramento, Ca. 95818 purchased 9 bare lots on Avenda Quintana at Calle Mazatlan Russell & Hillary Berens C/O R & H Designs Inc. 21701 Plummer St. Chatsworth, Ca. 91311 49 517 Avenida Vista Bonita David Chappie & Charrie Lee Deuel 2000 21 S. Escondido Blvd. Escondido, Ca. 92026 77 701 Los Arboles Donald & Elaine Corvan 19701 Wells Dr. Woodland Hills, Ca. 91364 49 950 Avenida Vista Bonita Following is a recap of the September 30, 1989 Board meeting minutes: Board members in attendance were: Jane Redner, President Frank Adams, Vice President Elly Dowd, Secretary Frank Reynolds, Director Manny Paradeses, Director Absent were Dale Walter, Treasurer and Bud Rose, Director A lengthy discussion took place regarding the proposed hotel expansion. The Board agreed that they will address the Planning Commission to ask that the project be conditioned to the satisfaction of the Santa Rosa Cove Homeowners Association with regard to the following issues: a. density b. drainage c. parking d. security e. traffic f. gates A report was given by Frank Reynolds regarding the correction of three known street drainage problems. Management was instructed to obtain bids for review at the next meeting.. Reports were given by the Architectural, Landscape and Pool Committees. It was decided that all wrought iron installations must be approved by the Committee. The color choice is limited to stucco color or black. All procedures for Architectural Review received final approval from the Board and was attached as a permanent record to the September 30, 1989 Board meeting minutes.Approval was given to the Landscape Committee to proceed with re- planting of the front gate for a net cost to the Association of $7,200.00. The Landscape Committee stated that the fall color to be planted will be hot pink and mauve petunias and will be limited to the common area beds only. The limit on the number of flowers to be planted will be 900 flats. The credit from the remaining 900 flats will be used to plant additional permanent color shrubs and vines, such as oleander and bougainvillea. Homeowners who wish to plant flowers around their unit may do so at their expense. A resolution was adopted by the Board authorizing management to sign checks for Board authorized expenditures and regularly budgeted items. The Treasurer will review each check with back up on a monthly basis and will initial same. Management was given permission to utilize Association mailers to promote support services. Approval was given the Public Relations Committee to expend funds to prepare a binder of information including Association rules and regulations to be given to renters. Approximate expenditure will be $200.00. Approval was given to the Pool Committee to proceed with obtaining a drawing and to study the feasibility of constructing a roof structure at the pool areas. SANTA ROSA COVE ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 4772 PALM DESERT, CA 92261 IMPORTANT NOTICE TENNIS STADIUM COURT TO BE REPLACED BY HOTEL ROOMS The attached documents detail the plans presented by Landmark Land Company to the La Quinta Planning Commission of Seotember 25, 1989. These plans specify a motel type unit of approximately eighty (80) rooms with fourteen (14) parking spaces. This structure is in addition to and NOT part of the original hotel expansion. The Santa Rosa Cove Association Board of Directors has been told the expansion will be approved with modifications. It is imperative that the project be conditioned to protect the property rights of Santa Rosa Cove residents. On the advise of our attorney the Board has appointed Melissa Layton, Desert 'Resort Managememt and an ad hoc committee of two homeowners to represent the Santa Rosa Cove Association at the hearing. They will request the following issues be considered by the Commission. (1 -6) Parking 2. Traffic 3. Density 4. Security 5. Drainage 6. Gates If you have an opinion regarding these issues, we urge your attendance at the La Quinta Planning Commission Meeting on OCTOBER 10, 1939 AT 7:00 P.M. at the LA QUINTA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 78 -105 Calle Estado in La Quinta.,. If you are unable to attend and -wish to be heard send a written statement to Jerry Herman, La Quinta City Planner at the above address. Thank you. PLANN {NG COMWSSION _ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quints Planning Commission will hold PUBLIC HEARING on OCTOBER 10, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quints City Hall Council Chambers, 78 -105 Calle Estado, on the following Item: ITEM: SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, AMENDMENT N0.2: AND PLOT PLAN 89 -121 APPLICAHTt LANDMARK LAND COMPANY LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE MAZATLAN (CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT SITE) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF TENNIS COURT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77 HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE WHERE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT PRESENTLY EXISTS, IN THE R -1 ZONE ON 1.7+ ACRES LEGALs PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 76, TSS, R6E, SBBM The La Quint& Planning and Development Department has completed an e m nvironental assessment on the Specific Plan Amendment and Plot Plan applications. Based upon this assessment, the applications will not have a significant adverse effect on the environments therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The La Quints Planning Commission will consider the adoption of the Negative Declaration along with the Specific Plan Amendment and Plot Plan applications at the Hearing. Any person may submit written comments on the applications to the Planning and Development Department prior to the Hearing and /or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the adoption of the Negative Declaration and /or the applications at the time of the Hearing. If you challenge the decision of this Specific Plan Amendment and Plot Plan application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning and Development Department at, or prior to; the Public Hearing. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment and Plot Plan files may be viewed by the public Monday through Friday from 8:00 am.m until 5:00 p.m. at the Planning and Development Department, La Quints City Hall, 78 -099 Calle Estado, La Quints, California. DO NOT PRINT BELOW THIS LINE PUBLISH ONCE ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 MR/HNPC.0 47 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY CASE NO.: R4✓1 l:.1 -r,- am y�yytex-r6 #!Z, e 6+ uiN LOCATION: + 4SId2 0; aYa,-AIdcz Q%tAZGpN, QPK ox, rn A6� vntdtaay �-l-weev, Cl Ve0 64, F�rav�,o ; La ll2 VVIa n�� h PROPOSAL CONSIDERED: Spe..a, P14A AW a4A,: at W av1 (ad d11 4 kf-MAL � pjob 7-3 u to i+s NET ACREAGE: L-7 NET DENSITY: -- - - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN: SMPAwwv.. C�ey -,r4) t'GSlc" -4 -5 d ctltv�jS ' GUr. EXISTING ZONING: 1� --3 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Gx lt5r p Ga l 5V't ! how I �N 1✓1 o✓1, lou i " t� i �1 ha,L lH7 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BJ /PCJDSC.001 �JI o� n+ CITY OF LA QUINTA Case No. Date Received PLANNING t DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 78 -105 CALLE ESTADO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 ENVIRONNSNTAL INFORMATION PORN �--i `'i -141 Se` SP P10 Please complete Parts I and II of this form and provide ALL of the additional materials requested in Part III. Failure to do so may delay the review and process of your project. If you are unable to provide the information, or you need assistance, please feel free to contact the Environmental Quality Section of the Planning Department at (619) 564 -2246. PART I. General Information 1. What is the total acreage involved? 1.7 ac 2. Is there a previous application filed for the same site? TES NO X If 'Tee', provide Case Number. Also provide the Environmental Assessment Number, if know, and Environmental Impact Report Number, if applicable. Case No. (Parcel Nap, Zone Change, Etc.) EA No. (if known) EIR No. (if applicable) PART II. Existing Conditions 1. Project site area: 298 x 254 = 1.7 ac. Size of property in Sq.Ft. and acreage - — 2. Existing use of the project site: Championship Tennis Court, Vacant j. Existing use on adjacent properties: (Example: North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc.) North Championship Tennis Court and Tennis Club, South, hotel maintenance facility and hotel parkingi East, Avenida Obregon and La Quinta Hotel, West, Tennis Courts. 4. Cite topography (describe): (If w portion of the site exceeds 5% slope, attach a topographic display of the proposal vital if less than 5% elope, please provide elevations at corners of site) The site is basically level except for the Championship Tennis court, which will be removed and filled. 5. Grading (Estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved): 10,000 cy 6. Are there any natural or man -made drainage channel areas through or adjacent to the property? No X Tom (If yes, submit a display of. such drainage channel arsas.)=*scribs the disposition of these channels/areas should the proposal be implemented. NONE 7. Are there aof known archaeological finds near or on the proposed site? No_ Tee,_ Refer to page 82 of the La Quinta Hotel, Tennis & Golf Club EIR dated 1974. 8. Describe any cultural or scenic aspect@ of the project site: North & West - Scenic views of Santa Rosa Mountain views of historical La Quinta Hotel. 9. Describe existing site vegetation and their proposed disposition should the proposal be approved: No existing vegetation (If any significant plant materials, e.g., mature trees, exist on the site, please prepare a site plan that illustrates their numl er, type, size and location.) �4 MMROM41M AL INFORMATION FORM, City of La Quinta 10. Describe accessibility of proposal site to the following utilitiesi gas, water and electricity. (If proposal site does not have immediate access, further describe necessary extension of services and provide a graphic display, W x 11" that indicates their rresent location in reference to the subject site): All major utilities exist on Obregon 11. Additional comments you may wish to supply regarding your project. (Attach an additional sheet if necessary) NONE PART III. Additional Materials The following items zest be submitted with this form: 1. At least three (3) panoramic photographs (color prints) of the project site, or an aerial photo of the site. 2. A clear photocopy (Xerox or siailar copy) of the appropriate portion of the O.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map, delineating the boundaries of the project site. Also, note the title of the map. I certify that I have investigated the questions in Parts I and II and the answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. SrE�N C�}pL�iVt�t v1cE 171--J Name and Title of Person Completing Form . 11,1611 SigniturfJof Ap 1 coat +•T 'r -rte Y• le,Y' i��- � r • .. `'• rte'.' S" �"'.r � "-.� , a � �•�i-.•�'*tr..1'...::: :rte +- .�i�= ``';�• • - YI. fir LL ��c±�'/ry'� '�ptJ �i+ ��.�•%' �� ` _ t� ��' � ��iL ;4: t r ` '' • r �` :k •- si(( - •�/(,�'+ �a "y; •r1.1•.a ��•'�n�t~.. �'• �..' - e�- �. 1•'xr`��1jl�'•'w;._..^,�._� =.. + %+:ice �-4'•.: -iM�: r11.�•�t ?wiz _� •'tYj �•`-' �' . it •�,.: ; •^, j� .�ivystil�l /!`:.T` - .� �.. •xa � � • ' /.�_'Ji' -� , \': f - _ `'.. 73./• {• -•i:A: �" C'-.. fir, ". �`.i� 'arm �':. .�' '•�+ .,sSK��,•; .r :yt;... •.� - .a.•ra� \.•. .4' "}T%ij41� i1 ^ >1i 5 ;; r, .t jOaF'. -.,' r� ii r7 a. t�`y.ti �.. i ►i.' 4a17 . - Wi }s "v� 'Yr.'s - ��; 1 .•r1°S•: =...; w,. = •t.•F.�'• "': +:�;9M:�.i: -" ••O;�-�i:'_�i �ti �`• rw Az iJ+ r' r •E * ,' ?�:i � ...ice. l• ,(•; �:-r• •�. .yl�i:.!_ /� a .. ... � it .F-r +�•. - A;..`ti -: . - `' �., ��: ^� atc .. .�1 % ''� �:•. 'ti4 G.T"l, " -.:; ,� :l'+r�.l: -��i;• �r �i+"f' c -ti. �i'� s. v. '.ice:, � ti'd1*A.�a .�•;... ��„ • 1 i ].�� -•'"•.1 f... Nom•' ? � V 1/ -.. :�i�n�• /^ r \ •'�.. �• ''iY�� `. _ � .�.�we1 -�- �r �%• . S.�i:_ r ..- s•�rrl:�.�%.�;i: ✓'r .Y``��.• b� r� I�:$R•�'• 1 . y /. _�. "' �i%' •��I�'J�,fJ.• yL.'. .s` I�_�.' _. �•ff.. i • •t•' .'•.i'o'S \ � !•. � .1y Oil" .�. 3 1. r�-" ' !'`.� '�I"�,tL � , ;ti ?Lt +3ti r- >it�,•54..: - � "i•1 . r �:N •:. ,,,,:,:ysa. f-. � �'�. i,- �'►a "�s_.e �1 "�>ri1�' �,.a' -''c' � � .� °.!~ .:.:�,rtrc•.- �:� ?'_ f�`��„� �� "'.:.. �� 1 ti:��. I: i11 ; t � .t _ 1H 11 z i i� I: i11 ; t � .t _ 1H 11 z i I wo.� wo ao 0 ol Z 0 ul z CL CL x w J W H O 4 H Z 0 J FIRST FLOOR PLAN ,Z -zvr:c f N C') � O r z -+ r O 0 s LA OUINTA HOTEL EXPANSION - I990 I i r N C') � O r z -+ r O 0 s LA OUINTA HOTEL EXPANSION - I990 I I ..IIIIIIIIIIillllllllllll,... ,IIIIIIIIII�I�IIIIIIIIII,.. _rllIII II IIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIII III IIIIIi III III II II III III II II IIII I I II1 11 lllllliuilllllilulllll I III I I FRONT (AVENIDA OBREGON) ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 0 rn rn z 0 z a a X W J W 0 0 x a Z Z 0 0 a J EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ATi ECE I VE J) September 6; 1989 SEP 7 1ggg CITY OF LA QUINTA '!.ANN!N(: R DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Stan Sawa Planning Dept. CITY OF LA QUINTA 78 -105 Caj".1F Est-ado La Quintd, C'_ 92253 Dear Stan, Landmark Land ' ": m any is proposing a "; rov)m addition to the La Quirta Hotel w:;i --h will include several tennis suites, a courtyard with swimming pool and spas, r._.3 additional pai:kinq. The cbemil -ic),s .1r. '%.E' -Finis cl'lb and ' bac. :crop of Santa Rosa Cove p -c ^J; d^ a pl.aasant and relaxed s�ttin,: f,-,r the Spanish Courtyard. The Spams:•. Ar.- hitectural motif is modeled after: the. stvie of the existing he cl. she courtyard allows for a varie *_v of 1.:ses including large intimate parties, or rrivate ac a= '_c-A :.�. The guest roortts look down on-!:c a landscaped courtyard fF,tuci;iy e- Large p ^el, spa, and sunning area. Private gue.strc'_`^:_° and suite i nc?'.:c1.e £;;:t terraces and balconies £cr entertaining while v;r:rt -;g t;,F te;�r.> > co+lr,-s and courtyard below. Additicnai parking for the will Dbreao>> _.r,d at the new parking lot _ _ewe :: t;,� F�__t_ .g rc=inter :ante facii_t; . ?access to the parking J.v; ni_... ? ? , :. > 7a b - vrazaway or the southwt,st c_-rner of the buildincl. t':rau : :,,. t�,E La Quint& Hotel Parkin; Study, the add?.tlor- --'1 4.a r r.�a� -a� rryr.cc _ze total P hote.1 .rLi..g coulit to 1063 spaces, M.a4l "I'T with The City of La Qui^ -4' zoning ordinance cha ,tFr Sin Z? Alex ondos Landmark Land Design & Planning cc., Stephen Caplinger Paul Quill Forrest H.ag Gene .:eiver Gary Kerney LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Land Planning, Engineering, Design & Construction 78 -150 Calle Tampico, P.O. Box 1000, La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 564 -4500 FAX (619) 564 -8052 *ATEq 1S T Rl ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651 DIRECTORS TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT JOHN P. ROWELL DOROTHY M. NICHOLS THEODORE J. FISH Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California Gentlemen: OFFICERS THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY KEITH H. AINSWORTH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS August 29, 1989 File: 0163.1 6 e 4 92253 .N /V Subject: Plot Plan 89 -421, Portion of Southwest Quarter, Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes maintained by the developer, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. RF:gh cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 46 -209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 You s very truly, o� r Tom Levy General Manager -C TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY r IA 9 - 10 - ow AUG 919$9 R CEWEU CITY OF LA QUINTA AUG 2 9 1989 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. J t a _ ,.,.. .fn ., ... r, _. _ . • � _ . ... - . -.. -, �1• Y r . �t 74 F RIVERSIDE COUNTY , e FIRE DEPARTMENT pE CALIFp91 IN COOPERATION WITH THE h C UNTY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RIVERSIDE ... M-4 AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN NEWMA_N FIRE CHIEF SENT Planning & Engineering Office Planning & Engineering Office 46 -209 Oasis Street, Suite 405 August 21, 1989 4080 Lemon Street, Suite I I L Indio, CA 92201 Riverside, CA 92501 (619) 342 -8886 ECE1�v (714) 787-6606 To: City of La Quinta AUG 2 3 1989 Planning Division Re: Plot Plan 89 -421 CITY CITY ®F LA r� �UINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Plot Plan, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and /or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 2. The applicant /developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant /developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 3. A combination of on -site and off -site super'fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2J" x 2J ") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. 4. Applicant /developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 5. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 6. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. City of La Quinta - Planning Div. Re: Plot Plan 89 -421 11/21/89 Page 2. 7. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 8. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet 4610, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 10. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, §503. 11. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 13. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6 ". 14. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagramatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4' x 4' in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering Staff at (619) 342 -8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By im Reeder Fire Protection Specialist to -Zo - C �� %�� /�`I✓/S //, /lA-s .G SPP riio ��1�/JaC�T �'I p��/✓ dsP /✓rvita w, l U A G221989.- __ -___ CITY OF LA QUINTA -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- PLANNING - &-DEVELOPMENT- DEPT. -_ •�r r I' City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 ATTENTION: Stan Sawa RE: Specific Plan 121E SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY 1981 LUGONIA AVENUE, REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 300$ ; REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA 92373 -0306 August 18, 1989 RIEFOCENED AUG 2 0 9989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT, The Southern California Gas Company has a gas main in Eisenhower Drive near the project. Distribution lines could be extended from these mains to serve the proposed development without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average /Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms /year dwelling unit Multi - Family 4 or less units 482 therms /year dwelling unit Multi - Family 5 or more units 483 therms /year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. Irl a I rig To insure the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the new development, an engineering study will be required. Detailed information including tract maps and plot plans must. be submitted to the Gas Company Market Services Representa- tive, 1 -800- 624 -2497, six months prior to the actual construction of the natural gas pipeline. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Area Market Services Manager, P.O. Box 3003, Redlands, CA 92373 -0306, phone 1 -800- 624 -2497. Sincerely, �� Roger L. B an Technical Supervisor RLB:vjs CC: Environ Affairs - ML209B Z'it -` �•� DEVELOPMENT REVIEW VLAWMA %oOMMITTEE REQUE41 W106CSt12 tftft ►A Its 104 FOR COMMENT 11. . -1 .A W:s, PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: (419) 664 -2246 TO: DATE: B -14 ,5q - X City Manager K Palm Desert Disposal Public Works /Engineering X General Telephone Fire Marshal Palmer Cable Vision Community Safety Department Sunline Transit Building Division Caltrans (District 11) Chamber of Commerce Agricultural Commission ? CVWD City of Indian wells Imperial Irrigation City of Indio Southern California Gas Riverside County: DSUSD CVUSD TdAno viltag LA J A Planning Department Enviro�j� ntal Realt 401 ; Property � Sa►�{'a x 064 Cow P-6+q+4e,6 411oft 014AMS Associat Owner's Association on . - q —v►e- o wi - - Q � - _ - -- - - - - -- --- "' -' -- - _� -Coachella Valle y Archaeological Society SUBJECT: Comments, Findings and Conditions concerning subject project. LA QUINTA CASE NO(S) . �b1G J!n4VI La( F,. MM444LW ZM4 It PROJECT LOCATION: - Ld CCU (6A 44ri i �i�� I>fwG The City of La Quint& Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with reppect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and /or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a.) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b.) or should apply to the project design; c.) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by l'V�YIDIAi�i (�4(.kGL ag: ��g�'3 You are invited to attend the DEVELOP REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at the La Quinta City hall scheduled for: Date: 30 i lgim Time: off- - -z Contact Person: —AaIA- t)Q •® �ssm�mre® 0ooa• ® ®� ®� ®o ® ®as�s� ®a�� ® ®os ® ® ® ®oes�� ®off Comments made by:--; y D ate Title �G0 0,47; P10 (u7 Aly, F�Phone Agency /Division Om DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (L-oJMMITTEE REQUES F'OR COMMENT PLANNING DIVISION City Manager _ Public Works /Engineering _ Fire Marshal Community Safety Department _ Building Division Chamber of Commerce CVWD Imperial Irrigation Southern California Gas DSUSD CVUSD %Moto )41tat —� LA Qyint4 66i f Property owner's Association - - -_ Coachella -Valley Archaeological Society COY Of LA WlN1A x-106 C®It buft F.A. Boa 104 LA ®uist, CA 922U PHONE: (419) 464 -2244 X, Palm Desert Disposa�� Y, General Telephone C Palmer Cable Vision Sunline Transit nUG 1�a9 Caltrans (District 1 Agricultural Commission City of Indian weUTY OF LA QUINTA City of Indio pLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Riverside County Planning Department Enviro ntal Health Saida ccaFe s q 5 44oMe aW NA& 40 )1L _5�t�+rba Ida -Gov�a owinv- Q�s= =- SUBJECT: Comments, Findings and Conditions concerning subject project. LA QUINTA CASE NO(S). t�G 84A lam.{ $+ 4M644wtIA #2- � A� gq.4„t,1 PROJECT LOCATION: Ld Ou t+4A "G� . 6! �q,w rrfj.O, The City of La Quint& Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with reppect tot 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and /or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a.) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b.) or should apply to the project design; c.) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. ��""�� //;; � Please send your response by yy 62!AM & 4 as, yis" You are invited to attend the DEVELOP REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at the La Quint& City hall scheduled for: Date: 30, ja`d'q Time: `off C50 A'VL Contact Person: AZqIA 4: 3aLI)Q qu Comments made by: Date Title Phone /� Agency /Division ( � at'.L�,yam t,. . o� nEVEL®PMENT REVIEW, ��®u�► - , - --- -- - ICOMMITTEE REQUEST F'CR COMMENT PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: 66 L& a SEP Z TO: DATE: X City Manager X Palm Desert Disposal Q Public Works /Engineering X General Telephone _ Fire Marshal Palmer Cable Vision Community Safety Department Sunline Transit _ Building Division Caltrans (District 11) Chamber of Commerce Agricultural Commission ?� CVWD City of Indian wells Imperial Irrigation City of Indio Southern California Gas Riverside County: DSUSD CVUSD Tisnnag YOWS L4 Qr inti 1 f Property Planning Department Envirolmntal Health '540c+4 cage dsfa4as, 44OMt. OWNAS owner's Association. LX-_ Coachella- -Valle Archaeological Society SUBJECT: Comments, Findings and Conditions concerning subject project. LA QU I NTA CASE NO (S) . ��iUysl G fl as Lai F, . meA -4 Q. o k p ( o gq' 4.2,1 PROJECT LOCATION: La Qu (44 4401 , -61-4w LA Atw r*f p_ The City of La Quint& Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with reppect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and /or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a.) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b.) or should apply to the project design; c.) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by You are invited to attend the DEVELOP REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at the La Quint& City hall scheduled for: 100 ODate: Phi ontact Person: ':�S6TLI)Q Zp ( O V m cmna ®®msoMsoM M M M M ® ®was ®mss ®®®®M ®a® M® Cents made by: �A2L �436Q77� Date Title �S /% - �l/'�1�/17i�2- Phone j, Agency /Division �� -��`�� ;��.} �� 1- 1. �.JMMITTEE REQUEW � s FOR COMMENT Of Tt'� PLANNING DIVISION X City Manager Public Works /Engineering Fire Marshal Community Safety Department X Building Division Chamber of Commerce CVWD Imperial Irrigation Southern California Gas DSUSD CVUSD + 1' T~ta )M lag —� (A Poinig66i E Property owner's Association Coachella Valley Archaeological Society 4 iiw CA uwa 144 �- 106 axle toj* ®•o. ON t N4 LA ojift, a►12PA PHONE: (eiO 564 -2244 DATE: 6 — 14 8� K Palm Desert Disposal X General Telephone Palmer Cable Vision Sunline Transit Caltrans (District 11) Agricultural Commission City of Indian Wells City of Indio Riverside County: Planning Department Environ�mmeental Health _ S4n+4 wv C [c%lt t-5fces NvMa OW 4i& 0,6 .. c� _ 5a�rba _ ..�sa Go►� o►arvi� atss SUBJECT: Comments, Findings and Conditions concerning subject project. LA QU I NTA CASE NO (S) . � .G)49a (,,{yL la l F.. mmm y14 .4 2 � 6T & 911' 4.12 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: La QU 10+A , '61e -AAkC ,W ]�)VJW_ The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with reppect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and /or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a.) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b.) or should apply to the �0 project design; c.) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and ® -) C 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse Q0 C7 effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, N please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which o> C13 may be helpful. ��""�� 01? 6 Please send your response by z6e0 -1 ctt,4 m 00 You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at the La c� Quinta city �� hall scheduled for: c� Date: [�t.l-4A 30 1 1R�Q Time: 0--�— rKi Contact Person: • a��• a0��ao��a�o��so�a�s��as sss,��s�� Comments made by: 'Sn/3 //, &fJ cl� // Date 49 Title Title !/r �f/QGIGai1z� /7z, ` / /19,pV1_5 l%11i45 Phone Agency /Division --�' NOV 24 '67 11:27 LANDMApv LAND P.2i2 SHARED PARKING - ANALYSIS FOR LA QUINTA REbvAT HOTEL . The following chart lists the variables used in an Urban Land Institute (ULI) mixed-use shared parking analysis. S. =ARED PARKING ESTIMATION - INPUT ASSUMPTIONS LAND USES SIZES RATIO % AUTO PERS /AUTO X CAPTIVE Office 7,770 SP GLA 4.00 100 1.20 N/A Retail 21,150 SF GLA 4.00 100 1.80 75 Restaurant 7,180 SP GSA 22.2 100 2.00' 60 Hotel -Rm 597 Rooms 1.00 $0 1.40 N/A Hotel -Conf. . 2,053 Seats 0.33 100 2.00 55 Explanatory Notes: 1) Ratio: represents the number of vehiclas'per 1,000 SF GLA or per one seat. (As per La..Quinta City.Ordinance.) 2) X Auto: represents the percent of auto users for a land use (i.e. versus people walking or taking public transportation); (as per U.L.I.. standards.) 3) Pers /Auto: represents average number of persons per auto as per ULI standards. 4) Z Captive: represents the percentage of persons on -mite who visit a particular land use. (As per Landmark's estimate.) The following chart reflects the results of the ULI analysis. The parking demand occurs at 9 :00 p.m. for 950 vehicles. HOUR OFFICE RETAIL REST ROOM CONF TOTAL 6:00 AM 1 0 0 597 0 598 7:00 AM 6 2 1 507 0 517 8300 AN 20 4 3 388 122 537 9:00 AM 29 9 6 328 305 677 10300 AM 31 14 13 269 305 632 .11300 AM 31 18 19 209 305 582 12300 N 28 21 32 179 305 564 1300 PM 28 21 45 179 305 578 2 300 PM 30 21 38 209 305 603 3 00 PM 29 20 38 209 305 601 4:00 PH 24 - 18 32 .305 648 5 i 00 PM 15 -.11 45 _.269 358 305 739 6:00 PM 7 17 57 418 305 805 7:00 PM 2 19 64 448 305 837 8:00 PM 2 18 64 5$7 305 927 9300 PM 1 13 64 567 305 950* 10:00 PM 1 7 S7 597 122 784 11:00 PM 0 3 45 597 0 644 12:00 M 0. 0 32 597 0 629 * Peak Demand 1 Shared Parking Computer Program. ULI - The Urban Land Institute, Shared Parking. Washington, D.C.: ULI - The Urban Lend 1pstitut 1983. 0iw`w; L t; ` p.anv 2 4 V'27 CITY OF LA QUiN s to PLAWRIMM' A, UVr1.0W,.!C: !T FIPP 80 �2ov� J► ORANGE COAST TITLE COMPANY 1060 E. Washington Street, Suite 200 Colton, California 92324 (714) 825 -8800 landmark Land Co. 34200 San Timoteo Canyon Cherry Valley, California Date: July 12, 1989 Attention: Kevin Manning Your No. PM 23749 Order No. R- 67873 -8 Dated as of June 26, 1989 at 7:30 A.M. In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, `the insurer hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss ,.which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encuirbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Schedule 1 and Schedule 1 (continued) attached. Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a .policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested. RYL ERWIAGA Title Officer The form of policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: "A Subdivision Guarantee" The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Report is: A Fee Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: Landmark Land Ccapany of California, Inc., a Delaware Corporation r Order No. R- 67873 -8 The land referred to in this Report is situated in the State of California, County of Riverside and is described as follows: That portion of the East half of the Southwest quarter of Fractional Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the Official Plat thereof, described as follows: Corm excing at a point on the Southerly line of the Southwest quarter of said Section which bears west, a distance of 250 feet from the South quarter corner of said Section 36; Thence North 00 °01100" West, parallel with the east line of said Southwest quarter, a distance of 736.05 feet; Thence West, parallel with the south line of said Southwest quarter, a distance of 20 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Thence continuing west, parallel with the South line of said southwest quarter, a distance of 67 feet; Thence South 00 °01100" East, parallel with the east line of said southwest quarter, a distance of 57.20 feet; Thence West, parallel with South line of said Southwest' quarter, a distance of 188.00 feet; Thence North 00 °01100" West, parallel with the east line of said Southwest quarter, a distance of 100.00 feet; Thence Fast, parallel with the South line of said southwest quarter, a distance of 255.00 feet to a line which bears North 00 °01100" West, parallel with the east line of said Southwest quarter, from the true point of beginning. Thence South 00 °01100" East along said line, a distance of 42.80 feet to the True Point of Beginning. At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy form would be as follows: A. General and Special Taxes for the fiscal year 1989 -1990. A lien not yet payable. B. General and Special Taxes for the fiscal year 1988 -1989. Total Amount $11.06, First Installment $5.53, plus penalty of $.55, Second Installment $5.53, plus penalty of $.55, plus costs of $10.00, Code Area 020017, Assessors Parcel No. 631 - 380 - 033 -7, Exertion $none. C. Defaulted taxes for the fiscal year 1988 -1989. Amount to redeem cued to July 31, 1989, $37.32. Amount to redeem coputed to Aug. 30, 1989, $37.49. Assessors'Parcel No. 631- 380 -033. Affects all of said land with other property, except that portion lying within Avenida Obregon (A Private Street). Continued continued: Order No. R- 67873 -8 II D. General and Special Taxes for the fiscal year 1988 -1989. Total Amount $20.88, First Installment $10.44, plus penalty of $1.04, Second Installment $10.44, plus penalty of $1.04, plus costs of $10.00, Code Area 020017, Assessors Parcel No. 631 - 380 - 021 -6, Exemption $none. E. Defaulted taxes for the fiscal year 1988 -1989. Amount to redeem computed to July 31, 1989, $48.27. Amount to redeem computed to Aug. 30, 1989, $48.58. Assessors Parcel No. 631 - 380 -021. Affects all of said land with other property, except that portion lying within Avenida Obregon (A Private Street). F. Any additional amounts of general and special taxes which may be assessed by reason of: (a) Reappraisal of the property values as of March 1, 1975; (b) Improvements added subsequent to March 1, 1975; (c) Orange of ownership subsequent to March 1, 1975; (d) Any final judgment determining Article 13A as added to the Constitution of the State of California, being invalid, unconstitutional, or having been improperly applied. G. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of Section 75, et seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. H. If the Map of PM 23749, records between March 1, 1989 and November 1, 1989, it will be necessary to post a Tax Bond with the County of Riverside, Cash or Surety, prior to recording. Please contact this office prior to submitting said bond. 1. Riots of the public in and to any portion of said land lying within any lawfully established streets, roads or highways to include those roads that are shown on Records of Survey, on file in Book, page 39, in Book 7, page 90, and in Book 9, page 65, all of Records of Survey, Riverside County Records. 2. Reservations recited in the Patent from the United States, as follows: "Subject to any. vested and accrued water rights for mining, agricultural, manufacturing or other purposes, and rights to ditches and reservoirs used in connection with such water rights as may be recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws and decisions of courts, and a right of way for ditches or canals constructed by authority of the United States" recorded,: in Book 8, Page 46 of Patents. 3. A Maintenance Agreement, dated August 10, 1984, by and between Anden Corporation, �,a California, Corporation, Santa Rosa Cove Association, a California Mutual Benefit Non -Profit Corporation, La Quinta Joint Venture and Landmark Land Company, of California, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, recorded August 14, 1984, as Instrument No. 177367 of Official Records, upon the terms, conditions and provisions contained therein. Continued .. Continued: ` Order No. R- 67873 -8 4. The effect of that Certain Traffic Signalization Mitigation Agreement between the county of Riverside and Tan&ark Land Ccupany of California, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, recorded Jan. 26, 1989 as Instrument No. 26769 in Riverside county Official Records. PE:bd Policy Rate: "A Subdivision Guarantee" Enclosures: Plats m Order No. R-67873 -8 (e-,11,11 k I I ',1 Pf WU V DSSj 1.4 D- IN 4ffi: 101 Di W As of the date hereof, the party(ies) whose signature(s) will be necessary, under the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, on the Certificates consenting to the recordation of the Final Map or Parcel Map of said land and offering for dedication any streets, roads, avenues and other easements offered for dedication by such map are: r anto k Land Company of California, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as Owners of said land. r 5 25 -IO -I 1� 63/ - -38 T. 020 - C. A. OZO - 00 6 ��s S //2 SW //4 SEC.36, T5S., R.6E. TR /S NAP /S fOR SHEET /OF2 020- °I7 I � ,� of F SSESSN£Ni HRrt7S3 0iY 020-022 I � 36 a p � 0.29ACt 1 i I J � C •a[ es �'..v • TAS.IL 7 ® y � 100.54 J!O -N r1 .c 0 „w /o. /o AC. • sa e ° Po, Loll p C t •6.70 -A 1.464` Q o n O, I +/70 1 I. � /TZ I le iv7 r/1 17 /TI I s O N Yew No. J!O•tr h '� i C 72 100.54 J!O -N 0 „w /o. /o AC. • e C t •6.70 -A O r—Ty -OD -055 QJ/•JCO V .� v 0 Q rz Siu.e. o I -056 /0.62AC or31c WO-Z4 r60•Z4 T V - © P6. 71 7.84 �.� LO .r ^ 0 A— HOC Or :ee tI 39 I eI } P rcl.vo C •-tJ 15 , + ^j, � O wo r. zQ Oa rT ze I nt ? I 2. 38 Ac= rJ JI N j� ♦B i rJ. to 70 O •, /6• rs.te c h r ¢ I Y7, J! raA o2o -o /7 I F2. 40 v1ro o v,u r A5 o • rRA 020 -008 rJ,.t „� 23�QS� , 1A a o ss a s e r�l 391 " 1 p73 Ac 35 36 1- r. ss. i 6ss v _ 2 te. r0 .J 4 3 - / Z, 773 B T.6S. — 16 C... G+ t io a 7 \ 1- 773 Sec 36 O4 02 ew No 16 . I a.7r an r« -rw N,. 1.1011 6. LcJ,J®s 35 14090 M6 /48/2/ -22 Trcct No 18765 -2 CM52179 -87 56 9.15 LY-06I aJ VaT "Plot:M: TI :s is nei,har a plat nor - - 0, ,5:wl a surVe . s furnshed ,r.Cr�l4 as a - ,r y I. . sa. Dole: G. L. o.; R/S 8139 16 /ea J ,.,.q t an ni L�_ ,o aid r � IOG',i:' ?;:: �.-., y' osr RS 66124.27' Is /"I as s9•70 .._ - .• {.�;, .� "� wit ASSESSOR'S MAP BK.63I PG.38 1..J LLA 87 -D3e - 1 ro I,Q,t r i�r::rc;: °:- sires: rrd ot;jer jar -d. '•o Yabilit . RIVERS /DE COUNTY, CAL /F. ,. : a_s_mec -• ; earn ' . -1 or any r :+ _ —APRs: 196711 '�rs`- ;"7M»�:�LC .s:�;€i;�.�`acj,�•• �a"n -_ij;• �.. cY ^'':�� r.:.:. a CASE MAP CASE Nm SP 12.1 -E PP 59 -421 LOCATION MAP r ytr•, tl 1181HX3 s ' •18301N3Wd013A30 19NIN IVd d1NMO H1 30 Al 6961 9 Z d 3 S a3AI333H 1ty, y, J El 31V0 NOISSIWW00 9ldIw "V1d d1N1(�� tll 03A08ddtl NO 113HR031 -1I3 Ag a3AOUddd I' , �r - I l 3 k , •fl i y• , 1 i. t?`Q to 'F 6Pi:.. • +err: . t .,s� 43t S k& i .:t1k,1: c ' . J #'A:'l. , '' •'rr r :; f d: r a 1 •T �••` r ,stir 0V r • yr I Omni ki J. - r .� 1 it ennis Ckjb -7f 9E: Ile YJ Id, dqt as rJ P(0¢03e4 77-, Room Expan§jon !d Par 44 ! � •' ?, I�Is',� `'• "''I ,;, rlk'I� ,jI r� +. �;I'ii' Ili• }t1.� -� - Roo Fire Access Pedestrian Access — / Maintenance Facility — Not A Partc 4 a.- T g ik n - — 4Qi Ne _ > f . if a • Ht r � h 280 ao 20 0 40 160 I:I IMMl LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNI I:I I.I ('.4 I G N A q 0 P f, A N /1 1 N Q j r t a ' N t �`jil • }'`" p n.r�.if 'jt} }i�j't� r.' ,J t� �' -rii y i � o i� 1�- ! � •' ?, I�Is',� `'• "''I ,;, rlk'I� ,jI r� +. �;I'ii' Ili• }t1.� -� - Roo Fire Access Pedestrian Access — / Maintenance Facility — Not A Partc 4 a.- T g ik n - — 4Qi Ne _ > f . if a • Ht r � h 280 ao 20 Avenida Fernando 1 /_1 ae Hotel entrance QQ at • " -! P. 4; J, • a. e .. s •(•J�i .+t F � � 1. t� t ,t, II i t:f ++ tl °• k i rC�x�i 1'' 1 `5,• ,- l f } , o�f ,. 7 0 40 160 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNI ('.4 I G N A q 0 P f, A N /1 1 N Q j r t a ' N t �`jil • }'`" p n.r�.if 'jt} }i�j't� r.' ,J t� �' -rii y i � o i� 1�- 7. r r) P.O. BOX 1000 LA OUINTA, CA 92293 r. + � • '1" f (619) 564 -8180 ; y t-7 tl • I fit! 6! 1 r 1.rl.l+k i ; • i - t tt r 1111 � . 4 � II •. ��, >rfk, t1 e. 'i .i . Avenida Fernando 1 /_1 ae Hotel entrance QQ at • " -! P. 4; J, • a. e .. s •(•J�i .+t F � � 1. t� t ,t, II i t:f ++ tl °• k i rC�x�i 1'' 1 `5,• ,- l f } , o�f ,. 7 j r t a ' N t �`jil •Itd' ✓, , \ p n.r�.if 'jt} }i�j't� r.' ,J t� �' -rii y i � o i� 1�- 7. r r) ,�,�y!A` '�'Yp1 %aIl�w. ;!t•v.i r;t,. '.�' i;•, %2,G'S< 1. {{ r. + � • ••//P4..1��yyy J f �l1 .. y t-7 tl • 6! f i - t tt r >rfk,