Loading...
PP 1993-505ORDINANCE NO.00<22 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 9, CHAPTER '9.32 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 9.32.020 G, MORATORIUM ON DESIGN DEVIATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City 6TLa Quinta hereby finds that where a portion of the-dwelling units in a residential subdivision have been constructed, deviations in design which result in more than a ten percent (10 %) change in the square feet per unit have a detrimental effect on the public's interest in aesthetic consistency and neighborhood harmony; p f' and, WHEREAS, the. City. has established a One - Family Dwellings Zone in Chapter 9.32 of the La Quinta Municipal Code establishing permitted uses and development standards for one - family dwellings located in the City of La Quinta; and, WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the existing development standards in the One - Family Dwelling Zone do not include explicit limitations on the developer's ability to alter residential subdivision plans which have been partially built out and deviate from the original dwelling,;size; and, WHEREAS, the City Council is considering an amendment to the development standards in the One - Family Dwelling Zone which would provide controls which would prohibit any deviation in design in a residential subdivision where a portion of the subdivision has been constructed which results in more than a ten percent (10 %) change in the square feet per unit; and, ' WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that there is a current and immediate threat that a deviation in the design of a residential subdivision resulting in more than a ten percent (10%) change in the square feet per unit, which is not specifically prohibited by the development standards in Chapter 9.32, but which" may be prohibited under a proposed amendment to Chapter 9.32, will harm the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of La Quinta, and that the approval of additional requested changes to design, requests for building permits, or- requests for amendments to subdivision maps which include size variations of greater than'ten percent (10 %) compared to the originally approved and built units would result in a threat to the public heath, safety, and welfare of the community; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary for this Ordinance to become immediately effective to enable the City to adequately protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California does hereby ordain as follows:. ORDDRFT.039, 1 ✓ SECTION 1. That a Section 9.32.020 G be added to Title 9, Chapter 9.32 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and to read as. follows: "No building permit, design approval or subdivision amendment shall be granted to construct a unit in a residential subdivision where some portion of the subdivision has previously been constructed and the square footage of the unit to be constructed will deviate more than ten percent (10%) from the square footage of that portion of the subdivision previously constructed. SECTION 2. This Chapter 9.32.020 shall expire and be of no further force and effect on December 16, 1993, but may be extended pursuant to the procedure set forth in California Government Code Section. 65858(a). SECTION 3. This Interim Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare, and therefore it is hereby declared that this is an urgency ordinance which shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this interim ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three public places in the City of La Quinta, and the same shall be in full force and effect immediately after its adoption. 'PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, on this day of 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City. of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California ORDDRFT.039 2 t/ (62 %) SOURCES: The Meyers Group On -Site Personnel and Displays PAST LA QUINTA SUBDIVISIONS REPORTED SALES BY SQUARE FOOTAGE RANGE AS OF: SEPTEMBER 1993 LESS THAN 1301- 1501- 1701- 1901- 2101 - DEVELOPMENT 130.0 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2301+ TOTAL QUINTERRA -- -- - -. -- 7 -- 11 18 RANCHO OCOTILLO -- -- -- -- - -, 7 29 36 TOPAZ - 1 5 11 -- 13 14 44 ACACIA HOMES' -- 24 -- 25 -- 47 -- 96 CACTUS FLOWER -- 22 62 41 -- 22 7 154 LA QUINTA VISTA -- 8 14 1 13 37 53 LA QUINTA HIGHLANDS 6 13 20 24 -- -- m- 63 LA QUINTA DEL REY 25 35 17. -- -- -- -- 77 LA QUINTA DEL ORO ----------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- 8 24 32 TOTALS 31 95 112 115 8 110 102 573 % OF TOTAL MIX 5% 17% 20% 20% 1% 19% 18% TOTAL MIX--LESS THAN 1900 SQUARE FEET: 355 UNITS OF 573 TOTAL (62 %) SOURCES: The Meyers Group On -Site Personnel and Displays • � 11-Z� 93 TRACT NO. 23913 CITY OF LA QUINTA FINAL PRODUCT PROPOSAL NOV. 2, 1993 I. PROPOSED PRODUCT !with a new 2002 S.F. Plan added PLAN 3 1237 S.F. (3 Car Garage Option) 10% In Project PLAN 4 1437 S.F. (3 Car Garage Option) PLAN 5 1520 S.F. (3 Car Garage Option) PLAN 6 1659 S.F. (3 Car Garage Option) PLAN 7 4 1868 S.F. (3 Car Garage Option) PLAN 8' 2002 S.F. (3 Car Garage Standard) New plan added II. PROPOSED BUFFER ZONE PLAN 7 (1868 S.F.) with 3 Car Garage on Lots 2, 99 & 101 PLAN 6 (1659 S:F.) with 3 Car Garage on Lots 100,102 & 116 PLAN 5,6,7 & 8 on Lots 74 -80, 103 & 104 and 114 & 115 We will offer the PLAN 8 on all Lots and if purchased will place them in the Buffer Zone. III. PROPOSED FENCING All fences visible from the public right of way shall be split face block to match the existing walls in Quinterra. Fencing not visible from public view maybe wood of an appropriate design, however, we will offer an option to buyers for block walls in these area. IV. REMAINING CONDITIONS All other conditions in the Planning Commissions approval shall remain the same. y •T ITEM TITLE:. u 'G DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1993 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE APPEAL BY FORECAST CORP. AND BEST, BEST, & KRIEGER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1993, TO LIMIT THE HOUSE SIZE WITHIN THE QUINTERRA TRACT (PHASE ii) TO 1,650 SQ. FT. OR LARGER AND THE APPEAL OF OTHER ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATIONS APPELLANTS: BRUCE STRICKLAND, V.P. (FORECAST CORPORATION) & BEST, BEST, & KRIEGER. SUMMARY: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: I- On October 19, 1993, the City Council conducted a public hearing concerning the appeal by Forecast Corporation and Best, Best, & Krieger of the Planning Commission determination concerning the request by Forecast Homes to develop a new design of single family dwelling units. within Phase II of the Quinterra Tract north of.Miles Avenue and east of Adams Street. The Council continued the appeal to November 2nd to have additional time to review the information which had been delivered too late to be in the Council packets as well as time for staff to come back with further proposals concerning the appeal and, specifically, propose mediation procedures. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council provide direction to staff. Several options are available for Council consideration within the body of the report. Submitted by: RY 110dRMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR cc#22 Approved for submission to City Council: Z tU: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER M CITY OF LA. Q UINTA MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1993 SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE APPEAL BY FORECAST CORPORATION (FORECAST HOMES, INC.), AND BEST, BEST, & KRIEGER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1993, TO LIMIT THE HOUSE SIZE. WITHIN QUINTERRA TO 1,650 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER AND THE "APPEAL OF OTHER ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATIONS. APPELLANTS: MR. BRUCE STRICKLAND, V.P. - FORECAST CORPORATION AND BEST, BEST, & KRIEGER ISSUES: The issues remain the same as stated in the staff report for the October 19, 1993 meeting (attached). In addition, staff has reviewed possibilities of mediation procedures as will be reported in the following discussion as well as the possibility of a focused moratorium.. MEDIATION PROCEDURES: Staff has researched the available mediation procedures otherwise known as "alternative dispute resolution mechanisms ". One type of mediation consists of formal arbitration. Formal arbitration in California falls into two statutory categories. First; California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1141.10 through 1141.32 codifies the California Judicial Arbitration Law providing for "judicial arbitration ". Second, the California Arbitration Act codified in California Code of Civil Procedure Sections- 1,280 et. sea. provides a detailed statutory framework for enforcement of "contractual arbitration ". "Judicial arbitration" usually comes into play after a civil case is already at -issue before the court, at which time the parties to the dispute stipulate to such arbitration. "Contractual arbitration" refers to arbitration of disputes pursuant to an agreement to arbitrate as a substitute for litigation. In the first instance, since the City does not have a civil case which has been filed in court and therefore does not have specific parties to refer to, the mechanism does not work very well in the context in which the Council is considering its use. The second case of contractual arbitration once again is not very useful since the City does not have a contractual agreement between the parties in this dispute. MEMOJH.317 1 A second form of dispute resolution and /or mediation is the private judging or the " rent-a-j udge" concept. This form of arbitration or resolution dispute involves its authority from the California Constitution, Article VI, Section 21, which states: "On stipulation of the parties litigant the court may order a cause to be tried by a temporary judge who is a member of the State Bar, sworn and empowered to act until final determination of the cause ". This procedure allows the parties an opportunity to select a judge whose personality and experience fits the need of their particular dispute. Once again, this type of arbitration or mediation is usually preceded by a formal law suit which sets out the parties and the specific issues involved, therefore, it may not be the best procedure for the dispute that the City Council is faced with between the property owners and the bank. A third dispute resolution option would be for the parties involved to create or design their own mediation or arbitration -type board and /or individual. The City could bring in a professional mediation person or board to discuss potential dispute resolution with the interested parties. One method of choosing the individual or board would be for each party involved to either agree on a proposed mediation facilitator, or if no agreement is reached, for each party to select a proposed mediator and then have those mediators agree on a separate individual. Unless all interested parties are willing to agree to have the facilitator or mediator make the ultimate decision in this case, any result in agreements or lack of agreements arising out of the mediation process would not be enforceable. Discussion with attorneys representing both interested parties (both the property owners as well as the bank), while hesitant to say they would not participate in a mediation process, are clearly- unsure that such a process would be helpful in this case where the parties are so far apart on the issue. Further, neither side appears to be interested in participating unless there is some assurance that resolution is possible. There is also the possibility of the Council considering adoption of a moratorium addressed specifically towards the problem of a partially built -out subdivision which is requesting a change in previously approved design standards or other conditions. Council has already directed staff to study, review, and return to the Council with a proposed Ordinance that would provide guidance to developers of approved subdivisions and place restrictions on changes once a subdivision has been. initiated (staff was also directed to review the issue of a minimum house size). Therefore, an additional possibility would be to adopt a moratorium specifically directed towards halting approvals and building permits where the unit to be constructed will deviate more than ten percent (10 %) from the square footage of that portion of the subdivision previously constructed, pending the Council's determination upon future zoning amendments that would deal with this issue. The Moratorium Ordinance (attached) can be adopted without a hearing for an initial 45 -day time period by a 4/5 vote of the Council. Should the Council wish to extend the moratorium beyond this 45 -day period, a noticed public hearing would have to be conducted on or before December 16, 1993. The Council could extend the moratorium for a maximum ten months, 15 days. The extension can be for a lesser period of time.. This extension would also require a 4/5 vote of the Council. Attached is an Ordinance providing for such a narrowly defined moratorium should the Council wish to consider adoption. MEMOJH.317 2 3 As directed by Council, staff is preparing a report addressing the home size and compatibility issues for consideration at the November 16th Council meeting. In order to change the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission must conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation for Council consideration. The Council would conduct a subsequent public hearing, close the hearing, make the necessary findings, introduce the Ordinance for first reading. A second reading would take place two weeks later and, if adopted, the Ordinance would be effective 30- days later. Using the process noted above, the Council would consider the report on November 16th and refer it to the Planning Commission. The Commission could conduct a public hearing on December 28th, Council hearing on January 4th, second reading on January 18th, effective date February 18, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: The following options are presented for Council consideration: 1. Adopt Minute Motion 93- denying the appeals and accept the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A ") and; findings as recommended by the Planning Commission on September 14, 1993. 2. The City Council can deny the appeal and deny the Developer's request for modification of architectural plans. The approved units (2,072 sq. ft., 2,363 sq. ft., and 2,593 sq. ft.) of the previous developer (Windsor) would then be required. 3, The City Council could modify the Planning Commission Conditions of Approval of September 14, 1993, and approve the Developer's request. 4, The City Council could approve the Developer's request without conditions. 5. The City Council could refer. the matter back to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for further study. 6, The City Council could direct that all parties interested agree to meet with a mediator, either a retired judge or other dispute resolution facilitator, to come back with a recommendation to Council based on the mediation discussions. 7. The City Council could adopt the Moratorium Ordinance attached to this staff report which would halt all approvals and issuances of building permits on any partially built - out subdivision where the proposed new units or new building permits are different from the architectural designs or standards originally approved for the subdivision. Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance 2. City Council staff report of October 19, 1993 MEMOJH.317 3 M • ORDINANCE NO. 0 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 9, CHAPTER 9.32 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 9.32.020 G, MORATORIUM ON DESIGN DEVIATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City oTLa Quinta hereby finds that where a portion of the dwelling units in a residential subdivision have been constructed, deviations in design which result in more than a ten percent (10 %) change in the square feet per unit have a detrimental effect on the public's interest in aesthetic consistency and neighborhood harmony; and, WHEREAS, the City has established a One - Family Dwellings Zone in Chapter 9.32 of the La Quinta Municipal Code establishing permitted uses and development standards for one - family dwellings located in the City of La Quinta; and, WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the existing development standards in the One - Family Dwelling Zone do not include explicit limitations on the developer's ability to alter residential subdivision plans which have been partially built out and deviate from the original dwelling size; and, WHEREAS, the City Council is considering an amendment to the development standards in the One - Family Dwelling Zone which would provide controls which would prohibit any deviation in design in a residential subdivision where a portion of the subdivision has been constructed which results in more than a ten percent (10 %) change in the square feet per unit; and, WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that there is a current and immediate threat that a deviation in the design of a residential subdivision resulting in more than a ten percent (10 %) change in the square feet per unit, which is not specifically prohibited by the development standards in Chapter 9.32, but which may be prohibited under a proposed amendment to Chapter 9.32, will harm the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of La Quinta, and that the approval of additional requested changes to design, requests for building permits, or requests for amendments to subdivision maps which include size variations of greater than ten percent (10 %) compared to the originally approved and built units would result in a threat to the public heath, safety, and welfare of the community; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary for this Ordinance to become immediately effective to enable the City to adequately protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California does hereby ordain as follows: ORDDRFT.039 1 SECTION 1. That a Section 9.32.020 G be added to Title 9, Chapter 9.32 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and to read as follows: "No building permit, design approval or subdivision amendment shall be granted to construct a unit in a residential subdivision where some portion of the subdivision has previously been constructed and the square footage of the unit to be constructed will deviate more than ten percent (10%) from the square footage of that portion of the subdivision previously constructed. SECTION 2. This Chapter 9.32.020 shall expire and be of no further force and effect on December 16, 1993, but may be extended pursuant to the procedure set forth in California Government Code Section 65858(a). SECTION 3. This Interim Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare, and therefore it is hereby declared that this is an urgency ordinance which shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this interim ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three public places in the City of La Quinta, and the same shall be in full force and effect immediately after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, on this day of , 1993, by the following, vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California ORDDRFT.039 2 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1993 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE APPEAL BY FORECAST CORP. AND BEST, BEST & KRIEGER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 TO LIMIT THE HOUSE SIZE WITHIN THE QUINTERRA TRACT (PHASE 2) TO 1,650 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER AND THE APPEAL OF OTHER ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATIONS. APPELLANTS: BRUCE STRICKLAND, V.P. (FORECAST CORPORATION) & BEST, BEST AND KRIEGER SUMMARY: ATTACHMENT tt2 AGENDA CATEGORY:. PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: On August 24th and September 14, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the request by Forecast Corp. ( Forecast Homes) to develop single family dwelling units within Phase 2 of the Quinterra Tract north of Miles Avenue and east of Adams Street. Forecast Homes proposed homes which ranged in size from 1,106 to 1,659 square feet. The Planning Commission determined that the homes should be comparable in size to the existing Phase 1 homes ( +2,072 square feet) . The Planning Commission voted 4 -0 ( Commissioner Adolph absent) to approve a. minimum house size of 1,650 square feet plus other miscellaneous amendments. On September 21, and September 27, 1993, the Applicant and abutting neighbors appealed the Planning Commission's decision. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 93 -_, denying the appeals and accepting the Conditions of Approval ( Exhibit "A ") and findings as recommended by the Planning Commission on September 14, 1993. Submitted by: / Approved for submission to City Council: RY HE MAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER /CS 7 Id MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1993 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE APPEAL BY FORECAST CORPORATION (FORECAST HOMES, INC.), AND BEST, BEST AND KRIEGER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1993, TO LIMIT THE HOUSE SIZE WITHIN QUINTERRA TO 1,650 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER AND THE APPEAL OF OTHER ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATIONS. APPELLANTS: MR. BRUCE STRICKLAND, V.P. - FORECAST CORPORATION & BEST, BEST & KRIEGER ISSUES: Forecast Homes has appealed the Planning Commission's decision of September 14, 1993 to require a minimum house size of 1,650 square feet ( Condition #16) , in Phase II of the existing Quinterra Tract. They have also appealed Conditions #7, #12, and #13 (Attachment #5). In addition to the appeal by the Applicant,. attached is an appeal by Best, Best & Krieger on behalf of the Quinterra and Rancho. Ocotillo residents. The residents have requested that the City Council require the Phase II units to be the same size as the Phase I units or deny the request because the application is not compatible with their existing neighborhood (Attachment #6) . Background On July 21, 1993, staff received new architectural plans from Forecast Homes of Rancho Cucamonga requesting City approval of its three and four bedroom homes within Phase II of the existing .Quinterra subdivision on the north side of Miles Avenue and east of Adams Street. The proposed house sizes range from 1,106 to 1,659 square feet with all the homes being one story except for the largest unit which is two stories. The tract contains 116 lots with 18 homes constructed in Phase 1, leaving Phase 2 with 98 lots. Four of the 98 lots are currently used as the tract's storm water retention basin system. MEMOGT . 021 /CS 1 Q S' 0 • These four lots could be buildable in the future if a City wide storm water system is constructed. Therefore, of the 94 buildable lots in Phase 2, the developer stated that he planned to offer the smallest home as a marketing tool but he did not believe he would have more than 10% or 9 homes of the smaller homes in Phase 2. The requirement for Planning Commission review is based on Condition No. 28 of Tract Map 23913 which provides that architectural plans shall be reviewed and approved as a Business Item by the Planning Commission. On August 4, 1993, the Design Review Board examined the submittal and recommended approval of the units provided the larger units ( Plans 4 thru 6) were used adjacent to the existing 18 homes within Phase I. The Design Review Board also requested staff to send a letter to the existing Phase I homeowners notifying them of the future August 24, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. The letter was sent on August 11, 1993. The Planning Commission reviewed the request on August 24th, September 13th (Study Session), and September 14, 1993. The background material is attached (Attachment #1). At each meeting, the Planning Commission took testimony from numerous people who reside in both the Quinterra Tract and in the other tracts surrounding Quinterra. The residents felt the units were too small for Quinterra and other existing tracts (partially developed) . On September 14, 1993, the Planning Commission voted to conditionally approve the request provided various Conditions of Approval were modified and the minimum house size within the tract was not less than 1,650 square feet. The Planning Commission also required the homes immediately abutting Phase 1 to be a minimum size of 1,868 square feet (Condition No. 17) . The Planning Commission minutes are attached (Attachment No. 2 and Attachment No. 3) . Public Hearing Notice The City Council on September 21, 1993, requested that staff advertise the case as a public hearing for its October 19, 1993 meeting. The City Council also requested that the notices be mailed to the original petitioners who spoke or submitted material over the past two months. Staff has .completed both requests. ANALYSIS /FISCAL IMPACT: The Planning Commission report of September 14, 1993 explains the issue that exists within the existing tracts of the City. The original tentative maps in the north part of the City did not require a speck size house for the tract nor did the tract CC &R's address this issue. In 1988 and 1989 house sizes were generally 1,600 square feet or larger in this area of the City. However, with the current economic conditions in the State of California many builders are looking to develop smaller starter homes. RECONM IMATION: 1. • Adopt Minute Motion 93- denying the appeals and accept the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A ") and findings as recommended by the Planning Commission on September 14, 1993. MEMOGT . 021 / CS 2 0 • • Other options which are available: 2. The City Council can deny the appesl and deny the Developer's request for modification of architectural plans. The approved units (2,072 sq. ft., 2,363 sq. ft., and 2,593 sq. ft.) of the previous developer (Windsor) would then be required. I. The City Council could modify the Planning Commission Conditions of Approval of September 14, 1993, and approve the: Developer's request. 4. The City Council could approve the Developer's request without conditions. V 5. The City Council could refer the matter back to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for further study. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission staff report of September 14, 1993 2. Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 1993 3. Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 1993 4. Letter from PriMerit Bank (Property owner /Phase II) 5. Forecast appeal 6. Best, Best & Krieger appeal 7. Large Plans - Windsor & Forecast (City Council only) MEMOGT . 021 / CS 3 10 • EXHISIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (FORECAST) September 14, 1993 + Modified by Planning Commission on September 14, 1993 ++ Added by Planning Commission on September 14, 1993 1. The front yard of all lots, and in addition, the street side yard of corner lots, shall be landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement, whichever is furthest from the residence. 2. The landscaping for each lot shall include trees (minimum .two 24" box size trees on interior lots and five 24" box size trees on corner lots) , minimum five. gallon shrubs, and groundcover and /or hardscape of sufficient size, spacing and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the Manual on Architectural - Standards and the Manual on Landscaping Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission. 3. A permanent water - efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas required to be landscaped. The provisions of Ordinance #220 shall be met. The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the City, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission. 4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained . in a healthy and viable condition by the property owner. 5. The standards of the R -1 Zoning shall be met (e.g. setbacks, etc.) . 6. If the model homes are converted to sales offices (e.g. converted garages, etc.) as part of the marketing program for the tract, the Applicant shall file with staff a floor plan or letter-of intent detailing the work to be done. A cash bond or another type of security should be posted to ensure that the home(s) is reconverted prior to its sale and /or occupancy. +7. A Plot Plan of the tract showing setbacks shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for approval. The units shall be plotted so that 1,868 square foot units are adjacent to the existing homes (e.g. Lots 2, 6, 7, 74 thru 80, 99 thru 104, and 114 thru 116) . Three car garages shall be provided on Lots 2, 99, 100, and 101. 8. If a temporary Real Estate tract office is located within the subdivision the maximum installation period should not exceed the sale of the units and /or two years. A plot plan application is required . +9. The concrete roof tile in Phase II shall be similar in color to Phase I. CONAPRVL. 005 1111 • • 10. The Applicant's model complex shall be built north of the existing homes (e.g. Ocotillo Drive & Adams Street) to reduce vehicle traffic to and from the sales area. 11. No building permits shall be issued for Phase II until the developer has paid the City's Parkland fee or dedicated land to the City to fulfill this outstanding tract map obligation. +12. The August 24, 1993, material sample colorboard is approved as submitted, except the Applicant will not be allowed to use the Saturn red brick veneer for the project. River Rock veneer will not be permitted. +13. The perimeter tract fencing shall be finished to match Phase I. The individual lot fencing, if built, shall be constructed of either masonry or stucco wood frame to be compatible with Phase I. Wood fencing is not allowed. +14. A minimum four -inch stucco popout shall be used around all exterior sliding glass doors and windows to ensure architectural compatibility to the Phase I units and to provide minimum shading from the exposure to the sun. The minimum roof eave shall be 18- inches. ++15. Sectional metal garage doors shall be installed on all garages. ++16. The minimum dwelling unit size within Phase II shall be 1,650 square feet excluding the two or three c$r garage. + +17. The proposed Medalist unit (i.e. 1,868 square feet) or other units not presented on September 14, 1993, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. CONAPRVL. 005 2 12 PLANNING COIL WSSION FINDINGS OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 1. The Conditions of Approval for Tract 23913 grant the authority to the Planning Commission for review and approval of the architectural residential units proposed for construction within the development. 2. The - Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the architectural residential style and size of the homes to be constructed within the tract on December 11, 1990. \ 3. The development contains 116 lots of which 18 homes have been constructed per the approved architectural residential style. 4. The proposed smaller residential units are not in harmony, conformance, or compatible in size or architectural style with the existing developed units or the units approved by the Planning Commission. 5. The Planning Commission further finds that the minimum house size shall be 1,650 square feet which is in harmony, conformance, and is compatible with the existing development. DOCGT:005 13 ATTACHMENT i PLANNING CO1VOVlISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 24, 1993) PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21913 (QUINTERRA) PHASE 2; APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (MODEL HOMES) APPLICANT: FORECAST HOMES REPRESENTATIVE: TODD SCHERMERHORN, PROJECT MANAGER BRUCE STRICKLAND, V. P. OF LAND ACQUISITION LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF MILES AVENUE, EAST OF ADAMS .STREET PLANNING COMOSSION REVIEW - AUGUST 24, 1993:. On August 24, 1993, .the Planning Commission reviewed the Applicant's request to* develop 1,106 to 1,659 square foot homes within Phase 2 of Tract 23913. Four of the five commissioners were present to discuss the case. - Although the case was not a public hearing item, the Planning Commission allowed public comment on the project because there were about 70+ people in the audience who were present for. this fr matter. Various individuals om both the Quinterra Tract and surrounding tracts stated they were opposed to the Forecast application because the units were not consistent or in "harmony" with the general area.. Discussion ensued. regarding the current economic market conditions and the loss of property values in the north La Quints area and /or southern California. Opponents felt lower priced units would exacerbate their problem. Mr. Strickland spoke regarding his housing project. He stated that his company has done some minor modifications to their project since the Design Review Board meeting. They have modified the color samples and slightly enlarged their house square footage sizes. He stated that they are proposing their larger homes adjacent to the Phase 1 homes per their agreement with the Design Review Board on August 4, 1993. Mr. Strickland stated that their homes are geared toward first time buyers, families, single parents, or people who wish to "move -down" because they no longer need a larger home (e.g. retired individuals) . His housing prices would vary .depending on the wishes and desires of the future buyers. He stated that his firm Is a quality home builder and that the construction quality of the Forecast Homes will be similar to Phase 1. STAFFRPT.015 1 . 14 A few individuals spoke in favor of the project because they felt that first time home buyers should not be eliminated from the local housing market if the developer chooses to develop entry level housing. They felt first time home buyers are not bad neighbors just because their units are smaller. It was stated that home buying is a high risk venture and there are no guarantees in today's economic situation that a buyer will receive a profit on his or her purchase. One speaker stated that land prices have dropped by 50% in this area because of the economic downturn and most of the raw vacant land is now controlled by lending institutions looking to sell their holdings. In summary, the Planning Commission voted to continue the meeting to September 14, 1993. However, at the study session on September 13, 1993, they would like to meet with the developer and one representative from each of the surrounding tracts to examine solutions and /or alternatives to this housing size issue. BACKGROUND: The tract is a 116 lot subdivision approved by the City in 1988. The subdivision map was recorded in 1990. The original applicant, Waldon Financial, had anticipated building single family homes ranging in size from 1,670 to 2,570 square feet on the property. In 1990, Windsor Construction Company purchased the project. The existing 18 homes within Phase 1 were developed by Windsor Construction Company in 1990 & 1991. The homes built by Windsor Construction Company were one and two story units. Three floor plans were used varying in size from 2,072 to 2,593 square feet excluding garages. A Mediterranean architectural style was used and the exterior materials consist of stucco, wood trim, the accents, and multi - colored roof tile. Colors are earth tones with Southwest accent colors, and a brown /beige roof tile. Three elevations were available for each plan. The homes sold for over $200,000. The Planning Commission approved the house plans on December 11, 1990. NEW PROPOSAL: The Applicant is in the process of purchasing the remaining lots within Phase 2 to develop single or two story homes on the existing ±8,000 square foot lots. The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 23913 require that the Applicant submit to Design Review Board and Planning Commission architectural plans of any type of unit design to be built within the tract. Based on this requirement, the Applicant has submitted their plans which includes five home sizes which range from 1,106 square feet to 1,659 square feet (3 & 4 bedroom units) . Each unit has an attached two car garage. Plans 2 thru 6 include three elevation types per size of home. Plan 6 is the only two story plan. The Applicant has stated that they would like to build their model complex on Ocotillo Drive and Adams Street. STAFFRPT. 015 2 15 The architectural style is consistent with the mediterranean theme used in Phase 10 however its unit size is smaller. The front facades vary from stucco, to stucco with brick or stone veneer. The masonite lapsiding (i.e., Elevation "C ") will not be used in this project because it cannot withstand the harsh desert climate. The units include covered entry patios, varied roof designs and embellishments, and other architectural characteristics. The homes are 17+ to 24+ feet in overall height. The exterior building colors will be similar to Phase 1 except for one color sample includes a gray combination. The colorboard will be available at the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed units are smaller in size than those built in Phase 1. The Applicant has stated that their market research has shown that smaller, more affordable units are selling whereas the larger homes are not as marketable in today's economic climate. The R -1 Zoning Code does not define the size of home which can be built similar to the SR Zoned areas which prescribe minimum 1,200 square foot homes. However, there is a section in the general guidelines which requires all homes in the City to be greater than 750 square feet. Staff has also researched both the tract Conditions and CC &R provisions to make sure the proposed homes can be built, as proposed. The Applicant's proposal meets these minimum standards. The front elevations are attractive and well proportioned. However, the eave overhangs are generally minimal except for the entry door locations. The side and rear elevations are plain and should have some additional architectural treatment similar to the front elevations (e.g. stucco pop -outs around the windows). The recommended architectural features will complement the overall building design and supplement the State's Title 24 Energy Efficiency requirements. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: On August 4, 1993, the Board met with Mr. Bruce Strickland of Forecast Homes to discuss his model home and unit type submittal. Mr. Strickland explained that his company has developed (or is developing) this type and style of house in the southern California area and they develop entry level housing for their buyers (i.e. $103,000 to $130,000+). Fifty to eighty percent of their homes are sold to first time home buyers. Their company does not build speculative housing. Mr. Strickland stated that they are sensitive to the Phase I home buyers but they do not build homes which are larger than 1,700 square feet. He also explained that they would be placing their model homes on Ocotillo Drive at Adams Street to be sensitive to the existing owners. He thought his homes would be compatible with this existing project. The Board initially felt the homes were quite small and not compatible with the Phase I units. They asked if larger homes (1,800 + square foot) could be offered and developed adjacent to the existing homes. The applicant stated his company used to build a 1, 800 square foot home but they do not provide this home in their current market schedule. The Plan 2 home (1,106 square foot) was also discussed at length. STAFFRPT.015 3 16 The Board noted that this home was not in keeping with the abutting 2,000 ♦ square foot Phase I homes. They hoped the applicant would delete this model from the project. Mr. Strickland stated that they normally only sell a small percentage (10%) of this size home and that he would like to keep this plan in the Phase 2 program. Mr. Strickland stated that they would only build Plans 4, 5, & 6 adjacent to the Phase 1 homes, and that they would encourage three car garages on the lots adjacent to the retention basins. He said he would put Plans 5 & 6 on Lots 99, 100, & 101 and a Plan 6 on Lot 2 because this area is near the -entry on Miles Avenue into Phase 1. The Design Review Board members requested that the existing homeowner's receive a public notice from the city notifying them of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. This would ensure that they understand that smaller units are proposed within their tract. Staff noted that this will be done. Mr. Strickland stated that Kaufman & Broad had initially attempted to purchase the property a few months ago and at that time it was his understanding that Kaufman & Broad informed the residents that the Phase 2 units would be smaller than Phase 1. Kaufman & Broad withdrew their application on June 2, 1993 prior to Design Review Board review. The Kaufman & Broad homes were similar to the Forecast application. The Design Review Board members discussed whether or not the homes should have larger roof eaves to provide additional shade as well as enlarge the appearance of the house so that it will have more "bulk". The larger eaves would also assist the applicant in -his Title 24 (Energy Conservation) requirements. Mr. Strickland said he could add the larger eaves to the homes but the cost would be borne by the purchaser and it would cost approximately $1,500 for this feature. He also said he could add stucco pop -outs but he would prefer to add the pop -outs on the Plan 6 home because it is his largest home. The Board debated the exterior colors and textures of each unit type. A few members did not think the River Rock veneer alternative was appropriate. They though a desert maierial should be used and that it might be nice to have the veneer used under the window ledge instead of to the top plate line. Mr. Strickland stated their veneer materials are well liked by their customers and they create a customize feature for their product line. He said he could find an alternative product for the units abutting Phase 1 but he would like to use the River Rock veneer on the lots on the northern portion of the tract. In summary, the Design Review Board felt the applicant was very informed about the local market conditions. The Board voted to allow the 5 new model types within Phase 2 of the Quinterra tract. However, they recommended that the larger units be placed in the immediate area of Phase 1, and these units should have 3 car garages. The applicant should also use similar desert colors and tones for Phase 2 in the vicinity of Phase 1. The Design Review Board required the Applicant to put larger roof eaves on his buildings and add the stucco popouts to the homes. The attached Conditions reflect the actions of the Design Review Board based on their August 4, 1993 meeting with minor amendments by staff. STAFFRPT.015 4 17 CONDITION #11 (PARKLAND FEE): Staff has added Condition #11 to the recommended conditions in order to inform the developer that the Quinterra Tract has not paid the City's Parkland fee for recreation purposes as outlined in Chapter 13.24.020 (et al.) of the Municipal Code. The existing fee or outstanding amount is $52,500. The fee or other land dedications shall be made prior to any building permits being issued. for Phase 2. ( Condition #7 of Tract 23913) . HOUSE SIZE DISCUSSION: Staff had originally suggested that the Design Review Board consider a minimum house size of 1, 200 square feet for this tract based on the premise that the approved tracts in the immediate area exceed this standard. The only exception to this size is the La Quinta Del Rey (Century Homes) project within the La. Quinta Highlands Tract generally south of Fred Waring Drive, west of Adams Street. See the attached housing tract survey. As mentioned above, the Design Review Board deleted the recommended condition establishing a 1,200 square foot standard because they agreed with the Applicant's proposal to buffer the existing Phase 1 homes from his smaller Plan 2 home. Lastly, the Design Review Board did not require the Applicant to build any homes larger than 1,659 square feet based on their August 4th meeting. RECENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLE: On August 17, 1993, the Desert Sun published an article regarding this case in their newspaper. A copy is attached. Since the article was published, staff has received various phone inquiries and letters of opposition from both Quinterra residents and residents of adjoining tracts (a sample copy is attached). The general consensus of the existing residents is that the Planning Commission and the City Council should maintain a house size and price comparable with the existing single family homes. A few adjoining tract residents stated they will examine modifying their CC &R's to establish a minimum house size to insure that this issue does not become a problem in their tract. They also requested that the Planning Commission consider larger houses on the perimeter lots of the Quinterra tract to buffer their investment. The attached Design Review Board conditions do not require the Applicant to build a certain size home on any lot abutting the north and east sides of the tract. RECONMEIDATION: The Planning Commission has.the following options: 1. Continue the matter- for further study. 2. By Minute Motion deny the request. This action keeps. in .place the size and unit type currently approved for the development. .3 Require larger house sizes than proposed. STAFFRPT . 015 5 18 • J 4. Change the buffering requirements along the existing units and the developments perimeter. 5. Approve the project as recommended by the Design Review Board. 6. Any combination of options 3, 4, & 5. Draft Conditions of Approval are provided for your, consideration. Attachments.:- 1. Vicinity Map 2. Housing Tract Survey 3. Phase 1 Housing Survey 4. Petition Summary 5. Newspaper Article 6. Letter of Protest (Sample) 7. Letters from Best, Best & Krieger STAFFRPT . 015 6 J -� L� b Lij co • may.-• J sail& 1, I 11'sm? sill 3l& fJ=M2N �� 1 V a � � I � No I • VA I 1 I o NO 3 WAOMIS =W I 13cl V �y r •1'� oa Su� _ c �O Nl. W W • 2 — — - - - 1_ — —� Q o4I10 •�•. ,al a �45 laws a _ft.•w zA It 10� ,11!101 � � • ■ _� 1S S11K! r o NO 8 0 � 3 . � r� • 7 C/) W Z I gar a D° ■� Q so 9NIZV j sail& 1, I 11'sm? sill 3l& fJ=M2N �� 1 V a � � I � No I • VA I 1 I o NO 3 WAOMIS =W I 13cl V �y r •1'� oa Su� _ c �O Nl. W W • 2 — — - - - 1_ — —� Q o4I10 •�•. ,al a �45 laws a _ft.•w zA It 10� ,11!101 � � • ■ _� 1S S11K! r o NO 8 0 � 3 . � r� • 7 CITY OF LA QUIN ' TA MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE- CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING k DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 2, 1993 SUBJECT: HOUSING SURVEY At the request of one of the Design Review Board members, staff has prepared a housing site and price survey for the tracts surrounding the Quinter a project. The housing price information is based on a 1992 survey. Topaz - TTM 23935 1,407 to 2,864 sq. ft. ($168,000 to $234,990) Cactus Flower South- TIM 24208 1,633 to 2,134 sq. A. ($147,900 to $185,900) Cactus Flower North - TT 22982 040 to 1,870 (N /A) Rancho Ocotillo -.TIM 24517 1,700 to 2,550 sq. ft (N /A) Acacia Homes - TTM 23168 1,400 to 2,200 sq. ft. ($147,990 to $189,990) La Quinta Del Rey - TT 23269 1,006 to 1,732 sq. ft. *. Century Homes/La Quinta Highlands ($115,990 to $139,990) Phase 5 A few of the approved tentative maps surrounding the Quinterra project have not been placed on the list because the developer has not submitted or decided what type or size of .home to build. * La Quinta Highlands — 1,220 to 1,840 sq. ft. ($139,900 to $169,900) La Quinta del Oro. - 2,700 to 3,400 sq. ft. ($250,000 to- $270,000) * La Quinta Vistas - 2,OOO'to 2,400 so, ft. ($115,000 to $210,000) 21 • • f 1; - V' N QQC ,1 OVf N N C /%.� • CV) fn in %C 0► 10 2 O m � w w • p O; NNN J C S 1 1 1 pf 0 G ' QIL V r C c C OF N • J. Sr i of m- ti I _- 'l• NOS. ^ r - IL -� CIS �7 tb V _ : W. J 0 — -- •OF / VE - — Oci 4c 4cc � �•` -4L s• co wl � �O Q '..� •QQ _ osi o . v t ti • o•• O •owt .. �O = �� ; �� i w �1� o , •C<< ^OV Q os: O .p... w .c�:• 3708/3 co 0 I • V :{ .gyp '` h �, .•, a �O • " e ( v • 0 Q m • O .ot =•o.rs osti pia Q 1 � -s• • .n 1c: s � v 22 CITY OF LA Q UINTA - .MEMO AND UM �o TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN. AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING .COMMISSION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 PETITION SUMMARY (FORECAST HOMES) - PLOT PLAN 93 -505 PROJECT LOCATION LETTERS RECEIVED Quinterra (Phase n* 18 (18) Rancho Ocotillo* 27 (52) Cactus Flower North South* .44(134) 0 (15) Topaz*' 11 (45) Acacia 14 (98) La Quinta Del Oro* 32 (32) Starlight Dunes* * *1 (47) La Quinta Vistas* 34 (53) TOTAL 181 * ** (264) O = Existing homes within the tract. * = Tract with remaining undeveloped single family lots. '• = Letter from Homeowners Association. * ** = Total number represents a vote from an individual household or home address. 0 23 By DOUGLAS WERMAN • The Oasts Sun LA QUINTA — Homeowners are protesting a developer's plans to complete the Qulnterrs subdivision with much unauer houses thaa those already built. They complain that a change m the original plant might lower the value of their homes and affect the overall look of their neighborhood "It was represented as ,a fairly vice development," Q6terra homeowner Jim Hanson said. "Now we think that they're trying to come in here with homes that may be less than $100,000." He paid $200,000 for his home to December, he said. A vice president with developer Forecas Homes of Rancho Cuca- monga said the company is planning to build homes in the low 1100,000s, aimed mainly at young families. "That meets market demand," vice president Bruce Strickland said. The bomeowners plan to present petitions to the Planning Commis. Sion at 7 p.m. on Aug. 24. Only I homes have been built in Quinterra so far. The subdivision coWains 118 Iota. • Desert Sun Newspaper August 17, 1993 WORRIED: Jim Hanson of Ls Quints opposes s developer's plans to finish Quinterra subdivision with smaller homes. Hanson and others fear the change will reduce values in the entire neighborhood. Those already built have square footages of 2,072, 2,363 or 2,593. Forecast is proposing new units with square footages of 1,106, 1,237, 1,415 or 1,659. 'They're attractive homes;' Strickland said. Forecast is not the original do- v eloper. Strickland said 4 partner- ship that was building Quintero folded and the lender bank took over the property. Forecast became interested is the property about a month ago, he said. It its plans are approved, the val- ue of existing homes will drop, Han son argug& Quinterra plans WHAT: is Qurfta Plarcmg Com- m6s+on asses Forecast Hanes' psoposal for thmterra WOQ+v sm WHEM 7 p.m, Aug 24. WHERE City Coxa chambers, the new City Ha[, at Washington Street and Cabe Tampion. "Their property values have al- ready been diminlshed," Strickland responded. "The market has done OWL" Homeowners in the nearby Ran. cho Ocotillo and Topaz develop. ments also are signing the petition& Some of those signing said that when they bought their homes they were told the rest of the develop- ment and nearby subdivisions would consist of homes of more than 2,000 square feet. Rancbo Ocotillo homeowner Diane McMahon said she would like her neighborhood to consist of Douses that took more or less the same. *"IOU want It to remain what you thought It would remain from the LE Done rt= wn-e oes*n um The city's Design Review Board voted Aug. 4 to recommend that the Planning Commission approve Forecast's plant If homeowners or the developer are unhappy with arcing Commission vote, appeal to the City Council, Planning Direc. • August 12, 1993 Mr. Jerry Herman . Planning and Development Director City of La Quinta P.O. BOX 1504 La Quint &, CA 92253 SUBJECT: QUINTERRA TRACT (PHASE 2) Dear Mr. Berman: • I am opposed to the request by Forecast Homes to complete Phase 2 of the Quinterra project. The project will .significantly and permanently decrease the property value of - my home in that. the planned homes are not equivalent in construction, size, or value of the existing homes in this area. ANY DEVELOPMENT 00 THE REMAINING LOTS SHOULD BE SIMILAR IN SIZE AND PRICE TO THE HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. I urge you and the Planning Commission to.DEIR Forecast Homes request to complete phase .2 until they submit plans that are in keeping with existing properties. Doing so will help protect our investments and keep La Quinta a more uniformly planned community. Very truly yours, a concern homeowner. Homeowner Address 7AKPLE= (Owner within Phase 1) 25 L' AUG 16 I am opposed to the request by Forecast Homes to complete Phase 2 of the Quinterra project. The project will .significantly and permanently decrease the property value of - my home in that. the planned homes are not equivalent in construction, size, or value of the existing homes in this area. ANY DEVELOPMENT 00 THE REMAINING LOTS SHOULD BE SIMILAR IN SIZE AND PRICE TO THE HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. I urge you and the Planning Commission to.DEIR Forecast Homes request to complete phase .2 until they submit plans that are in keeping with existing properties. Doing so will help protect our investments and keep La Quinta a more uniformly planned community. Very truly yours, a concern homeowner. Homeowner Address 7AKPLE= (Owner within Phase 1) 25 • BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER 11 pow"csm-W 64116,1400 OFAWCMO%ft LAWY908 JAll"OUR 1. LE71L9TJTOI111P OOLJOLAS 9 naLor OL9M ( 6 Ir"( y ANSONIA GAA►1= WILLIAM R O.WOLIP GRKOORT S WILILD0011 9JMTOM C OMIT • WTNN( 6 FLRTH ►AEA 1 s9Ll(R• OAVRD L.&AROM DAL LAS "Mug 9• KR( TANA" CHRTSIOPHEA L CJIRP(NTER' SA&R T CMAPUAM RICNANO I M.O[RSOFM TIMOTHT M. CONISM JOIN 0 WAHlRP VICTOR l WON/ MICHAEL 0 HAMM DANK I.OWWn W CURT [ALT- AAML J MCNWN THOMAS { SLOVAK* HOWARD & 0MOS JOHN E BROWN- - STt PH(N P O(ITSCH MICHAEL 1 M.00KLL• MARC ( EMP4V MER(OITN A JURY' JOHN R ROTTSCHAEFER MICHAEL "AM?* MARTIN A MUELLER FRANCIS J BALM' J MICHAEL 5"MCROLR AJ.M( 1 THOMAS' VICTORIA N KING 0 MARTIN HN(TH9RY' JEFF9RV J CRANDALL 61000( M R(VEs SCOTT C sMNTH WILLIAM W FLOYD. JIM JACK 9 CLARK(. JR. GR(GORT l HARORE BRIAN M LEWIS KENDALLH M.NV(T BRADLEY[ R(LWELO CLARK H ALSOF" SHARK WALKER OAVtO J CRWIN' PETER M BARMACK MICHAEL J AHO(LSOM• JEANNETTE A P(T(RSOM '. HNIYCIII0.4 9cova"TV. 9L\( 6 TRATRRI WILLIAM 0. OAFHLING. M. MATT N won" AFFR(T V OLMIN 9191! R C 0.0441111 INC L GARNER OEMMIS M COLA RACH[W J. NOMLE ROKRT W NJIAGR(AVE9 JARC( L WES PATRICK N W / KAM Kim TV WAI" JASON 0 OAILAR(p(R Kq( A NOW S MARK A (ASTER. PAN( L FINLEY M11:H(LL9 OLELL(TTT DAVID ► ►..PP( Walt SUS" C IR HISS CHRISIoPH(R 010090" KRONE L WILLIAMSON ELAIW ( HILL KEVIN A RANOOLPH JAMES 9 GIPW MARSiHAII S RUOOLPH AMA aril[ NS Planning Commission City of La Quinta . 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 • CTMTR&A r OCEMAMO MART ( OISTRAP CMRtST L RCNAROMM )OAN( GARCIALOLSM PMII► J IMPEMAR 09AM C WEN R(K CCA MAR(9 OURM(T Qt) TMT I AMM*K M G. HE PONT WELLES JAMES R HUR►(R O9MA O HARRY SMR9MA R 64!101( RCHARO T TOILER PATRICK 0 OOLAM OE AN n TIE RAE TH HELENE P OR(VER (MILV ► H(MP"ILL SDMIA OU610 SHAJTMA JOHN O. HNKNET. RAYMOND KST I196S. 19571 JAMS& N KJI(O[R (1911 (9791 EUGENE MST (1&9}12611 September.9, 1993 SLIT[ all 39700 601 ►WOK amK ►04T OIna SO)[ )644 RANCHO MRAOL CAUFOWSA =270 TILL LPHOP [ 0419) 5a4.3{l l 7=00r CM (6) 9) 340.66" OF COLJMUL JAM911 CORTA M OFFCTIS, N R1V[RSNO( I90916S61A3p PALM SPRIM63 96191325-72SA ' ONTARIO MM 9#9•193" � sJ tSEP10t..n PU.tJ!1;,, aF.zA-. :!:AT Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra, Subdivision Dear Commission Members: .As you may remember, this lawfirm represents a number of the homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. In a letter to this Commission dated August 19, 1993, we presented the homeowners' concerns that approval of the smaller homes would significantly reduce the value of existing homes. We requested that the Forecast proposal not be approved and.that the City of_ La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that other similarly- situated neighborhoods be preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of the subdivisions as initially planned and approved. For your reference, we have attached a copy of the August 19 letter. We are writing this letter to address a few concerns that have arisen since the original letter. First, it has come to our attention that proponents of the Forecast proposal-may argue that Government Code Section 65589.5 prevents the City from denying the proposal. Section 65589.5 been characterized as an "anti- NIMBY" law. The Section prohi LAW pI /IC[s it BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER Planning Commission City of La Quinta September 9, 1993 Page 2 • local governments from denying housing projects that have at least 20% of the units set aside for low- and moderate- income households unless the local government makes certain specific findings. Section 65589.5 is inapplicable to the Forecast proposal because the Forecast proposal does not qualify as,low- to moderate - income housing. Low- and moderate - income housing is defined by statute to be housing that is made available at a certain percentage of the area median income. Currently, such housing would need to sell for approximately $75,000 to $100,000. Forecast has made no commitment to offer its housing for such prices. Secondly, we are informed that the City of La Quinta is currently revising the housing element of its general plan. According to correspondence to the City from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, the City's current housing plan is not in compliance with current State requirements. We believe that it would be inappropriate for the City to make any decision to radically change the nature of the Quinterra subdivision in absence of a current statement of the City's housing goals that the housing element should provide. Finally, we wish the Planning Commission to be aware of the case of Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 732. In that case, the court affirmed the City of San Francisco Planning Commission's denial of a building permit to construct a house that, because of its size, was not in character with the other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed house complied with the City's zoning laws and building standards but was considerably larger than surrounding homes. The court relied on the requirement in City's code that the commission "protect the character and stability of residential areas," to find that the commission retained sufficient discretion to deny the permit. As explained in our letter of August 19, 1993, La Quinta Municipal Code provides ample discretion for the denial of the Forecast proposal. one of the goals of design review is to •foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of the City and iu harmonious development . . . ." (La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.183.020(A)). Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding_ property." (La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.180.040(B)). Forecast's proposal to degregate the neig od by construction of lower - quality homes does not preservIC LAW O / /ICC80 BEST, BEST b' KRIEGER Planning Commission City :of La Quint& September 9, 1993 Page 3 enhance the neighborhood; is not consistent with the neighborhood's harmonious development; and, is not compatible with present and future logical development of the area. Therefore, the Forecast proposal does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. Once .again, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission seriously consider the long -range deleterious effect of the Forecast proposal. We are confident that the City will conclude., as we have, that the Forecast proposal is not in -the best interest of Quinterra and surrounding neighborhoods or of the City as a whole. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER DSP:RWH:js Enc. cc: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney City of La Quinta: Mayor John - Pena Mayor Pro Ten Stanley Sniff Councilwoman Glenda Bangerter Councilman Ron Perkins Councilman Michael McCartney Client • 0 r. BEST. BEST dI KRIEGER . /MMIA91 T1aldW I.varvr Ko.olniRK� LAWYERS ARTIRJA L LJTTLIWORTH0 DOUGLAS S Hq"PS. [LASE S TRAVMUIM CTNTNU M. GERMA)O OLIN ( ST(PH(RS' ANSONIA GRAPHICS WWAM O OAMI+S. JR. MART [. 6"IRA► WILLIAM R D.MOLIC. M[OORT R NRA /qON MA" N MORE 0111"" ► {APR "A 000 C SAMI' ATVNW 5 IURT" 81110 T • OMMI CNR•STINE L. bOLM01901101 ►ALA 1 KLJER' DAVID L. SAXON STCVCN C O41SALRI JOANC WCJA{OLSOO OALLAS HOtA". KK TANAKA ERIC l pAA00[R MU► J. KOCHLUI 4.RrSTOPH(A L. CARPENIER' SASIL I CHAPMAN DOE "IRS M OOIA OIA..[ C. WIEK R.CI.ARO 1. A.MO(RSOM' T>rDMT M CONNOR RAOtLLE /. NICOLLE OW KC" MARS OURISTI JOHN O WAIINM VICTOR L. WOU AO0(R1 W. HAAOREAVCS F I I TNT 1. A00p(RO01 MICHA[l 0 HARM* K DAIL 1. O►nI1tR JAIRCK L WC• S. HENRI TICLLLS M CURT (ALT' OAIK[L J Me"LIGN ►A111=9 H A.! ►[AP,[ AAMES R. NARPW . THOU" I SLOVAK' HOWARD 5 SOLOS KINK W SMLM 00" O NAARM JOHN ( BROWN, S1E►TI(N P 0(ITSQI JASON 0 OAAIAR[�RR SAA6AAA R SARGN MOCHA{L I ALL' MAC ( (MPCT KTLE A SHOW R ICHAR0-1 (DOER—' MEREDITH A GIRT• JO.M R ROTTSCAMFER MARK A EASIER PATRICK 0 DOLAN MICHAEL 'AAN t' MATRI A MU(U1R OIAN( l IK.►iT KAN R O(IR.rM IRANCIS J SAUM' J MICHAEL SUMMKROUR MIOAILLI OLOLLJITT'( Ht LL;.L[ P. ORETER ANN( I THOMAS' VICTORIAN KING OAVIO P PTMWK111. M CMILT P. H(M/TKL 0 MARTIN N(TH(RT' RIIERT J CRANDALL SUSAN C RAU" SOMA RUSIO SHARMA GEORGE M RKTCS Kane SMIM CHRIS 1 DPW a 0002000 JOHN O. PINKJKT WILLIAM W TLOTO. JR JACK 0 CLARKE. JR KRNK L VRLIAMSON GREGORT L HAROKC SATAN M KWIS [LANK C. N%L K[NDALL H M. VET SAAOLET ( KUPGD KEVIN K RANDOLPH CLARK H ALSO►' SHARK WALKER JAMES 0 GILPIN RATMONO KIM S64-In71 DAVID J ERWIN' PET(A N SAAMACA MARSHALL S RUOOl/M JAMES H KMfGER 11 91 1 19 79) MICHAEL. J. AMMLSON' JEANNETTE A. PETERSON WW A STR(MS EUGENE BEST 1159119011 '. r.OrLa4MI. COW.0" aM Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 am 11! 19700 am mn W" NOT 01P10t 0= is" AAN" MUM GUMMONA 92170 Tv" How (Sill 94i-1011 TMECO►TOt (Sig) $4040" Of COUNSEL JAMES S CONISOM OIr1CO N RM R9.O( ell" 606.3490 ►ALA. SPRe..GS 419177177M ONTARIO 1910!" 959.4964 August 19, 1993 AUG 19 1993 r L ' Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the- Quin ' terra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Home' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes will be lost. On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be- approved and that the City of La Quinta. take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits. by building homes -that.do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods.. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map. was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval " required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which. varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currentN LAW Orricce BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER Planning Commission City of La Quint& August 19, 1993 Page 2 existing 18 homes in the Quinterra subdivision were built using those plans. These are all quality homes which originally sold for between $200,000 and $250,000. At the time Quinterra homeowners purchased their homes, they were assured by Windsor that the quality of the neighborhood would be maintained' throughout subsequent phases. The subdivision's CC&R's call for the establishment of an Architectural Control Committee that will review and approve all homes to be built in the subdivision (other than those built by the developer) to insure that standards within the neighborhood are maintained. Based on these representations, homeowners felt secure in investing a significant part of their life savings in their new homes. Forecast Homes now proposes to build significantly smaller homes ( from 1,106 to 1,659 square feet) that will sell for half the price of the existing homes. We all know that the quality of a neighborhood significantly affects the value of each home within that neighborhood. Forecast undoubtedly foresees that the value of its smaller homes will increase due to their close proximity to the larger existing homes. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. The value of existing homes will be reduced if smaller homes are allowed to be built in the same tract. In essence, approval of the smaller homes will allow Forecast to transfer value from existing homes to the new, smaller homes. Forecast will then sell this transferred value at a profit, while existing homeowners will suffer a loss in the value of their investment. We are mindful that, in today's market, requiring Forecast to proceed with the project as originally planned may not provide Forecast with the fastest method of making a profit. But land -use planning is not about maximizing short -term profits for.developers. It is about achieving coherent and consistent development of property that will preserve and enhance property values for all concerned - -the developer, the surrounding property owners and the City. Forecast's request comes before this Commission for design review as a plot plan. One of the goals of design review is to "foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of the City and ig harmonious development . . . ." (La Quinta Municipal Code S 9.183.020(A).) Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to MOM CAW orFICCS OF BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 3 • i compatible with-the present and future_.logical development of the surrounding property." (La Quinta Municipal Code S 9.180.040(B) .) Forecast's proposed plans do not comply with those requirements. Degregation of the neighborhood through the construction of lower- value housing is not compatible with current development nor does it preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods. For that reason alone, Forecast's request should be denied. As the principal planning agency for the City of La Quinta, this Commission is encharged with implementing a long -range perspective for the development of the City. The Quinterra neighborhood will exist for years to come. By investing a substantial part of their life savings in.quality Quinterra homes, existing homeowners have made a long -tern investment in, and commitment to, the quality of their neighborhood and the City of La Quinta as well. This Commission should not allow that investment and commitment to be.undermined by short -term market forces and Forecast's desire for a quick profit. It is our understanding that there are other subdivisions within La Quinta that face a similar dilemma. Initial phases of those subdivisions were built with larger, quality homes. Now, due to the depressed housing market, developers desire to build smaller, inferior homes within those developments. In an effort to move product, developers are sacrificing the quality of their projects. We believe that fairness and good planning demand that the City of La Quinta carefully examine the situation and craft a comprehensive, City -wide response. We suggest that a "neighborhood preservation ordinance" be implemented. The ordinance would use zoning controls to balance the need to maintain existing neighborhood values with the desire of developers to respond to market conditions. Similar ordinances have been enacted in other cities to preserve existing neighborhoods .from uncontrolled development that threatened to destroy the character of those neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would give La Quinta city planners, this Commission and the City Council increased ability to respond in a reasonable way to the needs of all segments of the community and to allow for the development in a manner that is fair to all. Until this City has had an opportunity ' to fully assess and respond to the threats to existing neighborhoods posed by subsequent,- inferior development, we respectfully request that Forecast be required to continue to develop the Quinterra subdivision as previously planned by Windsor and approved b,2 the Lww O►►iCts o/s BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Planning Commission City of La Quint& August 19, 1993 Page 4 City. A hasty decision to allow lesser - quality development in this neighborhood will unfairly detract from the substantial investments made in good faith by Quinterra homeowners and from the reputation of the City of La Quinta-as a secure place for quality investment. Very truly yours, DOUG S S. PHILLIPS Of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER DSP:RWH:js cc: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney City of La Quinta Client RVH40196 32 Planning Commission Minute August 24, 1993 extension of time for Tentative Tract 25953 to the City Council, subject to conditions. ROLL CALL.VO AYES: Commissi rs Ellson, Marrs, Abe & Chairwoman Barrows. ES: None. ABSENT: Co issioner Adolph.. ABSTAININ None. B. n tiv 27840; ; a request of TD Dese evelopment (Chuck Strother) for approv f a tentative tract map to creat 6 single family residential lots misc aneous lots on SS + acres. Principal Planner. Stan wa stated the applicant had r ested a continuance of the proj to September 14, 1993.. The publi eanng was opened by Chairwo Barrows. There being no dis ssion, it was moved and second y Commissioners Ellson/Abels to ntinue Tentative Tract 27840 to ptember 14, 1993. Unanimously roved. W. PUBLIC COMMENT: ne Commissioners Ellson/Abels moved to reorganize the agenda by placing Business Item #3 as animously approved. Tentative Tract 23913 (Quinterra) a request of Forecast Homes for approval of architectural plans for single family residences. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Marrs asked staff to clarify where the River Rock would be used. Staff explained the location and stated there had been a minor modification to the plans which added 50 square feet to four of the plans. 3. Chairwoman Barrows asked what the size of the eaves was. Staff stated it depended. on the plan but to make the house appear larger an 18 -inch eave is proposed. Chairwoman Barrows stated there needed to be more shading and an 18 -inch overhang was needed. PC8 -24 2 . 33 Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1993 4. Mr. Bruce Strickland, Vice President of Land Acquisition for Forecast Homes, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated 60-80% of their buyers were first time buyers and their company offered a total of five plans ranging in size from 1,000 square feet to 1,660 square feet. S. Commissioner Ellson asked if a patio cover in the rear was offered. Mr. Strickland stated not at present, but it could be. Chairwoman Barrows asked if their homes in Phoenix offered the patio cover. Mr. Strickland stated they did not. 6. Commissioner Ellson stated the La Quina Del Rey project (Century Homes) offered a small home and only sold three and asked if the applicant had considered this in their marketing. Mr. Strickland stated he was aware and further stated that the larger units were not selling either: Discussion followed regarding the homes built in La Quinta Del Rey. 7. Mr. Doug Phillips, Best, Best & Krieger, spoke on behalf of the Quinterra homeowners. He stated the project would adversely affect the existing homes and submitted a petition with 181 individual signatures. He reminded the Commission that the City Code allows the Planning Commission to change or deny the application. The existing homes were at least 1,000 square feet more than those planned by the developer and the existing neighborhood did not consist of first time buyers but established homeowners who had put their entire investment into their homes. He went on to quote what the original homeowners had been promised by the Quinterra developers when they bought their homes. 8. Mr. Dale Thornburgh, La Quinta Del Rey property owner, stated he had searched for a location and tract that would suit his family needs and bought a home in the La Quinta Del Rey tract. Mr. Thornburgh stated he was in the real estate business and he felt there was a market for the larger homes if they were built. 9. Ms. loan Berndt, Quinterra homeowner, stated the smaller, low price homes would affect her loan. The larger homes have better construction and architectural design, with higher quality appliances. The lower prices will bring a transient type population into the neighborhood because they will not have the finances to maintain the homes. She felt the present homeowners could expect a 10 -20% decrease in value in their homes. Pc8 -24 � 3 34 Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1993 10. Mr. Russell Robertson, Quinterra homeowner for three months, stated the planning should stay consistent with Phase 1. The. Design Review Board when, reviewing the project, did not take into account the needs of the existing homeowners. The applicant was not sensitive to the exiting homeowners. Mr. Robertson stated he felt the difference between the loss in property values due to economic problems versus 'cookie cutter' type homes being built reducing their value further was unfair. Chairwoman Barrows asked if Mr. Robertson had any suggestions to offer to the developer -to solve the problem, such as a size of home that would be acceptable. Mr. Robertson stated if he had to compromise the minimum would be 1,800 square feet. He stated the smallest existing plan was 2,100 square feet. 11. Mr. Daniel Bresnahan, Rancho Ocotillo property owner, stated so far the arguments had been over price, size, and quality of the homes. He was concerned about the. promise that had been broken to the existing homeowners. He wanted the value and neighborhood to be maintained and asked the Commission not to reduce the standards of the neighborhood. He and his neighbors would rather see the land stay vacant as it is, rather than having anything of less value built. 12. Mr. Kim Lee Job; Quinterra homeowner, stated he was a banker and had seen what happens to a development when lower value homes are built in conjunction with higher valued homes. He stated his opposition to the project. - 13. Ms. Allyson Devenney, La Quinta Vistas homeowner, stated her opposition to seeing. Century Homes or Forecast Homes develop in any part of her existing tract or any of the neighboring tracts. 14. Mr. Kirk Dimmitt, Rancho Ocotillo property owner, stated his opposition to the development. He understood the economic downturn in property values, but asked that the Commission not impose an artificial downturn on their area 15. Ms. Jennie Erwin - Plantz, Topaz homeowner, stated her concern that her development had a similar downsizing plan starting and she was in Opposition to it happening in her tract. These were not first time buyer in these developments but retirees and homeowners who put life savings into their homes and they can't afford to lose their property value. PC8 -24 4 35 9- 0 Planning Commission Minut*s August 24, 1993 16. Ms. Bev Beam, Rancho Ocotillo homeowner, stated she had been a realtor for 21 years and can realistically address the value depreciation based on her experience in the area. She stated that when the smaller homes were built by the Highlands area, the homes were devalued by as much as $100,000. She quoted seven —T instances where property values had decreased to the point people were selling their homes at a loss to maintain their credit ratings. These people were losing everything they had in their homes. The appraisals can't meet the value. Commissioner Marrs asked if Ms. Beam felt this was due to the economy and not because of the smaller homes. Ms. Beam stated she knew the economy was having an affect on the market, but also felt the smaller homes would add to the problem. 17. Ms. Marty Butler, Rancho Ocotillo homeowner, stated the northern section of the City was developed for the upscale homes. She did not feel the City was in support of the citizens of this area. The out -of -town builders do not care about the existing homeowners, they just buy the land cheap and take advantage of the City. Property values had already decreased but will decrease even more if the smaller homes are allowed to be built. The City has affordable housing and does not need this. She stated her concern that they had no representation at the City. 18. Mr. Louis Glick, La Quinta Vistas homeowners, stated he had researched the area and settled in La Quinta and was very happy until now. He had heard that Century Homes was about to develop in his tract with a lesser quality home and he felt there was no place for the lesser value next to the higher quality homes. He further stated he had received a letter from Forecast Homes offering him a dinner and $40.00 for participating in a Focus Group survey discussion regarding issues most important to cboosing a home. Chairwoman Barrows asked if Mr. Glick had the letter and would he submit it to the Commission. Mr. Glick did so. 19. Mr. Bruce Maize, builder, stated his support of the project. He felt the question before the Commission was whether the Commission wanted affordable housing. He felt the quality could be maintained as the same contractors build the higher quality homes. He asked where the first time buyer would fit in. 20. Ms. Diane Schmidt, Building Industry Association Desert Council president, stated her support of the project in that it helped meet the market demand by meeting needs. She also stated that Forecast Homes had an excellent record and built quality-homes and they worked hard to mitigate negative perceived ideas. She further felt that size had nothing to do with pride in a neighborhood. 36 Planning commission Minutes August 29, 1993 21. Ms. Sally Young, a land broker in Palm Desert, stated her sympathy for the. homeowners, but the whole State was experiencing property devaluation. The economy dictates what is built and most of the unbuilt lots are now owned by the banks because the builders could not complete their tracts. The land is presently one half the original purchase price. There are no guarantees that prices will not go down. Developers and landowners have the right to, build what will sell in todays market. A variety of price range does not have to decrease the value of existing homes. 22. Mr. Tim Bartlett, real estate broker, stated his support" of the project. 23. Mr. Joe Dunson, Topaz homeowner, stated he was a lender and the trouble was not affordable housing, but putting them in the same neighborhood as larger homes. The economy was already hurting the homeowners, don't add to the trouble. Make affordable homes available but not next door. 24. Ms. Mary Black, Topaz homeowner, .she bought the largest unit available at $240,000 and there is a vacant lot next door. They moved to the desert to have a better lifestyle for their family and her husband commutes to La Mirada to work in order td live here. They experienced the market devaluation in Long Beach due to first time buyers and don't want the same here. 25. Mr. Strickland, applicant, rebutted by saying that first time buyers are not bad citizens. He went on to explain the letters that were sent out were to encourage people to attend their survey meetings (focus groups) which were used for market analysis. He further stated that they use the same contractors for both the expensive and low cost houses to maintain. the quality in their homes. All buyers have the option to raise the quality of their homes by purchasing added options. He felt the same quality houses would be compatible with the neighborhood even though there was less square footage. 26. Commissioner Ellson stated her empathy for the homeowners and gave a history of how north La Quinta developed and came into La Quints. She stated her objection to mixdd housing and felt a variety of people was good for any community. 27. Commissioner Abels stated he remembered the original master plan for the area. He felt the solution was a special ordinance similar to what was enacted for the Cove to control the type of construction that would be allowed. He stated his concern for the builders as well. 37 Planning Commission Minutes ; August 24, 1993 28. Commissioner Marrs stated he was sympathetic to the problem but did not agree with the thinking of the opponents as he believed things had been exaggerated. He believed varied sites can be compatible. He felt the homeowners were misguided as to devaluing property values. He felt the homeowners were blaming the devaluation of their homes on homes that hadn't even been constructed yet. 29. Commissioner Abels asked staff to look into the SR Zoning Ordinance and see if it could help in this instance. 30. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff what the original applicant and approval was for this tract. Staff stated the original application was a statement just to convey that the new developer proposed the existing units. Chairwoman Barrows addressed the audience and stated the Commission was looking to the homeowners for a solution. All of the Commissioners had been to the area and looked for themselves. There is a need for diversity in housing while representing the existing homeowners interest. 31. Commissioner Ellson questioned the variety of housing at PGA West and its success was due to their CC & R's that enable the environment to be controlled. Staff stated this was, a planned condominium community that allows for these type of controls. Property owners own the home only and the association pays for. the maintenance of the lots. Commissioner Ellson asked if this was possible for this area. Staff stated the Quinterra project had CC & R's and architectural review and at present they were in the control of the bank until the residents take over with some exceptions. Commissioner Ellson asked if these CC & R's could control maintenance and parking of cars, etc. Staff stated the CC & R's gave them the ability to bring civil litigation against offenders and force the property owner to comply. The City does not have any control. 32. Commissioner Ellson questioned the applicant as to whether they were building any larger units anywhere else. Mr. Strickland stated they had built a larger home in Perris and South San Bernardino County. Commissioner Ellson asked if they would be appropriate for the desert. Mr. Strickland pointed out that the range of sizes for these homes was from 1,180 to 1,860 square feet. Mr. Strickland stated he felt he was trying to make the transition as easy as possible. He would be willing to use the 1,800 square foot plan where he was planning on using the Plans S and 6. 33. Mr. Doug Phillips, Best, Best & Krieger, representing the Quinterra property owners, stated the units were incompatible and did not fit. He reiterated the Commission could deny the request as the City's Plot 1 and Design Review Code stated they had the right if the units weronat Planning Commission Minutes August 24; 1993 compatible. He went on to quote a court case where a larger house in San Francisco was out of place with smaller units and even though the City Code allowed it the City could deny it based on its incompatibility. The Court of Appeals stated if the Planning Commission finds it not in harmony it can deny the reques-F Mr. Phillips stated the project could relocate to another area of the City. 34. Mr. Jim Rice, Rancho Ocotillo, asked.the applicant what the size of the lots were. Mr. Strickland stated they were the original minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet and larger. 35. Ms. Marty Butler, Quinterra homeowner, asked the Commission to form a group of homeowners to meet with them and help plan the area for what could be built in this area. Commissioner Marrs reminded the people of the number of meetings that were held asking residents to help the City plan for the area in the General Plan process. Ms. Butler stated she had no objection to the zoning and what was planned for the area but don't put something in where a value exists and decrease that value. She stated her concern that she felt her rights were being taken away from her as she had no ability to chose, the decision was being forced upon her. 36. Commissioner Ellson stated her agreement with the idea of working with the residents to solve the problem. She felt there needed to be constructive discussion so everyone could live with the decision. 37. There being no further. discussion, Commissioner Abels moved to continue Tentative Tract 23913- Quinterra, Phase II to September 14, 1993, with the stipulation that each development tract in this area would send two representatives along with the developer, and meet with the Planning Commission at their regularly 'scheduled study session on September 13, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. to work toward a compatible solution. Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. It was suggested that the representatives and developer come to the study session with solutions. Chairwoman Barrows dismissed the Commission for a ten minute break. B. SpgcA Plan 4- 'R o La uin '; a request of. esert 1 uck Strother) for roval of preliminary land g plans for Street frontage. % * . 1. Pn al Planner Stan Sawa pres the information f report, a copy of which ' n file in the Planning wined in the Developme 39 - • • Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1993 1. Associate Planner Leslie contained iri the Staff re and Development De ATTACHMENT .3 'quand•Cherry presented the ' ormation a copy of which is on file ee Planning ment. 2. Commissioner s asked staff to clarify the th of the exit and the purpose of t shuttle system. Staff stated th were requiring the exit to be 15 -f d the shuttle system was t ransport the students to the schoo d keep the parking lot close a street. 3. mmissioner EIlson asked if re was any problem with the waste disposal company getting acc Staff stated Waste Management of t Desert had no problem. 4. Commissioner Ellso sked if the entire caretakers facili would be constructed in the st phase. Staff referred the matter a applicant. 5. /igted further questions of staff, Chairw an Barrows opened aring. Mrt Bernardo Gouthier, i swer to Commissioner ion, stiited the first phase uld consist of only the ea. Commissioner Ellson t pointed out that the restroomhe caretaker were not in ed in that portion. Mr. Gouthier stated and included t omplete building in the first phase, Mr. Gouthier asked for cl cation on Condition X32. Staff sta r. Gouthier's street impro , en existed and he would have n ff- street requirements except r landscaping. Following disc on, it was recommended th ondition #32 be deleted. 7. There bein o further public comment, Chai an Barrows closed the public ng. Commissioners Epson /A moved and seconded a moti to adopt Minute Motion 93-042 r mmending approval of Public. U Permit 93 -016, subject to th eletion of Condition #32, the increasing of Phase I to inclu he entire classroom, storage, and caretakers facility, and 'Con ' n #35.A.1 being changed to 15 -feet. Unanimously approved. IV. PUBLIC CONTIIMENT: None A. AContinued Tentative Tract 23913 uinterra -Phase 11; a request of Forecast Homes for approval of architectural plans for single family residences. s 40 • Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1993 PC9 -14 • 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows asked that only those who had something new to add to the previous comments address the Commission at this time. 3. Mr. Ed Kibbey, representing Building Industry Association stated that the building industry depends upon builders being able to process their .projects through the City process according to their established regulations. This- was also true for the property owners as well. He felt the City should base their decision on what the Code called for. 4. Mr. Russell Robertson, representing Quinterra, submitted additional petitions to the Commission and stated he felt that.any units approved for development should be compatible with the existing homes. He submitted I picture comparison of the existing homes and those built by Forecast Homes in Moreno.Valley. 5. Mr. Michael Damson; Cactus Flower, stated his opposition to the project based on incompatibility. 6. Mr. Dwight Robb, La Quinta Vistas, stated his objection and fear that what was happening to Quinterra would happen in his project. He felt there must be an alternative to the smaller units being mixed with the larger. 7. Mr. David Alpert, Acacia, stated his opposition to the project. He has invested his life savings in his home and he had purchased a certain life style by buying in the Acacia development. He further stated he was losing equity due to the economy, why should the developer profit from his misfortune. 8. Mr. Doug Phillips, attorney -for Quinterra (Best, Best & Krieger), reviewed the letter submitted by the property owner (Pri Merit Bank) on behalf of Forecast Homes. He stated that even though the banks can't afford to build a larger unit, the property owners can't afford to lose any more equity in their homes. He went on to reiterate that the City Zoning regulations stated that if a project was not in harmony or compatible with the existing homes, then the Planning Commission was required to deny the project. 41 • • Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1993 9. Mr. Lance Eldred, Topaz, stated his desire to see the City adopt a protective ordinance on how to deal with this issue which will be repeated in every unfinished tract. He did not feel there was a solution to the problem and Forecast Homes should conform to the Zoning Ordinance. The units did not fit. — 10. Mr. Bruce Strickland, applicant, gave the Commission some comparison figures relative to the surrounding tract house sizes. He stated he was not changing the density of the area, and the units were compatible. He went on to discuss the issues raised regarding the photograph display submitted by Mr. Robertson. He further stated that no where in the Zoning Ordinance does it state that a unit is incompatible due to size. He stated that the City doesn't guarantee an investment to the property owners. There were fundamental rights on both sides of this issue and the Commission needed to address those issues. 11. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows asked the Commission for their comments. Commissioner Abels stated the City was in the process of refining its Zoning Ordinance and he felt it necessary to deny the project at this time. He felt the issue needed to be resolved with new City regulations. He stated. the City was very much for growth, he would like to see the tracts as they were originally planned. 12. Commissioner Ellson stated her agreement with keeping the tracts as they are. She empathized with the homeowners as they are the City. She went on to share what she felt was an average house size for the area. Following discussion with the Commissioners it was felt that no more than a 30% differential in house sizes should be allowed within an existing tract. 13. Commissioner Marrs expressed his concern that a solution could not be reached. He felt a builder should be able to build on his property. He felt there was no reason why a decision on a minimum house size could not be reached to bring the project in conformance with the existing homes. Commissioners Ellson and Abels stated their agreement. 14. Chairwoman Barrows stated her agreement with the 30% differential on the size of the homes to be built. She stated her empathy for both sides and felt there needed to be a reasonable compromise on both sides. PC9 -14 7 42 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1993 15. Commissioner Ellson stated the Zoning Ordinance did not address the size of a home to be built within an existing tract. She felt the architectural review within the existing tracts needed to address the existing homes (i.e., CC & R's document). 16. Following an agreement between the - Commissioners that the project should be approved, Commissioners discussed with . staff the Conditions of Approval. Conditions were amended as follows: a. Condition #13: block wall would be .required for all fencing of perimeter and interior walls. b. Condition 1115: Metal, roll -up doors would be required for all garages. C. Condition X7: Plans for the 1,868 square foot unit or larger would be required next to or adjacent to any existing units. d. Condition 14: 18" overhangs would be required. e.. Condition 9: Gray roof tile would be deleted from the color board. f. Condition 1116: The minimum house size would be 1,650 -square feet: g. Condition 17: - All additional house plans 'not already approved by the Planning Commission would be resubmitted for Planning Commission approval. h. Condition h12: the use of River Rock and the new "red" brick would not be allowed. 17. Following the discussion regarding the conditions, Commissioners Abels/Marrs moved to adopt Minute Motion 93 -043 approving Tentative Tract 23913, Phase II subject to the amended conditions as stated above. Unanimously approved. 18. Planning Director Jerry Herman discussed with the Commission their findings to base their approval on. They are as follows: IPC9 -14 a G 43 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1993 a: The Conditions of Approval for Tract 23913 grant the.authority to the Planning .Commission for review and approval of the architectural residential units proposed for construction within the development. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the architectural residential style and size of the homes to be constructed within the tract on December 11, 1990. C. The development contains 116 lots of which 18 homes have been constructed per the approved architectural residential style. e. The proposed smaller residential units are not in harmony, conformance, or compatible in size or architectural style with the existing developed units or the units approved by the Planning Commission. f. The Planning Commission further finds that the minimum house size shall be 1,650 square feet which is in harmony, conformance, and is compatible with the existing development. 19. Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved to adopt Minute Motion 93 -044 approving the findings as stated above. Unanimously approved. 20. The Commissioners asked staff to relay to the Council their request to review the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to minimum house sizes to include a stipulation that would protect homeowners within an existing tract. Chairwoman Barrows excused the Commission for a ten minute break. The Commission broke at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened at 9:35 P.M. B. Street Name Chan 93-001; a reque La Quinta Golf Pro pe for approval of a Resolup ntent to seta is hearing to consider eet name change from S abacker Road to arry Lane. Principal PI er Stan Sawa presen a information contain the ` Staff re , a copy of which is He in the Planning and elopment Dep. went. PC9 -14 / 9 44 ATTACHMENT 4 PIUMFJRff BM1K �. toff gprar far yt1� L Vt�� Maw t9/9!•tlffr 7q2 •fflf . September 13, 1993 City of IA Quints Planning Commission La Quints City Hall Counsel Chambers 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quints, California BIL ISEP1tig93iD Gt,I : u+ nto %:.'I I PL, Re: Forecast Homes Application for Continued Development of the 94 Remaining Lots in Quintem Subdivision IN3 letter is being written in response to the difficulty that Forecast Homes is having receiving approval from the City of La Quinta to continue with the development of the remaining lots located in the Quintem Subdivision, La Quinta, California. Forecast Homes is presently in escrow with PriMerit Bank to purchase those lots. PriMerit Bank's acquisition of those lots carne as a result of a builders default on a loan which originated in. April of 1990. PhMerit Bank had loaned monies to be used for the acquisition. development and construction of a 116 lot subdivision. After the development of the lots and construction of the sales models, Wes of 15 production houses began in August of 1991. From that date until March of 1993, our borrower was only successful in selling 6 of the production homes. In March of 1993, when PriMerit Bank took possession of the property. through a Trustee's Sale, we obtained numerous market studies and interviewed area developers in an attempt to determine a selling price for the remaining homes. I: was apparent through our various market studies that due to market deterioration the original asking prier of the homes were much too high to allow for the timely liquidation of. the remaining houses and models. Therefore it was decided, based on the recommendation from various real estate companies throughout the area, that the sales prices on the homes should be lowered to a point that an acceptable sales absorption or rate could be realized. From the project's inception in April of 1490 until March of 1993, the homes in the subdivision were offered at a price. which ranged from $87 to $91 per square foot. Upon PriMerit's acquisition of the property in March of 1993, the prices were lowered to between $69 and $72 per square foot in order to generate sales. This price adjustment was due entirely to the economic conditions facing the entire California area. The market studies and interviews with most of the area builders indicated that the overall sales prices for product selling in the area had fallen up to 25 -30%. 45 ass~.. SEP -13 -93 WED 7 :29 Lh JINTA aDLG i SAFETY 619L :497 P. *I ATTACHMENT 5 n- 78 -496 CALVE TAMPICO M- LA OUINTA.. CALIFORNIA 92253 (519) M-7000 FAX (619) M -7101 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Appellant's Name FD Air CORpo =aj Date Nailing Address 10670 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUC'1CNGA 91730 Phone: ( 909) 987 -7788 RE: Case No. 101 Yy gs-45ob Type of Appeal: Conditional Use Permit variance Change of Zone, Public Use Permit Surface Mining e Reclamation Permit ^Outdoor Advertising Consistency with General Alan Environmental Assessment Setback Adjustments Temporary Use Permit �� —plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition which is being protested. - R� _ 199,E r Use additional sheets If necessary. , E�nature Q 'r. 0 CITY OF LA QUINTA — 78 -495 Calle Tampico La' Quinta, California 92253 SEP 1 1 IM uTV of v 0U1NTA KMNING DEPARTMENT Please state basis for. appeal and include any, supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition which is being protested. The Planning Commission on September 14, 1993 approved our proposal, yet conditioned us to construct homes with a minimum square footage of 1650 s /f. This eliminated our Plans 2, 3, 4 & 5 and leaves us only Plan 6 and 7 (1660 s/f & 1868 s/f respectively) to build, which makes our ability to market this product unrealistic. The minimum house size per the City's General Plan is 750 s/f with our smallest home being 1106 s /f. Our proposal complies with all of the City's rules, laws and ordinances. This proposal was reviewed and found to be compatible by the Design Review Board and approved with.minor comments. We object to Conditions 1 7, 12, 13 & 16 as imposed by the Planning Commission September 14, 1993. Again, our homes were approved by the Design Review Board and we have satisfied the City's procedures, laws. and ordinances and request your consideration in our appeal. FO A RATION ruce Strickland, Vice President 10670 Eric Center Drive Ruicbo Cucatnong. CA 91730 (714) 987 -7788 fu 980.7303 47 �. ATTACHMENT 6 CE ;�f�,j apt' 711495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 9= - (619) 777.7000 FAX (619) 777.7101 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Owterra & Ra xft Ocotillo Appellant's Name Hama ers (-qm attad -ed list) Date 9/27/'93 Mailing Address c/o Dag1w S. HAllips of Best, Best & Krieger 39M Rb IiWe Drive, Suite 312 Rxxto Mrae, CA 92270 Phone: 619 ) 568-1611 RE: Case No. Plot Plm 93-505 Type of Appeal: Conditional Use Permit Variance Change of Zone Public Use Permit Surface Mining i Reclamation Permit Outdoor Advertising - Consistency with General Plan Environmental Assessment Setback Adjustments Temporary Use Permit roc Plot Plan. Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number'of'the specific condition which is being protested. ***SEE ATTACHED *** S E P 1 7 1993 .. , W. Use additional sheets if necessary. Sign ure 48 7 � LIST 0! QUINTERRA AND RANCHO OCOTILLO HOMEOWNERS .James C. Hanson Rail Ludlam Rim Lee and Karen Job — Arthur John Knauer and Joan M. Berndt Knauer Bruce and Cindy Mercy Larry Miller Marilyn Williams Russell and Sara- jeannine Robertson Robert L. and Linda C. Tette E.H. Wiens N. James Allen Daniel and Prances Bresnahan Joseph A. and Barbara J. Irwin Roger T. and Carol M. Isabel -1 Jeff and Terri Laddusaw Ed and Diane McMahon Jack M. and Anne Mayes Edward 0. and Lucille E. Mycek Duane Nish ikubo Archie Sharp Mel and Susie Levine Bob and Rachel Woods Virginia Jacobsen James S. and Barbara Rice Jack Pederson Arnold Charles Richard W. and Tamara D. Bradford James T. and Imogene Wells -Craig and Susan.Glass Alvin M. Dettloff Monte Maser George and Cindy Conroy Robert and Kathy Bradley Cecelia D. McCombs Sybil Salisbury Richard 0. and Karen D. Erickson B.A. Beam Arnold K. and Chitb Dimmitt Susan Caulfield DEPARTMENT REPORTS a. City Manager b. City Attorney.- None C. Administrative Services Director - None d. Building and Safety Director - None e. Finance Director - None f. Planning and Development Director - None g. Public Works Director - None h. Parks & Recreation Director - None i. Sheriffs Station Commander - None MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECESS UNTIL. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT PRESENTATIONS 10 ccul*� Off- ) G71 f Presentation of La Quinta Bemdfzd Award - Landscaped for Ecology to Michael and Karen Berry, 52-451 Avenida Obregon. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision of September 14, 1993 to Limit the House Size Within the Quinterra Tract (Phase 2) to 1,650 Sq. Ft. or Larger and Their Appeal of Other Architectural Modifications. The Project Site is Located North of Miles Avenue and East of Adams Street. Appellants: Bruce Strickland, V.P. Forecast Corporation and Best, Best & Krieger. a) Minute Order Action. Page 4 •1` ti�� t V 2 V , W . . �OFTNt CONFIDENTIAL CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEM T0: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert L. Hunt, City Manager DATE: October 19, 1993 SUBJECT: City Attorney Correspondence Regarding Appeal of Quinterra Tract Request for Approval of Architectural Elevations FRITZ R. STRADLING NIO[ A. TOCCA C. CAA10 OARLAON WILLIAM R. RAUTN In R. C. SCHAAF RICHARD C GOODMAN JOHN J. MURPHY TMOMAI P. CLARK, JR. AKN A. rR YDMAN DAVID R. M•SWEN PAUL L• GALE RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD AOBEAT J. [ANE /RYCE C. ATUAAT I. KURT YIAGEIt ACDRRT J. WHALEN ROBERT E. RICH RANDALL J. AMIRMAN BRUCE W. POUCMTER MARK .0. MNENG" KAREN A. ELLIA SRUCE 0. MAY DONALD J. HAMMAN JOHN J. BIYIOART, JR. MIAMA f► A. EAOLOCHI NEILA R. BERNATION CELISTI ITAIIL BRADY CHRISTOPHER J. KIL►ATAICK JOEL H. GUTH JULIE MOCOY AKINB DAWN C. "ONEYWILL LAWRENCE 1. COHN HARLEY L. IJELLANO J STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH A PROFEOOIONAL CORPORATION STEPHEN T. FIREMAN RODENT A. WILSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ale 101,A11.! 1%CCA 400 NEWPORT CtNTOR DRIVE, SUITE 1400 JULIR M. PORTER MARK T. PALIN POCT OFFICE BOX 7600 MICHAEL E. FLYNN ROBERT C. ►UNITRN NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 42000.4441 OAR, A. /EMf11110N CARD" EW TELEPHONE 17141 726.4000 L. L DENISE HAREAUGH MERINO BARBARA, 2910 LIIBOLD JON E. 401TS 1RMN D IRBLANO MICHAEL J. PENDERGAST DAVID M. MANN CHRISTOPHER M. MORDPOULOE E02AIETH A. NEWELL DARRYL B. OIBAON JOHN 0. M.CLENDON JEE NI PARK TODD A. THANAR RICHARD T. NCID14AM ROBERT C. WALLACE JOHN P. CANNON RENT M. CLAYTON JAY RAPPAPORT JOHN E. WOODNIAO IV DOUGLAS P. FEICK WILLIAM J. Mf1Rl FY MARK L. IKAIIT NANCY J. DIWNIAAT SANDRA M. WAKAMIYA City Council City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quint&, California 92253 TELEPHONE 17141 440.7056 FAX NUMBER 17141726 -4100 October 14, 1943 ATTORNEY - CLIENT PRIVILEGED JOHN E. BRACKENRIDGE RENA C. STONE OI 0011MflI WAITIR'B DIRECT DIAL. 714) 725 -4142 Re: Appeal of Quinterra Tract Requw jor Approval of Architectural Eletwtions Dear Council Members: Due to the fact that we have been advised by the attorney representing the owner of the subject property Primerit Bank as well as the attorney representing the property owners living in the vicinity of the project that your decision concerning the applicant's request for approval of revised architectural elevations which has been appealed from the Planning Commission decision is likely to result in litigation, we have felt it incumbent to provide you with our initial analysis of the legal issues which are raised concerning the appeal and the scope of the City's authority for this type of decision. 1. FACTS The condition which creates the obligation upon the developer to obtain approval by the Planning Commission of any revision to architectural elevations for the project arises under Condition 28 of the Tentative Tract Map which was originally approved for this project in Resolution No. 88 -127, Case No. TT23913. That provision provides as follows: "The applicant shall revise the architectural elevations for all units to provide complete (all building sides) architectural treatments. The revised elevations are subject to Planning Commission review and approval as a business item. The architectural standards shall be included as part. or dic CC&As." This Tentative Tract Map was recorded as final in 1990. At that time, the original applicant Walden Financial had anticipated building single family homes ranging in size from 1670 square feet to 2500 square feet. In 1990, Windsor Construction Company purchased the project and obtained approval from the Panning Commission under the same condition of the iU -.4 -7" •1 City Counei! October 14, 1993 Page 2 s) tract map for house plans that varied in size from 2072 to 2593 square feet. That approval by the Planning Commission was granted on December 11, 1990, Windsor Construction Company ultimately defaulted on its loan and Primerit Bank foreclosed on the project and is the current owner of the property. This occurred after homes in Phase I were developed. Primerit Bank is in the process of selling the remaining lots to Forecast Developers who havc come in with an application to revise the plans for the remainder of the project and have submitted for approval under the condition listed above to the City's Planning Commission. The proposed new plans have five home cizes which range from 1106 square feet to 1659 square feet. The Planning Department determined to process the request as a plot plan review although there was no specific authority in the condition to do so. Pursuant to the processing as a plot plan, the issue was submitted first to the Design Review Board which approved it but requested that notice be given to property owners within a certain distance of the tract prior to the Planning Commission decision upon the project. As documented in the Planning Commission staff report, "The architectural style proposed is consistent with the mediterranean theme used in Phase 1, however, its unit size is smaller." Also as provided in the Planning Commission's report under "Staff comments ": "The R -I zoning code does not define the size the home which can be built similar to the S -R zone areas which prescribe a minimum 1200 square feet homes. However, there is a section in the general guidelines which requires all homes in the City to be greater than 750 square feet. Staff has also researched both the tract conditions and the CC&R provisions to make sure that the proposed homes can be built as proposed. The applicant's propoQai meets these minimum standards.' The Planning Commission made its final decision on the proposed request on September 14, 1993 and approved the request subject to a 1650 square foot house minimum size, a perimeter block wall and mason block wall, interior fencing, 1868 square feet homes adjacent io the existing units, roll -up metal garage doors, and front yard landscaping requirements. This determination has been appealed both by the property owner Primerit Bank as well as property owners living within the first phase of the tract and in close proximity thereto. The appeal is set for hearing on October 19 and at the request of the Counci I has been noticed as a public hearing to provide the widest possible input from the public concerning this decision. H. APPEAL PROCEDURE The La Quinta Municipal Code provides a general appeal procedure for all decisions made by administrative, committee or commission level decisions to the City Council. 'There is also a specific appeal procedure for a plot plan review. The decision at issue in this case has Ivan handled in a way to meet the requirements of an appeal under either our general appeal procedures as well as the plot plan procedures. The City Council will act as the final deciding body on this issue and shall sit as if the issue initially came to it. In other words, the Council is _ . -Z 10 1.10 -"Coo n lu -A -y: City Council October 14, 1993 Page 3 free to make any decision that the Planning.Commission would have been able to make at the time it made its decision and need not send the iRstie back for any lower level administrative or commission deliberations. Thus, from a procedural perspective the Council may grant, deny, or grant conditionally the original request by the applicant after hearing all interested parties. Parties which have a right to speak include the applicant and any party which has appealed. Council may open up and allow comments from the public as is its customary practice as well. III. ANALYSIS OF CITY'S AUTHORITY PLRSUANT TO CONDITION NO, 28 OF THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP A. General Legal Principles 1. Cry's General Zoning Power. In general, city councils have broad police power which provides their ability to control land use and development within a chy. The implementation of the land use and development aspect of the police power rests in their adoption of a general plan in conjunction with the adoption of a cnmprehensive zoning regulation. See, Euclid v. Amber Realty Company, 272 US 365, 47 Supreme Court 114 (1926), O'Loane Y. O'Rourke, 231 Cal.App.2d 774, 42 Cal.Rptr. 283 (1965). It is easiest to think of the City's general plan as being the City's constitution governing development and the zoning ordinance to be the statutory or legislative regulation which must be consistent with the general plan. Both the adoption of the zoning ordinance and the adoption of the general plan are legislative acts in which the cities have broad discretion to adopt different standards that they perceive as being essential to the orderly development of their communities. Judicial review of amendments to zoning ordinances and general plans is a very limited rational basis test. No Oil Inc. Y. City of Los Angeles, 196 Cal.App.3d 223, 242 Cal. Rptr. 37 (1987). 2. Subdivision Map Apor, oval. Once the general requirements for development have been set out in both the general plan and the consistent zoning ordinance, individual property owners and developers must seek subdivision approval governed by the Subdivision Map Act requirements for the development of a particular parcel of property. When a developer comes in for approval of a subdivision map, the approval may be conditioned by reasonable conditions reflecting the burden imposed on the City by the proposed development. California Building Industry Association v. Governing Board of Newhall School District of Los Angeles County, 206 Cal.App.3d 212, 253 Cal.Rprt. 497 (1988). The key words here are "reasonable conditions." When an individual developer comes in for approval of a project where its prupused project is consistent with the approved zoning and development standards that the city has adopted for the zone in which the project is located. there is essentially a presumption that the project is meeting the reasonable conditions at least with respect to zoning controls. Thus, an attempt by a city council to require special conditions on a particular subdivision map that is not based. on the underlying zoning regulations and /or general plan policies could be challenged by the developer as an unreasonable and arbitrary condition because it is not being applied across the board to all other owners of similarly zoned property. The legally defensible way for a city to impose 1U -14 -y, City Council October 14, 1993 Page 4 W different conditions is through an amendment to the zoning ordinance so that any new conditions are required of all developers who wish to develop in a given zoning area. As stated in the Subdivision Map Act Manual by Daniel .l. Curtin (1992) at pages 41-42: ... a city is not limited to the traditional dedication requirements such as streets and parks, but, with property general plan and regulatory ordivanws, such dedication principles could be applied to other matters. The key portion of both definitions is the tie -in with the general plan: for example, 'design" also includes such other specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision as may be necessary to ensure consistency with or implementation of the general plan. In Soderling v. CUy of Santa Monica, 142 Cal. App. 3d, 501 (1983), the court ... upheld the validity of conditions attached, through the subdivision process, to a condominium conversion requiring building repairs and installation of smoke detectors in each unit. The court pointed out that under these definitions and in order to achieve one of the objectives of the city's general plan "to promote safe housing for all," these conditions in themselves were valid, and the power to impose them need .not be exercised by the specific enactment of an ordinance or the promulgation of a regulation. Thus, the City has broad discretion at the time of tentative tract map approval to impose a variety of conditions implementing the zoning ordinance and policies stated in the general plan. However, once a residential tentative tract map has been approved, Government Code Section 6$961 prevents new or additional conditions being placed upon the project. Government Code Section 65961 provides in relevant part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon approval or conditional approval of a tentative map for a subdivision of single- or multiple - family residential units . . , during the five year period following recordation of the final map or parcel map for the subdivision, a city, county, or city and county shall not require as a condition to the issuance of any building permit .. , conformance with or the performance of any conditions that the city or county could have lawfully imposed as a condition to the previously approved tentative or parcel map. Nor shall a city ... withhold or refuse to issue a building permit or equivalent permit for failure to conform with or perform any conditions that the city ... could have lawfully imposed as a condition to the previously approved tentative or parcel map. B. Application of General Prinetinles to Issue Before the Council 1: Condition Language and Meaning. City Council October 14, 1993 Page 5 The difficulty with the situation that we are presented with here is whether it can be argued that the language of review and approval for "architectural elevations" and "architectural treatments" in the condition was intended to provide discretionary review by the City after approval of the tentative tract map and the recording of the final map to be able to control the specific size of the proposed unit. Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary defines architectural as: "1. of, relating to or conforming to the rules of architecture 2: having or conceived of having a single unified overall design, form ur structure.' This defmitlon does not provide a great deal of help because it is unclear whether size considerations are part of the overall design. While certainly one could in a general way argue that the overall size of the unit does relate to the architectural took and feel of the unit, thus one could reasonably make an argument that some control should be present as to size it appears that a court reviewing a similar situation in Moreno Valley has determined that the exercise of size control at this late date in a project development where the proposed plans are consistent with the underlying specific plan or, as in our case the zoning and getiml plan requirements is not something that is within the discretion of the City Council. (See the attached copy of the Judge's order in the Moreno Valley case). There is absolutely no argument that the Council enuld have had those types of controls in their zoning ordinance and can do those kinds of controls in their zoning ordinance for future development, but the issue becomes whether state law provisions have provided protection to developers through the subdivision map act requirement and conditions that prevent a change in conditions from being applied at this point in the development of their project. One can certainly make the argument that the developer agreed to the condition that does exist that allows the Planning Commission and thereby the City to approve the dmign of the units and that inherent in a design approval some element of size must be present, and if the developer was uncomfortable with that condition that it should have been challenged at the time that it was placed on the project, that it was not challenged and therefore the fact that it can be conditioned later on has been waived. Support for this argument exists in the fact that the earlier developer sought approval for plans that increased the size of the units. However, there is no specific ume law that is analogous to the situation at hand that can be pointed to for that proposition. In the Moreno Valley case, Forecast Corporation was the owner of property located in the City of Moreno Valley which was subject to the Development Agreement and the Moreno Valley Ranch Specific Plan. Forecast wished to build houses of 1106 square feet. The Specific Plan provided that the City may conduct a plot plan review before issuance of building permits but that the review shall have no fees, no public notice and no hearing. The City Council ultimately denied the plot plan application on noncompatibility grounds. The original developer of the Moreno Valley property built 23 residences ranging in size from 2107 to 2422 square feet, before it went bankrupt. Forecast bought the remaining lots in August of 1991. As may he seen from the above review of facts in the Moreno Valley case, the facts are similar with the exception that in La Quinta there was no development agreement and there was no requirement that the architectural elevations be reviewed as a plot plan procedure. V4 to, -1Ftp I I11111P. 1;21 n City Council October 14, 1993 Page 6 The fact that there is no development agreement in the Quinterra project is more favorable to the City because it does not lock the zoning and general plan provisions in place from that date. However, since there have been no changes in the zoning ordinance or general plan with respect to the size of units this difference does not appear to be material. The second primary difference is that in Moreno Valley there was a specific requirement that the review be conducted according to the plot plan procedure whereas the La Quinta condition did not contain such a requirement. This fact is not favorable in arguing for discretionary review as the court held that even where plot plan review was required there was no discretion to require a difference unit size than one which met the underlying zoning requirements. The court looked instead to the nature of the review which is similar as La Quint's condition also did not require a separate fee, notice or public hearing and thus the argument supporting a finding of ministerial rather than discretionary review is equally present in both cases. Chapter 9.32 R -1 Zone one family dwellings in the La Quints Municipal Code contains the development standards in Section 9.32.020. Those standards are as follows: 9.32.020 Development standards. The following standards of development shall apply in the R -1 zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 9.148.010 of this title: A. Building height shall not exceed two and one half stories, with a maximum height of thirty -five feet. B. Lot area shall be not less than seven thousand two hundred square feet. The minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site. C. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a building site shall be sixty feet with a minimum average depth of one hundred feet. That portion of a lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a minimum width of twenty feet. D. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be sixty feet, except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul-de -sacs may have a minimum frontage of thirty -five feet. E. Minimum yard requirements are as follows: 1. The front yard shall be not less than twenty feet, measured from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on any specific plan of highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure. 2. Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than ten percent of the width of the lot, but not less than three feet in width in any event, and need not exceed a width of five feet. Side yards on corner and reversed corner lots shall be not less than ten feet from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on andy Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the: main building sides, except that where the lot is less than fifty feet wide the yard need not exceed twenty percent of the width of the lot. 3. The rear yard shall not be less than ten feet. 0 "V, Mf12 1119 ,1+e^s09 n City Council October 14, 1993 Page 7 F. Automobile storage apace shall be provided as required by Chapter 9.160 of this title. (Ord. Sal 1 (part), 1992: county Ordinance 348 § 6.2) The section cited by Mr, Phillips in his letter representing the property owners quoting the Municipal Code at Section 9.183.020 and 9.183.040 are in the Section of the Code dealing with plot plan reviews. Since this request has been processed as a plot plan but is not actually required to be processed as a plot plan the general statements of preservation and enhancement of harmonious development, while one could argue should apply generally throughout the code, actually appear only in those sections related to plot plan review and arguably are not applicable to the review of the request for approval for elevations that was specifically required as part of the tentative tract map. Thus, the listed zoning development standards for the R -I zone as seen above does not contain any reference whatsoever to the size of the units. If one turns to the recently adopted general plan, there is a policy in the land use element of the General Plan, Policy 2- 1.3.3, which states 'the City should evaluate and establish appropriate standards concerning minimum floor areas for various types of residential uses in order to assure adequate housing particularly for higher density land use categories." This policy provides authority for the City to go ahead and adopt floor area ratios and presumably overall square footage ratios for different residential land use categories. However, the additional step of going ahead and adopting those needs to become part of the Zoning development standards as listed above and the City not only has not done it, but certainly had not done it prior to the time of the imposition of this condition on the tentative tract map. One could argue that that general policy provides some discretion in the City to look at those things where it is called upon to perform design review; however, in light of the recent Moreno Valley court decision where the court fixmd the lack of specific size controls in place at the time that the conditions were imposed to be significant in the effect that they could not be later on implied on the developer without violating Government Code Section 65961 places us in a similar situation. Further, there are other policies of the La Quinta General Plan which argue against requiring large size homes if the effect of that is to make the housing not available for affordable uses. Specifically, Policy 2 -1.3.4 states "die development of appropriate incentives to achieve a mix of housing and the development of affordable housing is desirable, especially to assure that not all new projects becrime gated and walled communities.' This policy language argues against having a consistent type of housing but rather refers to a 'mix of housing' as a desirable goal. Mr. Phillips points to the case Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Commission, 209 Cal. App. 3d 732, 257 Cal. Rptr. 742 (1989) for the proposition that the City has broad discretionary authority to deny building permits for failure of the proposed project to be in character with the surrounding homes. It is true that Gui uum upheld the refusal to grant a permit for a house that would have been 'more massive and of larger scale than adjoining dwellings.' However, in that case there was a specific discretionary review process adopted prior to the determination and the project did not have an approved subdivision map. o.•o. 9/.0 ! I t 09i W) Ito e A • • City Council October 14, M Page 8 There is a separate concern that the City's Housing Element of their General Plan has not received approval by HCD. This is significant in that either side involved in this litigation (the bank or the. property owners) could attempt to obtain an injunction preventing the City from issuing any building permits in the City until its Housing Element comes into compliance. We have a proposal to go out on an M to obtain an update of our Housing Element and that is in progress but one must keep in mind that due to the fact that we do not have an approved Housing Element that the City is vulnerable to this type of challenge. In addition, in the Moreno Valley case the HIA Association filed an amicus brief alleging that the refusal by the City to allow smaller sized units to be built violated both the City's General Plan and Housing Element policies as well as the State overall policies towards achieving more affordable housing. We are particularly vulnerable to this type of argument where our Housing Element has not been approved by HCD. TV. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the determination of the scope of the City's discretion is dependant upon the understanding of the parties to the intent of Condition 28. Past practice of the City, the existing zoning and general plan requirements do not appear to support the theory that a broad discretion including size was intended but that rather design issues such as materials, style and form were what the parties understood was to be reviewed. In absence of the Moreno Valley ease some discretion on size would have made sense, however, in the face of that court's decision it is difficult to argue that La Quinta's case is sufficiently different to support a different result. Therefore, we believe that a court would find that the Council's authority in this review is limited to architectural review features and not size so long as the proposed size is consistent with the Zoning regulations. There is an argument that a combination of adopting a moratorium combined with the adoption of the now zoning regulation would require the development coins intu uu mplianc x with the new zoning regulation prior to the issuance of building permits. However, even this scenario is not completely free from doubt due to the interpretation of Government Code Section 65961., but La Quinta is in a much better position to try this method than Moreno Valley due to the fact that there is no development agreement. ^CIO I I10' lbmcc* A • • SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COi1NTY OF RIVERSIDE FORECAST DEV. CO. V MORENO VALLEY 4/28/93 3 215625 Loewen Salter none NOTICE OF RULING The dispute between the parties centers around tract 22380 -1 located within Defendant City of Moreno Valley, hereinafter "City ". Said tract was approved for the development of 130 single family houses, 23 of which had already been built before Plaintiff Forecast Development Company, hereinafter "Forecast"., purchased the property. Forecast proposed to complete the development and build out the remaining 107 lots. However, the houses that Forecast wanted to build were, on the average, 41% smaller than the original houses built by the prior owners. The City refused to provide plot plan approval on the grounds that the houses were too small and not compatible with the houses built by plaintiff's predecessors. The situation in Moreno Valley actually began in 1987 when Warmington Homes entered into several agreements with the City with respect to a development known as Moreno Valley Ranch. They agreements that were negotiated and worked out included a Specific Planning ordinance, which the City passed as Ordinance No. 119. Also negotiated were a Development Agreement which locked in the terms of the Specific Plan Ordinance, and a Design Manual for development within Moreno Valley Ranch. The subject tract is part of the Ranch development. A tentative map was recorded in 198e, and a final map was recorded in 1989. Warminqton eventually sold the tract to Inland Pacific Communities (IPC) which secured building permits for three house models. IPC built on 23 of the 130 lots on the tract. Unfortunately, IPC then went bankrupt. Title to the subject tract was conveyed to various owners before being conveyed to Forecast which now has title to the remaining 107 lots on the tract. - - 7 / R/A CAL. /Z ATTY(s). �� MINUTES OF SUPERIOR COURT Judge IsgENIG ( se) .,i_, Clerk Page 1 of 4 • • Forecast proposes to downsize the. houses that it will build on the remaining lots. Forecast's initial proposals were rejected by the City for a number of reasons including the downsizing of the houses. However, Forecast has resolved and settled all the other problems with the City such as elevations of the houses and alleged incompatibility with the Design Manual. The only controversy remaining is Forecast's proposal to build houses smaller than the original houses. On February 11, 1492, the City Council rejected both the original proposal made by Forecast and a compromise proposal submitted by the City Planning_ Commission. Since that rejection, the City has formally adopted Ordinance 357, which specifically establishes guidelines and procedures for developers who propose to downsize single family residences being offered in their respective. subdivisions. Forecast seeks a writ of Mandate requiring the City to approve its proposal to build the smaller houses on the remaining lots. Forecast makes a number of arguments including: 1. Under the Specific Plan ordinance locked in by the Development Agreement, plot plan review is a purely ministerial act. 2. That even if plot plan review were not just a ministerial act, the general zoning ordinance, Ordinance 348 (618.30) does not afford the City the discretion to consider the desirability of housing size as contended by the City. 3. Even if ordinance 348 were interpreted to permit the exercise of broad discretion as the city contends, such interpretation would be-void pursuant to Government code §65961. Section 65961 prohibits the City from refusing to issue a building permit for failure to conform or perform any condition which could have been lawfully imposed as a condition to the previously approved tract map. 4. The City is prohibited from employing new standards and procedures not in existence when the Development Agreement was executed that would materially change the rights of developers for land use approval. 5. Under the Development Agreement, the City is prohibited from imposing new minimum house sizes because said Agreement locks in the provision of the Specific Plan ordinance, which provides for building size, density of use, etc. 6. The City failed to comply with its own procedures in purporting to reject Forecast's plans. Page 2 of 4 iu -i * -�. It should be noted that in addition to the brief submitted by Forecast, the Building Industry Defense Foundation submitted an am' us brief arguing that the City's conduct undermines California's Development Agreement Law, and violates the State's affordable housing policies. The Petition for Writ of Mandate and briefs submitted in support thereof are opposed by the City which argues (a) that it appropriately considered the compatibility of Forecast's proposal with the surrounding houses and properly exercised its discretion in finding the size of the houses proposed by Forecast to be incompatible with the surrounding houses; (b) that it appropriately wade this determination under Section 18.30 of Ordinance 348, pointing out that such plot plan reviews under said Ordinance are specifically required under the specific Plan Zoning ordinance negotiated between the City and Warmington Homes; (c) that house size is a valid zoning decision, as opposed to a design decision; and can properly bs regulated by the City during the plot plan review. The Court finds that the City of Moreno Valley does not have the discretion to consider the desirability of the size of single family houses during plot plan review under Section 18.30 of Ordinance 348. Petitioner correctly points out that such discretionary reviews would require notice and hearings. Such reviews are contrary to the Development Agreement and the Specific Plan Ordinance. While the Specific Plan Ordinance does require plot plan reviews even for single family homes, it also provides that with respect to single family homes, no fsea shall be paid for such plot plan reviews, no further environmental review and approval shall be required, and more importantly, no notice to surrounding property owners shall be required. The City's position that it has broad discretionary powers to consider house size during plot plan reviews is not consistent with the no notice provisions of the Specific Plan Ordinance. The City's position that it has broad discretion to consider housing size is not consistent with the Development Agreement which Prohibits the City from imposing new standards and procedures that materially affect petitioner's land use rights, and prohibits the City from adopting a minimum housing size that is greater than required by the Specific Plan Ordinance. Section 18.30 of Ordinance 348 does not, in any event, confer upon the City the discretion to consider housing size. While Section 18.30 does generally require development "to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property," the subsection relied upon by the City, on its face, Page 3 of 4 requires consideration of such things as streets and sidevaW, traffic congestion, and drainage conditions, none of which has anything remotely to do with house size. For the reasons above stated, the Petition for Writ of Mandate is granted. The City of Moreno Valley is ordered to approve Forecast Development Company's application to build 107 single family homes on Tract 22380 -1. Page 4 of 4 iU-1Y -3� U�:IUr JI'�6A r +t!�:Udi Dtr�II +� �i 10:�i i f ilUl CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF NAILING (Original copy, duly executed, must be attached to original document at time of filing) (Unsigned copy must accompany document being mailed) 215625 I ARTHUR A. SIMS, Clerk of the Superior Court of California, for the County of Rivers ids, do hereby certify' tha;Phibcertificate of a party to the within action or proceeding; that on the y of April, 1993, I served a copy of the paper to which is attached, to wit: Notice of Ruling accompanied by an unsigned copy of this certificate, by depositing said copy enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States post office mail box at the City of Riverside, California, addressed as follows: Robert W. Loewen, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Jamboree Center 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92714 -8557 Glenn R. Salter, Esq. singer & Silvergleid, Inc. 3750 University Ave.,, #550 Riverside, CA 9.2501 Dated: 1o13a cep 331.1 (8/82) ARTHUR A. SIMS, Clerk By , Deputy CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING � FlLftOPY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT BI #1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 24, 1993) PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23913 (QUINTERRA) - PHASE 2; APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (MODEL HOMES) APPLICANT: FORECAST HOMES REPRESENTATIVE: TODD SCHERMERHORN, PROJECT MANAGER BRUCE STRICKLAND, V. P. OF LAND ACQUISITION LOCATION: . NORTH SIDE OF MILES AVENUE, EAST OF ADAMS STREET PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW - AUGUST 24, 1993: On August 24, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the Applicant's request to develop 1,106 to 1, 659 square foot homes within Phase 2 of Tract 23913. Four of the five commissioners were present to discuss the case. Although the case was not a public hearing item; the Planning.Commission allowed public comment on the project because there were about 70+ people in the audience who were present for this matter. Various individuals from both the Quinterra Tract and surrounding tracts stated they were opposed to the' Forecast application because the units were not consistent or in "harmony" with the general_area. Discussion ensued regarding the current economic market conditions and the loss of property values in the north La Quinta area and /or southern California. Opponents felt lower priced units would exacerbate their problem. Mr. Strickland spoke regarding his housing project. He stated that his company has done some minor modifications to their project since the Design Review Board meeting. They have modified the color samples and slightly enlarged their house square footage sizes. He stated that they are proposing their larger homes adjacent to the Phase 1 homes per their agreement with the Design Review Board on August 4, 1993. Mr. Strickland stated that their homes are geared toward first time buyers, families, single parents, or people who wish to "move- down" because they no longer need a larger home (e.g. retired individuals). His housing prices would vary depending on the wishes and desires of the future buyers. He stated, that his firm is a quality home builder and that the construction quality of the Forecast Homes will be similar to Phase -1. STAFFRPT . 015 A few individuals spoke in favor of the project because they felt that first time home buyers should not be eliminated from the local housing market if the developer chooses to develop entry level housing. They felt first time home buyers are not bad neighbors just because their units are smaller. It was stated that home buying is a high risk venture and there are no guarantees in today's economic situation that a buyer will receive a profit on his or her purchase. One speaker stated that land prices have dropped by 50% in this area because of the economic downturn and most of the raw vacant land is now controlled by lending institutions looking to sell their holdings In summary, the Planning Commission voted to continue the meeting to September 14, 1993. However, at the study session on. September 13, 1993, they would like to meet with the developer and one representative from each of the surrounding tracts to examine solutions and /or alternatives to this housing size issue. The tract is a 116 lot subdivision approved by the City in 1988. The subdivision map was recorded in 1990. The original applicant, Waldon Financial, had anticipated building single family homes ranging in size from 1,670 to 2,570 square feet on the property. In 1990, Windsor Construction Company purchased the project. The existing 18, homes within Phase 1 were developed by Windsor Construction Company in 1990 & 1991. The homes built by Windsor Construction Company were one and two story units. Three floor plans were used varying in size from 2,072 to 2,593 square feet excluding garages. A Mediterranean architectural style was used and the exterior materials consist of stucco, wood trim, tile accents, and multi- colored roof tile. .Colors are earth tones with Southwest accent colors, and a brown /beige roof tile. Three elevations were available for each plan. The homes sold for over. $200,000. The Planning Commission approved the house plans on December 11, 1990. NEW PROPOSAL: The Applicant is in the process of purchasing the remaining lots within Phase 2. to develop single or two story homes on the existing +8,000 square foot lots. The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 23913 require that the Applicant submit to Design Review Board and Planning Commission architectural plans of any. type of unit design to be built within the tract. Based on this requirement, the Applicant has submitted their plans which includes five home sizes which range from 1,106 square feet to 1,659 square feet (3 & 4 bedroom units) . Each unit has an attached two car garage. Plans 2 thru 6 include three elevation types per size of home. Plan 6 is the only two story plan. The Applicant has stated that they would like to build their model complex on Ocotillo Drive and Adams Street. STAFFRPT . 015 2 0 0 The architectural style is consistent with the mediterranean theme used in Phase 1, however its unit size is smaller. The front facades vary from stucco, to stucco with brick or stone veneer. The masonite lapsiding (i.e. , Elevation "C") will not be used in this project because it cannot withstand the harsh desert climate. The units include covered entry patios, varied roof .designs and embellishments, and other architectural characteristics. The homes are 17+ to 24+ feet in overall height. The exterior building colors will be similar to Phase 1 except for one color sample includes a gray combination. The colorboard will be available at the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed units are. smaller in size than those built in Phase 1. The Applicant has stated that their market research has shown that smaller, more affordable units are selling whereas the larger homes are not as marketable in today's economic climate. The R -1 Zoning Code does not define the size of home which can be built similar to the SR Zoned areas which prescribe minimum 1,200 square foot homes. However, there is a section in the general guidelines which requires all homes in the City to be greater than 750 square feet. Staff has also researched both the tract Conditions and CC &R provisions to make sure the proposed homes can be built, as proposed. The Applicant's proposal meets these minimum standards. The front elevations are attractive and well proportioned. However, the eave overhangs are generally minimal except for the entry door locations. The side and rear elevations are plain and should have some additional architectural treatment similar to the front elevations (e.g. stucco pop -outs around the windows). The recommended architectural features will.complement the overall building design and supplement the State's Title 24 Energy Efficiency requirements. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: On August 4, 1993, the Board met with Mr. Bruce Strickland of Forecast Homes to discuss his model home and unit type submittal. Mr. Strickland explained that his company has developed (or is developing) this type and style of house in the southern California area and they develop entry level housing for their buyers (i . e. $103, 000 to $130, 000 +) . Fifty to eighty percent of their homes are sold to first time home buyers. Their company does not build speculative housing. Mr. 'Strickland stated that they are sensitive to the Phase I home buyers but they do not build homes which are larger than 1,700 square feet. He also explained that they would be placing their model homes on Ocotillo Drive at Adams Street to be sensitive to the existing owners. He thought his homes would be compatible with this existing project. The Board initially felt the homes were quite small and not compatible with the Phase I units. They asked if larger homes (1,800 + square foot) could be offered and developed adjacent to the existing homes.. The applicant stated his company used to build a 1,800 square foot home but they do not provide this home in their current. market schedule. The Plan 2 home (1,106 square foot) was also discussed at length. STAFFRPT . 015 3 The Board noted that this home was not in keeping with the abutting 2,000 + square foot Phase I homes. They hoped the applicant would delete this model from the project. Mr. Strickland stated that they normally only sell a small percentage (10 %) of this size home and that he would like to keep this plan in the Phase 2 program. Mr. Strickland stated that they would only build Plans 4, 5, & 6 adjacent to the Phase 1 homes, and that they would encourage three car garages on the lots adjacent to the retention basins. He said he would put Plans 5 & 6 on Lots 99, 100, & 101 and a Plan 6 on Lot 2 because this area is near the entry on Miles Avenue into Phase 1. The Design Review Board members requested that the existing homeowner's receive a public notice from 'the city notifying them of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. This would ensure that they understand that smaller units are proposed within their tract. Staff noted that this will be done. Mr. Strickland stated that Kaufman & Broad had initially attempted to purchase the property a few months ago and at that time it was his understanding that Kaufman & Broad informed the residents that the Phase 2 units would be smaller than Phase 1. Kaufman & Broad withdrew their application on June 2, 1993 prior to Design Review Board review. The Kaufman & Broad homes were similar to the Forecast application. The Design Review Board members discussed whether or not the homes should have larger roof eaves to provide additional shade as well as enlarge the appearance of the house so that it will have more "bulk". The larger eaves would also assist the applicant in his Title 24 (Energy Conservation) requirements. Mr. Strickland said he could add the larger eaves to the homes but the cost would be borne by the purchaser and it would cost approximately $1,500 for this feature. He also said he could add stucco pop -outs but he would prefer to add the pop -outs on the Plan 6 home because it is his largest home. The Board debated the exterior colors and textures of each unit type. A few members did not think the River Rock veneer alternative was appropriate. They though a desert material should be used and that it might be nice to have the veneer used under the window ledge instead of to the top plate line. Mr. Strickland stated their veneer materials are well liked by their customers and they create a customize feature for their product line. He said he could find an alternative product for the units abutting Phase 1 but he would like to use the River Rock veneer on the lots on the northern portion of the tract. In summary, the Design Review Board felt the applicant was very informed about the local market conditions. The Board voted to allow the 5 new model types within Phase 2 of the Quinterra tract. However, they recommended that the larger units be placed in the immediate area of Phase 1, and these units should have 3 car garages. The applicant should also use similar desert colors and tones for Phase 2 in the vicinity of Phase 1. The Design Review Board required the Applicant to put larger roof eaves on his buildings and add the stucco popouts to the homes. The attached Conditions reflect the actions of the Design Review Board based on their August 4, 1993 meeting with minor amendments by staff. STAFFRPT . 015 4 CONDITION #11 (PARKLAND FEE) : Staff has added Condition #11 to the recommended conditions in order to inform the developer that the Quinterra Tract has not paid the City's Parkland fee for recreation purposes as outlined in Chapter 13.24.020 (et al.) of the Municipal Code. The existing fee or outstanding amount is $52,500. The fee or other land dedications shall be made prior to any building permits being issued for Phase 2. (Condition #7 of Tract 23913) . HOUSE SIZE DISCUSSION: Staff had originally suggested that the Design Review Board consider a minimum house size of 1, 200 square feet for this tract based on the premise that the approved tracts in the immediate area exceed this standard. The only exception to this size is the La Quinta Del Rey (Century Homes) project within the La Quints Highlands Tract generally south of Fred Waring Drive, west of Adams Street'. See the attached housing tract survey.. As mentioned above, the Design Review Board deleted the recommended condition establishing a 1,200 square foot standard because they agreed with the Applicant's proposal to buffer the existing Phase 1 homes from his smaller Plan 2 home. Lastly, the Design Review Board did not require the Applicant to build any homes larger than 1,659 square feet based on their August 4th meeting. RECENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLE: On August 17, 1993, the Desert Sun published an article regarding this case in their newspaper. A copy is attached. Since the article was published, staff has received various phone inquiries and letters of opposition from both Quinterra residents and residents of adjoining tracts (a sample copy is attached) . The general consensus of the existing residents is that the Planning Commission and the City Council should maintain a house size and price. comparable with the existing single family homes. A few adjoining tract. residents stated they will examine modifying their CC &R's to establish a minimum house size to insure that this issue does.not become a problem in their tract. The also requested that the Planning Commission consider larger houses on the perimeter lots of the Quinterra tract to buffer their. investment. The attached _Design Review .Board conditions do not require the Applicant to build a certain size home on any lot abutting the north and east sides of the tract. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Continue the matter for. further study. 2. By Minute Motion deny the request. This action keeps in place the size and unit type currently approved for the development. 3. Require larger house sizes than proposed. STAFFRPT . 015 5 • 0 4. Change the buffering requirements along the existing units and the developments perimeter. 5. Approve the project as recommended by the Design Review Board. 6. Any combination of options 3, 4, & 5. Draft Conditions of Approval are provided for your consideration. Attachments: 1.- Vicinity Map . 2. Housing Tract Survey 3. Phase 1 Housing Survey 4. Petition Summary 5. Newspaper Article 6. Letter of Protest (Sample) 7. Letters from Best, Best & Krieger 8. Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval) STAFFRPT . 015 6 0 I BERMUDA -' -' I I CAMINOROSADA DUNES' • jDARPYRD STARMONT 2 CAMINO DEL ORO 3 CANTERRA CUR 5N SUNSET FUDGE DR CITY LIMITS GALAXY RION WY 6 S SUNSET RIDGE DR 8 N SUNRISE RIDGE DR LA OU/NTA ° SKYWARD WY ORION CT 7 S SUNRISE RIDGE DR HIGHLANDS RANCHO L QUINTA PALMS PALM ROYALE OC TILLO LO DR d a d CITY LIMITS S y ' U NLA-) _ i�v I Q t 1 0 )YAL! MARILL o 8 ING Aq 6 T CUP LN h9 3 qRl OWN 2 1 WILLOW CIR ' •� VIA SEVILLA ° FOR R D o 2 FOXTAIL C U '`•� 'Poe VIA CAUENTE� CAR IR WO I�0 CIR Ica N -� FLOWER ! °z LA OUINTA ' z° .. •� z RRADFO A EVOOR °� ,,, R FLOWER TRL •`�^ DEL ORO N a m �' A NOL o QUINTERA LL W r�-y MILES AV •� A RA OR v u d ti> •` ACACIA1p�0 DESERT CREST DR FR �� DESERT T OAXAN t\ �'L� DESERT RO I SPRIN" ' e DESERT GOLD DR I G Q Q�p�e DESERT STREAM OR • ■ © \;\ E TOPAZ -0 o .Aa • \ \ PAR i IMMEDIATE TR — • - �T • "1 CHANNE� ■ FUTURE LA QUINTA LIMI J i LA QUINTA 6� r(;H SCHOOL OUNf Tam AFM 1 E GDR CA EO DUNES PL /�� ll /ll' l )�. 1 ' 1 /�. ° DR SA • , � D F ER PL PAI M GARDENPI K �f,,•l�l'1 %�I CDR`E1L�J�� � / • ` ,�, I rI SCR TTO VIATRANOUILLO i.•'��;�Y GO CALLESERENA EN SANDS PL LAKE WESTWARD NO (l+ *'' S LA OUINTA o~ IS SDUO I VIAORVIETO /HA!! EH OULC DEL ' `" 2 VIA RAVENNA PARK + Iv �l4,A QUINT S 4 VIA 0 fRA *41. •�•�� t� 5 VIA ZURICH r/ lib, 6 VIA GRAZIANNA �ow ..P ; 9 �CIT� LIMIT$ I rO FRI .•t1 Lea ' 00 r` 5 4 CITY OF LA QUINTA MEMORANDUM Of TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 2, 1993 SUBJECT: HOUSING SURVEY At the request of one of the Design Review Board members, staff has prepared a housing site and price survey for the tracts surrounding the Quinterra project. The housing price information is based on a 1992 survey. Topaz - TTM 23935 1,407 to 2,864 sq. ft. Highlands - ($168,000 to $234,990) Cactus Flower South - TTM 24208 1,633 to 2,134 sq.. ft. ($139,900 ($147,900 to $185,900) Cactus Flower North - TT 22982 1,340 to 1,870 del Oro - (N /A) Rancho Ocotillo - TTM 24517 1,700 to 2,550 sq. ft ($250,000 (N /A) Acacia Homes - TTM 23268 1,400 to 2,200 sq. ft. Vistas - ($147,990 to $189,990) La Quinta Del Rey - TT 23269 1,006 to 1,732 sq. ft. Century Homes/La Quinta Highlands ($115,990 to $139,990) Phase 5 A few of the approved tentative maps -surrounding the Quinterra project have not been placed on the list because the developer has not submitted or decided what type or size of home to build. * La Quinta Highlands - 1,220 to 1,840 sq. ft. ($139,900 to $169,900) La Quinta del Oro - 2,700 to 3,400 sq. ft. ($250,000 to $270,000) . La Quinta Vistas - 2,000 to 2,400 so. ft. ($175,000 to $210,000) O I•' www •. •r N M M N IrG7, l i 'i O Mtn 4-) m w w w O �q E NNN J C �O O O O p 2 11 1 Q% •r Cr Q Cl. or cc' Of Li r a C S - - -' � DRIVE a <or - ; 4i 1 z S j.0 is .. IAJ j /ice ,� ( 6• J Z Ott or ': h G^R • q e. rn �lJ � \ it r / a � • • _ U 3 70810 cc Q Q `i N .r.> . W N Q OYP O • \ L �pp• /w O elf cc k 'rte Q� O W o_w io, 37.981.9• o ,c w eor, � 'P.•SO � °_ O0 .�J ^ d701801 i I qb O n I ,� .O ^c �O Q mO •� e O .: of osz/ ECtf J V O� E h I M b Al s o m; MQ I V v TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF LA Q UINTA MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 PETITION SUMMARY (FORECAST HOMES) - PLOT PLAN 93 -505 PROJECT LOCATION LETTERS RECEIVED Quinterra (Phase I)* 18 (18) Rancho Ocotillo* 27 (52) Cactus Flower North South* 44 (134) 0 (15) Topaz* 11 (45) Acacia 14 (98) La Quinta Del Oro* 32 (32) Starlight Dunes* .**1 (47) La Quinta Vistas* 34 (53) TOTAL 181*** (264) () = Existing homes within the tract. * = Tract with remaining undeveloped single family lots. ** = Letter from Homeowners Association. * ** = Total number represents a vote from an individual household or home address. By DOlJKU NASERMAN The Desert Sun LA QUINTA — Homeowners are protesting a developer's plans to complete the Quinterra subdivision with much smaller houses than those already built. They complain that a change in the original plans might lower the value of their homes and affect the overall look of their neighborhood. "It was represented as a fairly nice development," Quinterra homeowner Jim Hanson said. "Now we think that they're trying to come in here with homes that may be less than $100,000." He paid $200,000 for his home in December, he said. A vice president with developer Forecast Homes of Rancho Cuca- monga said the company is planning to build homes in the low $100,000s, aimed mainly at young families. "That meets market demand," vice president Bruce Strickland said. The homeowners plan to present petitions to the Planning Commis- sion at 7 p.m. on Aug. 24. Only 18 homes have been built in Quinterra so far. The subdivision conains 116 lots. Desert Sun Newspaper August 17, 1993 WORRIED: Jim Hanson of La Quinta opposes a developer's plans to finish Quinterra subdivision with smaller homes. Hanson and others fear the change will reduce values in the entire neighborhood. Those already built have square footages of 2,072, 2,363 or 2,593. Forecast is proposing new units with square footages of 1,106, 1,237, 1,415 or 1,659. "They're attractive homes," Strickland said. Forecast is not the original de- veloper. Strickland said a partner- ship that was building Quinterra folded and the lender bank took over the property. Forecast became interested in the property about a month ago, he said. If its plans are approved, the val- ue of existing homes will drop, Han- son arguad. Quinterra plans WHAT: La Quinta Planning Com- mission discusses Forecast Homes' proposal for Quinterra subdivision. WHE?t 7 p.m. Aug. 24. WHERE: City Council chambers, the new City Hall, at Washington Street and Calle Tampico. "Their property values have al- ready been diminished," Strickland responded. "The market has done that." Homeowners in the nearby Ran- cho Ocotillo and Topaz develop- ments also are signing the petitions. Some of those signing said that when they bought their homes they were told the rest of the develop- ment and nearby subdivisions would consist of homes of more than 2,000 square feet. Rancho Ocotillo homeowner Diane McMahon said she would like her neighborhood to consist of houses that look more or less the same. "You want it to remain what you thought it would remain from the beginning," she sl. DORSEY PRICE nl/Tne Desert Sun The city's Design Review Board voted Aug. 4 to recommend that the Planning Commission approve Forecast's plans. If homeowners or the developer are unhappy with the Planning Commission vote, they can appeal to the City Council, Planning Direc- trol r Jerry Herman said. u August 12, 1993 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning and Development Director City of La Quinta P.O. BOX 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: QUINTERRA TRACT (PHASE 2) Dear Mr. Herman: AUG 'i 6 1993 k I am opposed to the request by Forecast Homes to complete Phase 2 of the Quinterra project. The project will significantly and permanently decrease the property value of my home in that the planned homes are not equivalent in construction, size, or value of the existing homes in this area. ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE REMAINING LOTS. SHOULD BE SIMILAR IN SIZE AND PRICE TO THE HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. I urge you and the Planning Commission to DEITY Forecast Homes request to complete phase 2 until' they submit plans that are in keeping with existing properties. Doing so will help protect our investments and keep La Quinta a more uniformly planned community. Very truly yours, a concern homeowner. f a e < Homeowner Address A�4(Owner within Phase 1) 0 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A.AI..%Cftb� 04CLLMOM .SKr LTK.a.r COMOK.TKPQ LAWYERS ARTHUR L. UTTLEWORTH' DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS* ELISE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO GLEN E. STEPHENS* ANTONIA GRAPHOS WILLIAM D. OAHLINO• JR. MARY E. GILSTRAP WILLIAM R. D.WOLFE' GREGORY K. WILKINSON MATT H. MORRIS GLENN P. SABINE BARTON C. GAUT' WYNNE S. FURTH JEFFREY V. DUNN CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON PAUL T. SELZER' DAVID L. BARON STEVEN C. O.BAUN JOAN[ GARCIA- COLSON DALLAS HOLMES' GENE TANAKA ERIC L. GARNER PHILIP J. KOEHLER CHRISTOPHER L.'CARPENTER' BASIL T. CHAPMAN DENNIS M. COTA DIANE C. WIESE RICHARD T. ANDERSON' TIMOTHY M. CONNOR RACHELLE J. NICOLLE REBECCA MARES DURNEY JOHN O. WAHLIN' VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HARGREAVES DOROTHY L ANDERSON MICHAEL O. HARRIS' DANIEL E. OLIVIER JANICE L. WETS O. HENRY WELLES W' CURT EALY' DANIEL J. McHUGH PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK' HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH DINA O. HARRIS JOHN E' BROWN* STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON D. DABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL T. RIDDELL' MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A. SNOW RICHARD T. EDGER MEREDITH A. JURY' JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A. EASTER PATRICK D. DOLAN MICHAEL GRANT' MARTIN A. MUELLER DIANE L. FINLEY DEAN R. DERLETH FRANCIS 1. BAUM' J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. DREYER ANNE T. THOMAS* VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN. SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL O. MARTIN NETHERY' JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH CHRISTOPHER DODSON JOHN O. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. fLOYD. JR. JACK B. CLARKE. JR. BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HAROKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E. HILL KENDALL H. M. VEY BRADLEY E. NEUFELD KEVIN K. RANDOLPH CLARK H. ALSOP' SHARYL WALKER JAMES 8. GILPIN RAYMOND BEST (1888 -1977) DAVID J. ERWIN• PETER M. BARMACK MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913 -)977) MICHAEL J. ANOELSON' JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893.1981) • A PROFOSIMONA1 CORPDRATIW September 9, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUITE 312 39700 BOB HOPE ORIVE POST OFFICE BOX 1555 RANCHO MIRAGE. CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (619) 568-2611 TELECOPIER (619) 340.6698 Of COUNSEL JAMES B. CORISON OFFICES IN RIVERSIDE (909) 686-1170 PALM SPRINGS (619)3217261 ONTARIO (909) 989 -8581 •1: 1 � r. ;ate:!. -.�_• _�: r 1r ■`�� -SEP 1 0 1ggi a Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: r As you may remember, this lawfirm represents a number of the homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. In a letter to this Commission dated August 19, 1993, we presented the homeowners' concerns that approval of the smaller homes would significantly reduce the value of existing homes. We requested that the Forecast proposal not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that other similarly- situated neighborhoods be preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of the subdivisions as initially planned and approved. For your reference, we have attached a copy of the August 19 letter. We are writing this letter to address a few concerns that have arisen since the original letter. First, it has come to our attention that proponents of the Forecast proposal may argue that Government Code Section 65589.5 prevents the City from denying the proposal. Section 65589.5 has been characterized as an "anti- NIMBY" law. The Section prohibits RWH40917 LAW OFFICES OF 0 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Planning Commission City of La Quinta September 9, 1993 Page 2 0 local governments from denying housing projects that have at least 20% of the units set aside for low- and moderate - income households unless the local government makes certain specific findings. Section 65589.5 is inapplicable. to the Forecast proposal because the Forecast proposal does not qualify as low- to moderate - income housing. Low- and moderate - income housing is defined by statute to be housing that is made available at a certain percentage of the area median income. Currently, such housing would need to sell for approximately $75,000 to $100,000. Forecast has made no commitment to offer its housing for such prices. Secondly, we are informed that the City of La Quinta is currently revising the housing element of its general plan. According to correspondence to the City from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, the City's current housing plan is not in compliance with current State requirements. We believe that it would be inappropriate for the City to make any decision to radically change the nature of the Quinterra subdivision in absence of a current statement of the City's housing goals that the housing element should provide. Finally, we wish the Planning Commission to be aware of the case of Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 732. In that case, the court affirmed the City of San Francisco Planning Commission's denial of a building permit to construct a house that, because of its size, was not in character with the other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed house complied with the City's zoning laws and building standards but was considerably larger than surrounding homes. The court relied on the requirement in City's code that the commission "protect the character and stability of residential areas," to find that the commission retained sufficient discretion to deny the permit. As explained in our letter of August 19, 1993, La Quinta Municipal Code provides ample discretion for the denial of the Forecast proposal. One of the goals of design review is to "foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of the City and its harmonious development . . . ." (La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.183.020(A)). Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property." (La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.180.040(B)). Forecast's proposal to degregate the neighborhood by construction of lower - quality homes does not preserve and RWH40917 LAW OFFICES OF • BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Planning Commission City.of La Quinta September 9, 1993 Page 3 enhance the neighborhood; is not consistent with the neighborhood's harmonious development; and, is not compatible with present and future logical development of the area. Therefore, the Forecast proposal does not meet the requirements.of the Municipal Code. Once again, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission seriously consider the long -range deleterious effect of the Forecast proposal. We are confident that the City will conclude, as we have, that the Forecast proposal is not in the best interest of Quinterra and surrounding neighborhoods or of the City as a whole. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER- DSP: RWH: j s Enc. cc: 'Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney City of La Quinta: Mayor John Pena ...Mayor Pro Tem Stanley Sniff Councilwoman Glenda Bangerter Councilman-Ron Perkins. Councilman Michael McCartney Client RWN40917 • A PROrCSSONAL CORPORATpN August 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 0 WTE 312 39700 B08 HOPE DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 1608 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (619) 56 -2611 TELECOPIER (619) 340 -6698 - OF COUNSEL JAMES 8. CORISON OFFICES IN RIVERSIDE (909) 686.1450 PAW SPRINGS (619)325-7264 ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 AUG 19 1993 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes will be lost. 'On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- RWH40196 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A PARTNE0111i 04=01300 POFT01I7.K COMPMA"WO LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LNTTLEWORTII• DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS- ELISE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO GLEN E. STEPHENS• ANTONIA GRAPHOS WILLIAM O. DAHLING. JR. MARY E. GILSTRAP WILLIAM R. D.WOLFE• GREGORY K. WILKINSON MATT H. MORRIS GLENN P. SABINE BARTON C. GAUT• WYNNE S. FURTH JEFFREY V. DUNN CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON PAUL T. SELZER• DAVID L. BARON STEVEN C. D.BAUN JOANE GARCIA- COLSON DALLAS HOLMES• GENE TANAKA ERIC L. GARNER PHILIP J. KOEHLER CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER' BASIL T. CHAPMAN DENNIS M. COTA DIANE C. WIESE RICHARD T. ANDERSON- TIMOTHY M. CONNOR RACHELLE J. NICOLLE REBECCA MARES GURNEY JOHN D. WAHLIN• VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HARGREAVES DOROTHY I. ANDERSON MICHAEL D. HARRIS' DANIEL E. OLMER JANICE L. WETS 6. HENRY WELLES W. CURT EALY• DANIEL J. MCHUGH PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK' HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH DINA O. HARRIS JOHN E. BROWN• STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON D. DABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL 1. RIDDELL• MARC E. EMPET KYLE A. SNOW RICHARD T. EGGER MEREDITH A. JURY• JOHN R. ROTISCMAEFER MARK A. EASTER PATRICK D. DOLAN MICHAEL GRANT MARTIN A. MUELLER DIANE L. FINLEY DEAN R. DERLETH FRANCIS J. BAUM• J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. DREYER ANNE T. THOMAS' VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL D. MARTIN NETHERY• JEFFEEY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH CMR137OPHER DODSON JOHN O. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. FLOYD, JR. JACK 8. CLARKE. JR. BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HAROKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E. HILL KE14DALL H. MKVEY BRADLEY E. NELIFELD KEVIN K. RANDOLPH CLARK H. ALSOP• SHARYL WALKER JAMES B. GILPIN RAYMOND BEST 11868.1937) DAVID J. ERWIN• PETER M. BARMACK MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913 -1975) MICHAEL J. ANDELSON• JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893.1981) • A PROrCSSONAL CORPORATpN August 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 0 WTE 312 39700 B08 HOPE DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 1608 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (619) 56 -2611 TELECOPIER (619) 340 -6698 - OF COUNSEL JAMES 8. CORISON OFFICES IN RIVERSIDE (909) 686.1450 PAW SPRINGS (619)325-7264 ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 AUG 19 1993 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes will be lost. 'On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- RWH40196 '• °.1� " ". ., :.flr }.•F'+yyw4(?:��`�a.y. ;;• 'mot *-h}' � �� LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGO • Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 2 existing 18 homes in the Quinterra subdivision were built using those plans. These are all quality homes which originally sold for between $200,000 and $250,000. At the time Quinterra homeowners purchased their homes; they were assured by Windsor that the quality of the neighborhood would be maintained throughout subsequent phases. The subdivision's CC &R's call for the establishment of an Architectural Control Committee that will review and approve all homes to be built in the subdivision (other than those built by the developer) to insure that standards within the neighborhood are maintained. Based on these representations, homeowners felt secure in investing a significant part of their life savings in their new homes. Forecast Homes now proposes to build significantly smaller homes (from 1,106 to 1,659 square feet) that will sell for half the price of the existing homes. We all know that the quality of a neighborhood significantly affects the value of each home within that neighborhood. Forecast undoubtedly foresees that the value of its smaller homes will increase due to their close proximity to the larger existing homes. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. The value of existing homes will be reduced if smaller homes are allowed to be built in the same tract. In essence, approval of the smaller homes will allow Forecast to transfer value from existing homes to the new, smaller homes. Forecast will then sell this transferred value at a profit, while existing homeowners will suffer a loss in the value of their investment. We are mindful that, in today's market, requiring Forecast to proceed with the project as originally planned may not provide Forecast with the fastest method of making a profit. But land -use planning is not about maximizing short -term profits for developers. It is about achieving coherent and consistent development of property that will preserve and enhance property values for all concerned - -the developer, the surrounding property owners and the City. Forecast's request comes before this Commission for design review as a plot plan. One of the goals of design review is to "foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of. the particular character and unique assets of the City and its harmonious development ." (La Quinta Municipal Code S 9.183.020(A).) Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to be RWH40196 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGE0 Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 3 0 compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property." (La Quinta Municipal Code S 9.180.040(B).) Forecast's proposed plans do not comply with those requirements. Degregation of the neighborhood through the construction of lower - value housing is not compatible with current development nor does it preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods. For that reason alone, Forecast's request should be denied. As the principal planning agency for the City of La Quinta, this Commission is encharged with implementing a long -range perspective for the development of the City. The Quinterra neighborhood will exist for years to come. By investing a substantial part of their life savings in quality Quinterra homes, existing homeowners have made a long -term investment in, and commitment to, the quality of their neighborhood and the City of La Quinta as well. This Commission should not allow that investment and commitment to be undermined by short -term market forces and Forecast's desire for a quick profit. It is our understanding that there are other subdivisions within La Quinta that face a similar dilemma. Initial phases of those subdivisions were built with larger, quality homes. Now, due to the depressed housing market, developers desire to build smaller, inferior homes within those developments. In an effort to move product, developers are sacrificing the quality of their projects. We believe that fairness and good planning demand that the City of La Quinta carefully examine the situation and craft a comprehensive, City -wide response. We suggest that a "neighborhood preservation ordinance" be implemented. The ordinance would use zoning controls to balance the need to maintain existing neighborhood values with the desire of developers to respond to market conditions. Similar ordinances have been enacted in other cities to preserve existing neighborhoods from uncontrolled development that threatened to destroy the character of those neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would give La Quinta city planners, this Commission and the City Council increased ability to respond in a reasonable way to the needs of all segments of the community and to allow for the development in a manner that is fair to all., Until this. City has had an opportunity to fully assess and respond to the threats to existing neighborhoods posed by subsequent, inferior development, we respectfully request that Forecast be required to continue to develop the Quinterra subdivision as previously planned by Windsor and approved by the RWH40196 Y f 4 • LAW OFFICES OF • BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGERR" .Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 4 City. A hasty decision to allow lesser- quality development in this neighborhood will unfairly detract from the substantial investments made in good faith by Quinterra homeowners and from the reputation of the City of La Quinta as a secure place for quality investment. Very truly yours, DOUG S S. PHILLIPS of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER DSP:RWH:js cc: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney City of La Quinta Client 0 I RWN40196 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (FORECAST) September 14, 1993 1. The front yard of all lots, and in addition, the street side yard of corner lots, shall be landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement, whichever is furthest from the residence. 2'. The landscaping for each lot shall include trees (minimum two 24" box size trees on interior lots and five 24" box size trees on corner lots) , minimum five gallon shrubs, and groundcover and /or hardscape of sufficient size, spacing and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the Manual on Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission. 3. A permanent water- efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas required to be landscaped. The provisions of Ordinance #220 shall be met. The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the City, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission. 4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition by the property owner. 5. The standards of the R -1 Zoning shall be met (e.g. setbacks, etc.) . 6. If the model homes are converted to sales offices (e.g. converted garages, etc. ) as part. of the marketing program for the tract, the Applicant shall file with staff a floor plan or letter of intent detailing the work to be done. A cash bond or another type of security should be posted to ensure that the home(s) is reconverted prior to its sale and/or occupancy. 7. A Plot Plan of the tract showing setbacks shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for approval. The units shall be plotted so that the largest units are adjacent to the existing homes. House plans 4, 5, and 6 shall be used on Lots 6, 7, 74 thru 80, 102 thru 104, 114, and 115. Lots 99 and 101 shall have a Plan '6 house and Lots 100 and 116 shall have a Plan 5 house. Three car garages should be encouraged on Lots 99, 100, and 101. A Plan 5 or 6 house (with 3 car garage) shall be built on Lot 2. 8. If a temporary Real Estate tract office is located within the subdivision the maximum installation period should not exceed the sale of the units and /or two years. A plot plan application is required. 9. The concrete roof tile in Phase 2 shall be similar in color to Phase I. The Applicant's gray roof tile shall only be used on lots north of. the lots identified in Condition V. CONAPRVL. 005 10. The Applicant's model complex shall be built north of the existing homes (e. g. Ocotillo Drive & Adams Street) to reduce vehicle traffic to and from the sales area. 11. No building permits shall be issued for Phase 2 until the developer has paid the City's Parkland fee or dedicated land to the City to fulfill this outstanding tract map obligation. 12. The River Rock veneer shall not be used on- any new homes within the immediate vicinity of the existing (Phase 1) homes, but the Applicant will have the option to submit other exterior veneer materials to staff for review and consideration provided the veneer material is compatible with Phase 1. 13. The perimeter tract fencing shall be finished to match Phase 1. The individual lot fencing, if build, shall meet the R -1 Standards. 14. A minimum four -inch stucco popout shall be used -around all exterior sliding glass doors and windows to ensure architectural compatibility to the Phase 1 units and to provide minimum shading from the exposure to the sun. The minimum roof eave shall be 18- inches or the windows should be recessed into the building facade to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development., CONAPRVL. 005 2 f DATE:. PROJECT: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVES: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: PLANNING CONESSION STAFF REPORT AUGUST 24, 1993 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23913 (QUINTERRA) - PHASE.2; APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (MODEL HOMES) FORECAST HOMES TODD SCHERMERHORN, PROJECT MANAGER BRUCE STRICKLAND, V. P. OF LAND ACQUISITION NORTH SIDE OF MILES AVENUE, EAST OF ADAMS STREET The tract is a 116 lot subdivision approved by the City in 1988. The subdivision map was recorded in 1990. The original applicant, Waldon Financial, had anticipated building single family homes ranging in size from 1,670 to 2,570 square feet on the property. In 1990, Windsor Construction Company purchased the project: The existing 18 homes within Phase 1 were developed by Windsor Construction Company in 1990 & 1991. The homes built by Windsor Construction Company were one and two story units. Three floor plans were used varying in size from 2,072 to 2,593 square feet excluding garages. A Mediterranean architectural style was used and the exterior materials consist of stucco, wood trim, tile accents, and multi - colored roof tile. Colors are earth tones with Southwest accent colors, and a brown /beige roof tile. Three elevations were available for each plan. The homes sold for over $200,000. The Planning Commission approved the house plans on December 11, 1990. NEW PROPOSAL: The Applicant is in the process of purchasing the remaining lots within Phase 2 to develop single or two story homes on the existing +8,000 square foot lots. The Condit 39 ions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 213. require that the Applicant submit to Design Review Board and Planning Commission architectural plans of any type of unit design to be built within the tract. Based on this requirement, the Applicant has submitted their plans which includes five home sizes which range from 1,106 square feet to 1,659 square feet (3 & 4 bedroom units) . Each unit has an attached two car garage. Plans 2 thru 6 include. three elevation types per size of home. Plan 6 is the only two story plan. The Applicant has stated that they would like to build their model complex on Ocotillo Drive and Adams Street. STAFFRPT . 015 The architectural style is consistent with the mediterranean theme used in Phase 1. The front facades vary from stucco, to stucco with brick or stone veneer. The masonite lapsiding (i.e., Elevation "C") will not be used in this project because it cannot withstand the harsh desert climate: The units include covered entry patios, varied roof designs and embellishments, and other architectural characteristics. The homes are 17+ to 24+ feet in overall height. The exterior building colors will be similar to Phase 1 except for one color sample includes a gray combination. The colorboard will be available at the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed units are smaller in size than those built in Phase 1. The Applicant has stated that their market research has shown that smaller, more affordable units are selling whereas the larger homes are not as marketable in today's economic climate. The R -1 Zoning Code does not define the size of home which can be built similar to the SR Zoned areas which prescribe minimum 1,200 square foot homes. However, there is a section in the general guidelines which requires all homes in the City to be greater than 750 square feet. Staff has also researched both the tract Conditions and CC &R provisions to make sure the proposed homes can be built, as proposed. The Applicant's proposal meets these minimum standards. The front elevations are attractive and well proportioned. However, the eave overhangs are generally minimal except for the entry door locations. The side and rear elevations are plain and should have some additional architectural treatment similar to the front elevations (e.g. stucco pop -outs around the windows). The recommended architectural features will complement the overall building design and supplement the State's Title 24 Energy Efficiency requirements. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: On August 4, 1993, the Board met with Mr. Bruce Strickland of Forecast Homes to discuss his model home and unit type submittal. Mr. Strickland explained that his company has developed (or is developing) this type and style of house in the southern California area and they develop entry level housing for their buyers (ie. $103,000 to $130,000 +). Fifty percent of their homes are sold to first time home owners. Their company does not build speculative housing. Mr. Strickland stated that they are sensitive to the Phase I home buyers but they do not build homes which are larger than 1, 700 square feet. He also explained that they would be placing their model homes on Ocotillo Drive at Adams Street to be sensitive to the existing owners. He thought his homes would be compatible with this existing project. The Board initially felt the homes were quite small and not compatible with the Phase I units. They asked if larger homes (1,800 + square foot) could be offered and developed adjacent to the existing homes. The applicant stated his company used to build a 1, 800 square foot home but they do not provide this home in their current market schedule. The Plan 2 home (1,106 square foot) was also discussed at length. STAFFRPT . 015 2 • Y • The Board noted that. this home was not in keeping with the abutting 2,, 000 + square foot Phase I homes. They hoped the applicant would delete this model from the project. Mr. Strickland stated that they normally only sell a small percentage (10 %) of this size home and that he would like to keep this plan in the Phase 2 program. Mr. Strickland stated that they would only build Plans 4, 5, & 6 adjacent to the Phase 1 homes, and that they would encourage three car garages on the lots adjacent to the retention basins. He said he would put Plans 5 & 6 on Lots 99, 100, & 101 and a Plan 6 on Lot 2 because this area is near the entry on Miles Avenue into Phase 1. The Design Review Board members requested that the existing homeowner's receive a public notice from the city notifying them of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. This would ensure that they understand that smaller units are proposed within their tract. Staff noted that this will be done. Mr. Strickland stated that Kaufman & Broad had initially attempted to purchase the property a few months ago and at that time it was his understanding that Kaufman & Broad informed the residents that the Phase 2 units would be smaller than Phase 1. Kaufman & Broad withdrew their application on June 2, 1993 prior to Design Review Board review. The Kaufman & Broad homes were similar to the Forecast application. The Design Review Board members discussed whether or not the homes should have larger roof eaves to provide additional shade as well as enlarge the appearance of the house so that it will have more "bulk". The larger eaves would also assist the applicant in his Title 24 (Energy Conservation) requirements- Mr. Strickland said he could add the larger eaves to the homes but the cost would be borne by the purchaser and it would cost approximately $1,500 for this feature. He also said he could add stucco pop -outs but he would prefer to add the pop -outs on the Plan 6 home because it is his largest home. The Board debated the exterior colors and textures of each unit type. A few members did not think the River Rock veneer alternative was appropriate. They though a desert material should be used and that it might be nice to have the veneer used under the window ledge instead of to the top plate line. Mr. Strickland stated their veneer materials are well liked by their customers and they create a customize feature for their product line. He said he could find an alternative product for the units abutting Phase 1 but he would like to use the River Rock veneer on the lots on the northern portion of the tract. In summary, the Design Review Board felt the applicant was very informed about the, local market conditions. The Board voted to allow the 5 new model types within Phase 2 of the Quinterra tract. However, they recommended that the larger units be placed in the immediate area of Phase 1, and these units should have 3 car garages. The applicant should also use similar desert colors and tones for Phase 2 in the vicinity of Phase 1. The Design Review Board required the Applicant to put larger roof eaves on his buildings and add the stucco popouts to the homes. The attached Conditions reflect the actions of the Design Review Board based on their August 4, 1993 meeting with minor amendments by staff. STAFFRPT . 015 3 CONDITION #11 (PARKLAND FEE) : Staff has added Condition #11 to the recommended conditions in order to inform the developer that the Quinterra Tract has not paid the City's Parkland fee for recreation purposes as outlined in Chapter 13.24.020 (et al.) of the Municipal Code. The existing fee or outstanding amount is $52,500. The fee or other land dedications shall be made prior to any building permits being issued for Phase 2. (Condition #7 of Tract 23913) . HOUSE SIZE DISCUSSION: Staff had originally suggested that the Design Review Board consider a minimum house size of 1, 200 square feet for this tract based on the premise that the approved tracts in the immediate area exceed this standard. The only exception to this size is the La Quinta Del Rey ( Century Homes) project within the La Quinta Highlands Tract generally south of Fred Waring Drive, west of Adams Street. See the attached housing tract survey. As mentioned above, the Design Review Board deleted the recommended condition establishing a 1; 200 square foot standard because they agreed with the Applicant's proposal to buffer the existing Phase 1 homes from his smaller Plan 2 home. Lastly, the Design Review Board did not require the Applicant to build any homes larger than 1, 659 square feet based on their August 4th meeting. RECENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLE: On August 17, 1993, the Desert Sun published an article regarding this case in their newspaper. A copy is attached. Since the article was published, staff has received various phone inquiries and letters of opposition from both Quinterra residents and residents of adjoining tracts (a sample copy is attached) . As of the writing of this report staff has received 39 letters of opposition. The general consensus of the existing residents is that the Planning Commission and the City Council should maintain a house size and price comparable with the existing single family homes. A few adjoining tract residents stated they will examine modifying their CC &R's to establish a minimum house size to insure that this issue does not become a problem in their tract. The also requested that the Planning Commission consider larger houses on the perimeter lots of the Quinterra tract to buffer their investment. The attached Design Review Board conditions do not require the Applicant to build a certain size home on any lot abutting the north and east sides of the tract. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Continue the matter to September 14, 1993 when all Planning Commissioners are present. 2. Deny the request. This action keeps in place the size and unit type currently approved for. the development. 3. Require larger house sizes then proposed. 4. Change the buffering requirements along the existing units and the developments perimeter. STAFFRPT . 015 4 5 . Approve the project as recommended by the. Design Review Board. 6. Any combination of options 3, 4, & 5. Draft Conditions of Approval are provided for your consideration. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan of Tract 3. Architectural plans 4. Housing Tract Survey 5. Phase 1 Housing Survey 6. Newspaper Article 7. Letter of Protest (Sample) 8. Letter from Best, Best & Krieger 9. Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval) .J 1 got FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF LA Q UINTA MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AUGUST 2, 1993 HOUSING SURVEY At the request of one of the Design Review Board members, staff has prepared a housing site and price survey for the tracts surrounding the Quinterra project. The housing price information is based on a 1992 survey. Topaz - TTM 23935 1,407 to 2,864 sq. ft. ($168,000 to $234,990) Cactus Flower South - TTM 24208 1,633 to 2,134 sq. ft. ($147,900 to $185,900) Cactus Flower North - TT 22982 1,340 to 1,870 (/A) Rancho Ocotillo - TTM 24517 1,700 to 2,550 sq, ft (N/A) Acacia Homes - TTM 23268 1,400 to 2,200 sq. ft. ($147,990 to $189,990) La Quinta Del Rey - TT 23269 1,006 to 1,732 sq. ft. Century Homes/La Quinta Highlands ($1 15,990 to $139,990) Phase 5 A few of the approved tentative maps surrounding the Quinterra project have not been placed on the list because the developer has not submitted or decided what type or size of home to build. * La Quinta Highlands - 1,220 to 1,840 sq. ft. ($139,900 to $169,900) %gg4� POR. SW 114 NW 114 -5-EC 20, r5 S R 7E ss,wrAfr tvRposes ONLY • Qtr tor 5 MIL ES L'. rA.' tt4 0 -48 Phase I SRS MAP 8K. 604 fV- 27 coulv r Y, C4 L / F. M 0 rt; 67it ORIVE 5 0 0 (7) af rR .4. o,-o-oll 604-27 1 1xv- 049 604-07 Home Sizes A - 2,072 sq. ft. B - 2,363 sq. ft, C - 2,593 sq. ft. 5! x I Parking Lot - o o LADERA DRIVE Retontion Basin -Retention Basi-n—Y. AVENUE 20 t,,.,6, 2261,72-76 7ro c - vo. 23 913 DEC 1990 JR8 i i 6 o C� rr 6 9 70 10 A " CZ 09 12_ b- B c ti Home Sizes A - 2,072 sq. ft. B - 2,363 sq. ft, C - 2,593 sq. ft. 5! x I Parking Lot - o o LADERA DRIVE Retontion Basin -Retention Basi-n—Y. AVENUE 20 t,,.,6, 2261,72-76 7ro c - vo. 23 913 DEC 1990 JR8 i i By DOUGLAS HABERIMAN The Desert Sun LA QUINTA — Homeowners are protesting a developer's plans to complete the Quinterra subdivision with much smaller houses than those already built. They complain that a change in the original plans might lower the value of their homes and affect the overall look of their neighborhood. "It was represented as a fairly nice development," Quinterra homeowner Jim Hanson said. "Now we think that they're trying to come in here with homes that may be less than =100,000." He paid $200,000 for his home in December, be said. A vice president with developer Forecast Homes of Rancho Cuca- monga said the company is planning to build homes in the low t100,000s, aimed mainly at young families. "That meets market demand," vice president Bruce Strickland said. The homeowners plan to present petitions to the Planning Commis- sion at 7 p.m. on Aug. 24. Only 18 homes have been built in Quinterra so far. The subdivision con,*Ains 116 lots. Desert Sun Newspaper August 17, 1993 0 MAX Of flZrThe Desert Sun WORRIED: Jim Hanson of La Quinta opposes a developer's plans to finish Quinterra subdivision with smaller homes. Hanson and others fear the change will reduce values in the entire neighborhood. Those already built have square footages of 2,072, 2,363 or 2,593. Forecast is proposing new units with square footages of 1,106, 1,237, 1,415 or 1,659. "They're attractive homes," Strickland said. Forecast is not the original de- veloper. Strickland said a partner- ship that was building Quinterra folded and the lender bank took over the property. Forecast became interested in the property about a month ago, he said. If its plans are approved, the val- ue of existing homes will drop, Han- I.- son argued. ` Quinterra plans WHAT: 6 Quinta Planning Com- mission disoLwes Forecast Horses' proposal for Quinterra subdivision. WNE?t 7 p.m. Aug. 24. WHERE: City Council chambers, the new City Hall, at Washington Street and Calle Tampico. "Their property values have al- ready been diminished," Strickland responded. "The market has done that." Homeowners in the nearby Ran- cho Ocotillo and Topaz develop- ments also are signing the petitions. Some of those signing said that when they bought their homes they were told the rest of the develop- ment and nearby subdivisions would consist of homes of more than 2,000 square feet. Rancho Ocotillo homeowner Diane McMahon said she would like her neighborhood to consist'of houses that took more or less the same. "You want it to remain what you thought it would remain from the beginning," she sal. DORS" PRIG RI/Tne Desert Sun The city's Design Review Board voted Aug. 4 to recommend that the Planning Commission approve Forecast's plans. If homeowners or the developer are unhappy with the Planning Commission vote, they can appeal to the City Council, Planning Direc- tor Jerry Herman said. rV !I 0 August 12, 1993 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning and Development Director City of La Quinta P.O.. BOX 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: QUINTERRA TRACT (PHASE 2) Dear Mr. Herman: C7 AUG i 6 1993 PLk . �.... - . I am opposed to the request by Forecast Homes to complete Phase 2 of the Quinterra project. The project will significantly and permanently decrease the property value of my home in that the planned homes are not equivalent in construction, size, or value of the existing homes in this area. ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE REMAINING LOTS SHOULD BE SIMILAR Ili SIZE AND PRICE TO THE HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. I urge you and the Planning Commission to DENY Forecast Homes request to complete phase 2 until they submit plans that are in keeping with existing properties. Doing so will help protect our investments and keep La Quinta a more uniformly planned community. Very truly yours, a concern homeowner. Homeowner Zi Address (Owner within Phase 1) • • Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes will be lost. 'On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which varied in size -from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- RWH40196 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A PYI'TWOWT ..nJAO.o P t3rE al0ftft COMPORATCHIp LAWYERS ARTHUR L. UTTLEWORTII• DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS- ELISE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO SUITE 312 GLEN E. STEPHENS• ANTONIA GRAPH= WILUAM O. OAHUNG, JR. MARY E. GILSTRAP 39700 808 HOPE DRIVE WILLIAM R. O.WOLFE• GREGORY K. WILKINSON MATT H. MORRIS GLENN P. SABINE BARTON C. GAUT• WYNNE S. FURTH JEFFREY V. OUNN CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON POST OFFICE BOX 1555 PAUL T. SELZER• DAVID L. BARON STEVEN C. DABAUN JOANE GARCIACOLSON RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 DALLAS HOLMES• CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER• GENE TANAKA BASIL T. CHAPMAN ERIC L. GARNER DENNIS M. COTA PHILIP J. KOEHLER DUNE C. WIESE TELEPHONE (619) 566 -2611 RICHARD T. ANDERSON' TIMOTHY M. CONNOR RACHELLE J. NICOLLE REBECCA MARES GURNEY TELECOPIER (619) 340-6698 JOHN O. WAHUN• VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HARGREAVES DOROTHY 1. ANDERSON MICHAEL D. HARRIS' DANIEL E. OL.MER JANICE L. WEIS G. HENRY WELLES W. CURT EALY• DANIEL J. MCHUGH PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK. HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH DINA O. HARRIS JOHN E. BROWN- STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON O. DABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL T. RIDDELL• MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A. SHOW RICHARD T. EGGER MEREDITH A. JURY• JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A. EASTER PATRICK 0. DOLAN OF COUNSEL MICHAEL GRANT• MARTIN A. MUELLER DIANE L. FINLEY DEAN R. DERLETH JAMES B. CORMON FRANCIS J. BAUM• J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. GREYER AN HE T. THOMAS* VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL 0. MARTIN NETHERY• JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH CHRISTOPHER DODSON JOHN O. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. FLOYD, JR. JACK B. CLARKE. JR, BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON ' GREGORY L. HAROKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E. HILL OFFICES IN KENDALL H. M"VEY BRADLEY E. NEUFELD KEVIN K. RANDOLPH RIVERSIDE (909) 6861430 CLARK H. ALSOP• DAVID J. ERWIN• SHARYL WALKER PETER M. BARMACK JAMES B. GILPIN MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH RAYMOND BEST (1866 -1937) JAMES H. KRIEGER (19131973) PALM SPRINGS (619)32 5-7264 MICHAEL J. ANDELSON• JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893-1981) ONTARIO (909) 989.8384 • A PRO Cssx ft CORPORATION August 19, 1993 't r I , �o Planning Commission = AUG 1 9 1993 City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. O. Box.1504 F: La Quinta, CA 92253 ... ...... -' Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes will be lost. 'On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which varied in size -from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- RWH40196 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRAR Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 2 existing 18 homes in the Quinterra subdivision were built using those plans. These are all quality homes which originally sold for between $200,000 and $250,000. At the time Quinterra homeowners purchased their homes, they were assured by Windsor that the quality of the neighborhood would be maintained throughout subsequent phases. The subdivision's CC &R's call for the establishment of an Architectural Control Committee that will review and approve all homes to be built in the subdivision (other than those built by the developer) to insure that standards within the neighborhood are maintained. Based on these representations, homeowners felt secure in investing a significant part of their life savings in their new homes. Forecast Homes now proposes to build significantly smaller homes (from 1,106 to 1,659 square feet) that will sell for half the price of the existing homes. We all know that the quality of a neighborhood significantly affects the value of each home within that neighborhood. Forecast undoubtedly foresees that the value of its smaller homes will increase due to their close proximity to the larger existing homes. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. The value of existing homes will be reduced if smaller homes are allowed to be built in the same tract. In essence, approval of the smaller homes will allow Forecast to transfer value from existing homes to the new, smaller homes. Forecast will then sell this transferred value at a profit, while existing homeowners will suffer a loss in the value of their investment. We are mindful that, in today's market, requiring Forecast to proceed with the project as originally planned may not provide Forecast with the fastest method of making a profit. But land -use planning is not about maximizing short -term profits for developers. It is about achieving coherent and consistent development of property that will preserve and enhance property values for all concerned - -the developer, the surrounding property owners and the City. Forecast's request comes before this Commission for design review as a plot plan. One of the goals of design review is to "foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of the City and its harmonious development ." (La Quinta Municipal Code S 9.183.020(A).) Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to be RWH40196 LAW OFFICES Of 9 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 3 • compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property." (La Quinta Municipal Code $ 9.180.040(8).) Forecast's proposed plans do not comply with those requirements. Degregation of the neighborhood through the construction of lower - value housing is not compatible with current development nor does it preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods. For that reason alone, Forecast's request should be denied. As the principal planning agency for the City of La Quinta, this Commission is encharged with implementing a long -range perspective for the development of the City. The Quinterra neighborhood will exist for years to come. By investing a substantial part of their life savings in quality Quinterra homes, existing homeowners have made a long -term investment in, and commitment to, the quality of their neighborhood and the City of La Quinta as well. This Commission should not allow that investment and commitment to be undermined by short -term market forces and Forecast's desire for a quick profit. It is our understanding that there are other subdivisions within La Quinta that face a similar dilemma. Initial phases of those subdivisions were built with larger, quality homes. Now, due to the depressed housing market, developers desire to build smaller, inferior homes within those developments. In an effort to move product, developers are sacrificing the quality of their projects. We believe that fairness and good planning demand that the City of La Quinta carefully examine the situation and craft a comprehensive, City -wide response. We suggest that a "neighborhood preservation ordinance" be implemented. The ordinance would use zoning controls to balance the need to maintain existing neighborhood values with the desire of developers to respond to market conditions. Similar ordinances have been enacted in other cities to preserve existing neighborhoods from uncontrolled development that threatened to destroy the character of those neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would give La Quinta city planners, this Commission and the City Council increased ability to respond in a reasonable way to the needs of all segments of the community and to allow for the development in a manner that is fair to all. Until this City has had an opportunity to fully assess and respond to the threats to existing neighborhoods posed by subsequent, inferior development, we respectfully request that Forecast be required to continue to develop the Quinterra subdivision as previously planned by Windsor and approved by the RWH40196 LAW OFFICES Or BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGE`� Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 4 City. A hasty decision to allow lesser - quality development in this neighborhood will unfairly detract from the substantial investments made in good faith by Quinterra homeowners and from the reputation of the City of La-Quinta as a secure place for quality investment. Very truly yours, 1 DOUG S S. PHILLIPS of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER- DSP:RWH:js cc: Dawn Honeywell,'City Attorney City of La Quinta Client ;-Q: I 0 i j Q ,l�Y STARUQHT DUNEW ....................... CITY LIMITS GALAXY SKYWARD WY LA QUINTA PALM ROYALE HIMYLANDS� QQ `` ' IMMEDIATE IYANNB�✓ �/ — VIA CALIENTE S °LA QUTAMA DEL ORO EIR 111c_�m BERMUDA )COTILLO A—ica 2 CIR° Cl ca w IO OR N = HNTf�RA � A DR v v Q •� ACACIA •` sec, o 1 Q DESERT CREST OR DESERT T DESERT RO t \ OQe DESERT GOLD DR $ Q� DESERT STREAM ORS D © E TO a n o , \ PAR R P FUTURE LA QUINTA LA QUINTA rvy rGH SCHOOL 0 / a _ t�� o O V / %� / GIN ti k.l,l 11 kv l DR CA EO DUNES PL !// 1 ��. 1 /A.). FLOWER PL SAI PA O GARDEN PL q_'CR 1VI TERR GO EN SANDS PL LAKE _ a 04- VE 9I. LA QUINTA 1S SOUOQ I VIAORVIETO PLC DEL 2 WARAVENNA 19 •3 VIA KORON �lAOUINT S 1 VIA OPERA � r•`� '. c� 5 VIA ZURICH 6 VIA GRAZIANNA DUNES I CUPLN ' I WILLOW CIR ! 2 FOXTAIL C CACTUS ' FLOWER FLOWERTRL NKNM aPR/NQs G.G VIA TRANOUILLO • i •'� C,�' CALLESERENA WESTWARD HO G�Z III O' ,RAILER �P�� PARK 1 ky "CITY LIMITS :• E' •x ..t f 11 ri i„•�� 1y 1 �,i • •�•� 1 T CAMINO ROSADA 2 CAMINO DEL ORO 3 CANTERRA CIR 4 N SUNSET RIDGE DR 5 S SUNSET RIDGE DR ORION WY 5 6 S ORION CT 6 S SUNRISE RIDGE OR RANCHO L LA HORIZON P 2 CIR° Cl ca w IO OR N = HNTf�RA � A DR v v Q •� ACACIA •` sec, o 1 Q DESERT CREST OR DESERT T DESERT RO t \ OQe DESERT GOLD DR $ Q� DESERT STREAM ORS D © E TO a n o , \ PAR R P FUTURE LA QUINTA LA QUINTA rvy rGH SCHOOL 0 / a _ t�� o O V / %� / GIN ti k.l,l 11 kv l DR CA EO DUNES PL !// 1 ��. 1 /A.). FLOWER PL SAI PA O GARDEN PL q_'CR 1VI TERR GO EN SANDS PL LAKE _ a 04- VE 9I. LA QUINTA 1S SOUOQ I VIAORVIETO PLC DEL 2 WARAVENNA 19 •3 VIA KORON �lAOUINT S 1 VIA OPERA � r•`� '. c� 5 VIA ZURICH 6 VIA GRAZIANNA DUNES I CUPLN ' I WILLOW CIR ! 2 FOXTAIL C CACTUS ' FLOWER FLOWERTRL NKNM aPR/NQs G.G VIA TRANOUILLO • i •'� C,�' CALLESERENA WESTWARD HO G�Z III O' ,RAILER �P�� PARK 1 ky "CITY LIMITS :• E' •x ..t f 11 ri i„•�� 1y 1 �,i • •�•� 1 DUNES I CUPLN ' I WILLOW CIR ! 2 FOXTAIL C CACTUS ' FLOWER FLOWERTRL NKNM aPR/NQs G.G VIA TRANOUILLO • i •'� C,�' CALLESERENA WESTWARD HO G�Z III O' ,RAILER �P�� PARK 1 ky "CITY LIMITS :• E' •x ..t f 11 ri i„•�� 1y 1 �,i • •�•� 1 :• E' •x ..t f 11 ri i„•�� 1y 1 �,i • •�•� 1 • EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (FORECAST) August 24, 1993 • 1. The front yard of all lots, and in addition, the street side yard of corner lots, shall be landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement, whichever is furthest from the residence. 2. The landscaping for each lot shall include trees (minimum two 15- gallon trees on interior lots and five 15- gallon trees on corner lots) , minimum five gallon shrubs, and groundcover and /or hardscape of sufficient size, spacing and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the Manual on Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission. 3. A permanent water - efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas required to be landscaped. The provisions of Ordinance #220 shall be met. The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the City, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission. 4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition by the property owner. 5. The standards of the R -1 Zoning shall be met (e.g. setbacks, etc.) . 6. If the model homes are converted to sales offices (e.g. converted garages, etc.) as part of the marketing program for the tract, the Applicant shall file with staff a floor plan or letter of intent detailing the work to be done. A cash bond or another type of security should be posted to ensure that the homes) is reconverted prior to its sale and /or occupancy. 7. A Plot Plan of the tract showing setbacks shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for approval. The units shall be plotted so that the largest units are adjacent to the existing homes. House'plans 4, 5, and 6 shall be used on Lots 6, 7, 74 thru 80, 102 thru 104, 114, and 115. Lots 99 and 101 shall have a Plan 6 house and Lots 100 and 116 shall have a Plan 5 house. Three car garages should be encouraged on Lots 99, 100, and 101. A Plan 5 or 6 house (with 3 car garage) shall be built on Lot 2. 8. If a temporary Real Estate tract office is located within the subdivision the maximum installation period should not exceed the sale of the units and /or two years. A plot plan application is required. 9. The concrete roof tile in Phase 2 shall be similar to Phase I. The Applicant's gray roof tile shall only be used on lots north of the lots identified in Condition V. CONAPRVL. 005 10. The Applicant's model complex shall be built north of the existing homes (e. g. Ocotillo Drive & Adams Street) to reduce vehicle traffic to and from the sales area. 11. No building permits shall be issued for Phase 2 until the developer has paid the City's Parkland fee or dedicated land to the City to fulfill this outstanding tract map obligation. 12. The .River Rock veneer shall not be used on any new homes within the immediate vicinity of the existing (Phase 1) homes, but the Applicant will have the option to submit other exterior veneer materials to staff for review and consideration provided the veneer material is compatible with Phase 1. 13. The perimeter tract fencing shall be finished to match Phase 1. The individual -lot fencing, if build, shall meet the R -1 Standards. 14. A minimum four -inch stucco popout shall be used around all exterior sliding glass doors and windows to ensure architectural compatibility to the Phase 1 units and to provide minimum shading from the exposure to . the sun. The minimum roof eave shall be 18- inches or the windows should be recessed into the building facade. CONAPRVL.005 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: 4 7 C-ITY'OFLA. Q.UINTA MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AUGUST 24, 1993 PETITION SUMMARY (FORECAST HOMES) - PLOT PLAN 93 -505 PROJECT LOCATION LETTERS RECEIVED Quinterra (Phase I)* 15 (18) Rancho Ocotillo* 19 (52) Cactus Flower North South* 43 (134) (15) Topaz* 9(45), TOTAL 86 () = Existing homes within the tract. * = Tract with remaining undeveloped single family lots. MEMOGT.049 J l Ya 2(tionla lei ly / PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California August 24, 1993 7 :00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution 93-031 Beginning Minute Motion 93 -039 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL .1 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item .............. Applicant ......... Location .......... Request ........... Action ............ 2. Item ............ Applicant ......... Location .......... Request ........... Action ............ PC/AGENDA TENTATIVE TRACT 25953, EXTENSION #2 Mr. & Mrs. Harold Hirsch Northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road Approval of a one year extension of time. Resolution 93- TENTATIVE TRACT 27840 TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) East side of Washington Street south of 48th Avenue within `Rancho La Quinta" (formerly 'The Orchard" and "The Pyramids'). Approval of a tentative tract map to create 126 single family residential lots and miscellaneous lots on 55+ acres. Request to continue to September 14, 1993 1 PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name. and address. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ............. Applicant ......... Location .......... Request ........... Action ............ 2. Item ............. Applicant ......... Location .......... Request ........... Action ............ 3. Item ............. Applicant ......... Location .......... Request ........... Action ............ 4. Item .............. Applicant ......... Location .......... Request ........... Action ............ CONSENT CALENDAR SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 (RANCHO LA QUINTA) TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) East side of Washington Street south of 48th Avenue. Approval of preliminary landscaping plans for Washington Street frontage. Minute Motion 93- SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 (RANCHO LA QUINTA) TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) East side of Washington Street south of 48th Avenue. Approval of architectural elevations for residential units. Minute Motion 93- TENTATIVE TRACT 23913 (QUINTERRA) - PHASE II Forecast Homes North side of Miles Avenue, east of Adams Street. Approval of architectural plans for single family residences. Minute Motion 93- SIGN APPLICATION 93 -215 Roger Snellenberger Northwest corner of Washington Street and Eisenhower Drive Sign adjustment to allow permanent monument sign on Washington Street, north of Eisenhower Drive. Minute Motion 93- 1 pp3oval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held July 27, ADJOURNMENT 1. All Agenda items. PC /AGENDA . STUDY SESSION MONDAY, August 23, 1993 4:00 P.M. 2 tl August. 4, 1993 REPO R INFORMATION ITEMS: b FUMILTITH 5P DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California I. CALL TO ORDER II. 5:30 P.M. A. Chairman Curtis brought the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer led the flag salute. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers Paul Anderson, David Harbison, Randall Wright, James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative 'Ellson, and Chairman Curtis.. Boardmembers Harbison /Anderson moved to excuse Boardmember Rice. Unanimously ,approved. B. Staff present: Planning Director 'Jerry Herman, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Leslie Mouriquand - Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. BUSINESS SESSION i A. Public Use Permit 93 -016; a request of Bernardo Gouthier for approval of architectural plans for the La Quinta Sculpture Park, located at 57 -325 Madison Street, north of 58th Avenue. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand -Cherry presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Campbell asked if the Board" was approving the entire project or just Phase I. 'Staff clarified the entire project was for their review and approval. 3. Mr. Bernardo Gouthier spoke briefly on his project. Commissioner Wright asked what'the exterior texture would be and if the railings would be constructed during the first phase. " Mr. Gouthier stated they" had DRB8 -4 1 C Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 0 eliminated the aluminum and the railings would not be built in the first phase. Mr. Stan Pollakusky, architect for the project, explained what the first phase would consist of. 4. Boardmember Harbison clarified that the portion that was originally brushed aluminum was now to be stucco. Boardmembers questioned why the change. Mr. Gouthier stated he felt staff and the Boardmembers were concerned that the aluminum was causing some concern. Mr. Pollakusky stated the stucco allowed them to soundproof the building as well as give them some versatility in color. 5. Boardmember Anderson asked if stucco was to be used would the diagonal braces and standing ribs go away. Mr. Pollakusky stated they would remain as they are part of the structure. Boardmember Anderson stated he would like to see the metal used. He felt the stucco would detract and weaken the concept of the building. Mr. Gouthier stated they would prefer to use the metal. It was suggested that micro zinc be used. 6. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern how the applicant could construct the building with some of the two story elements being built after the first story. He asked if the building would be built in phases. Mr. Gouthier stated he hoped to build Phase two in approximately nine months. Boardmember Anderson was concerned that the first phase was only going to be box with no detail and lack any design character. Mr. Gouthier stated they hoped to be open in October in order to have the school in operation. Discussion followed regarding the transition of building the first phase to the second phase. 7. Chairman Curtis asked if there were any objections to the staff conditions. Mr. Gouthier pointed out that he was having a problem receiving his mail. He lives in La Quinta but his mail is delivered by the Thermal post office. Staff clarified that they have been trying to solve this problem and it is in the process. 8. Commissioner Ellson asked if the applicant could incorporate the columns into the first phase. Mr. Pollakusky stated that he could articulate the building to make it interesting until the second phase is constructed. 9. Boardmember Anderson stated this was a problem for the Board as they were not looking at what they were asked to approve. The Board needed to see the proposed building to be built. DRB8 -4 2 0 0 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 10. Boardmember Campbell asked if the applicant would have any problem with a condition that required the entire building to be built within nine months after completion of Phase I. Mr. Gouthier stated this could be a hardship on him and he would prefer that the condition read completion before December, .1994. Mr. Gouthier stated he did not want to over extend himself. 11. Boardmember Campbell stated that there was a portion of the building that was not seen on the drawings. Mr. Pollakusky stated he could submit drawings showing the different elevations. 12. Chairman Curtis stated he would prefer to see drawings of the Phase I building. Mr. Pollakusky stated he would have no problem submitting a design for the Board review. 13. Boardmember Anderson asked what landscaping was proposed for the building. Mr. Gouthier stated the landscaping was already there. Boardmember Harbison stated the adjoining property owners should be screened from view. He suggested that trees be planted along the perimeter. Mr. Gouthier stated he had already started planting Eucalyptus trees. Chairman Curtis stated the applicant would need to submit a landscaping plan before he could receive a building permit therefore, it would be to his advantage to submit the plans as soon as possible in order to meet his October deadline. 14. Boardmember Wright stated he saw no reason why the first phase building could not stand alone. Mr. Gouthier stated he felt there was some confusion as to what was to be built in Phase I. He went on to explain that the caretakers facility would be constructed in Phase I. Members discussed what would be built in Phase I. 15. Based on the lack of information and drawings, Boardmember Anderson moved to recommend the Planning .Commission refer this project back to the Design Review Board in order to review the Phase I building only. Boardmember Wright seconded the motion and discussion followed regarding the portion to be constructed in Phase I. Staff clarified the hearing process before the Planning Commission and Design Review Board for the Board. It was determined the matter could go to the Planning Commission as a, business item.only for a referral back to the Design Review Board, but a public hearing for the Planning Commission to act on the project could not be held until September 14, 1993. DRB8 -4 3 • Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 • 16. Boardmember Campbell stated he had strong objections to react to plans without seeing all four sides. 17. After further discussion on the review process, Boardmembers Anderson /Wright withdrew the motion and moved to approve Public Use Permit 93 -016 with a recommendation that separate drawings be completed for Phase I and Phase II and if the Planning Commission so desire to refer the project back to the Design Review Board, subject to the Conditions of Approval with the addition of a non - reflective alternative metal be submitted. The motion passed unanimously. B. Plot Plan 93 -502 and Change of Zone 91 -066; a request of Jascorp for approval to develop a 124 unit one and two story apartment complex on the west side of Washington Street south of the La Quinta Storm Channel /Washington Street bridge and 700 feet north of Calle Tampico, along with a change of zone from R -1, 'R -2, and C -P to R -2. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Anderson asked if the material board was acceptable to staff. Staff stated they were. 3. Mr. Joe DeCoster, applicant, gave a lengthy detailed description of the project. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant had any objection to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. DeCoster stated no except they would be applying to for a variance to the parking requirement. 4. Boardmember Wright asked for clarification on the variance. Mr. DeCoster stated they would be asking for approval to allow a third parking space to be the tandem parking of behind the garage door. Discussion followed regarding the parking space. 5. Commissioner Ellson asked what the market would be, apartments or condominiums. The applicant stated they would be selling condominiums but they have not filed a subdivision map with staff. 6. Boardmember Wright.asked if they would be low income. Mr. DeCoster stated they would be affordable units (i.e., low and moderate income units). DRB8 -4 4 0 1 • Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 7. Commissioner Ellson asked what would happen to the project if Ralph's shopping center did not go in. Mr. DeCoster stated it would stand alone. Commissioner Ellson asked what fences would be built between the units and would the perimeter fence be a block wall. She stated she preferred an open landscaped area that would give a more open feeling for the green belt areas. Mr. DeCoster stated the market they were targeting was the low income group which normally have children and the fencing would give them privacy. Discussion followed regarding alternate locations for block wall fencing, wrought iron fencing, and wood fencing. 8. Boardmember Wright asked if there would be a problem if Ralph's was not built with a second access for the project and especially a fire truck entry. Staff clarified that the land is owned by the same individual and therefore an easement for the access will be provided. Boardmember Wright asked if the second entrance would be a crash gate. Staff stated it would be. 9. Boardmember Wright asked whether the garage door would be wood or a metal (roll -up vs. swing). He was concerned there would not be enough clearance to open the door if a car was parked behind the garage. Mr. - DeCoster stated he preferred the metal roll -up because they were attractive but the expense was a problem. He further stated there was enough distance to park the car and open the door and not have the car in the street. Discussion followed regarding the garage door type and material. 10. Boardmember Wright asked the applicant to show the Board where the two story units would be placed. He felt the units adjacent to the recreation building should be single story so not to create a canyon effect. Discussion followed regarding the location of the two story units. 11. Chairman Curtis asked for clarification that the perimeter wall would be a block wall and would he have any objection to making it comparable to the wall on the east side of Washington Street. Mr. DeCoster stated it would be a block wall but he felt the 20 -feet of landscaping would be more attractive than duplicating the east wall (i.e., the cap). Following discussion, the Board determined the 20 -feet of landscaping was preferable to the tile treatment. Further clarification was made that the block wall would be stuccoed on Washington Street and painted block walls would be used for the perimeter areas. 12. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked how much stacking there would be at the entrance. She felt two or three car stacking was needed and there DRB8 -4 5 • Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 • did not appear to be enough room. Following discussion regarding different alternatives, Chairman Curtis suggested that the entrance be widened and stripped to allow two lanes in and one lane out (e.g., 36 -feet wide). 13. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern for the wood fencing between the -units and strongly suggested that block walls be used and possibly relocated to the rear portion of each unit. He felt that anything less than this would detract from the overall look of the project. Mr. DeCoster stated this would be a budget determination by the owners and those that have been constructed in other projects have been attractive. 14. Mr. DeCoster asked for clarification of Condition #6 in that the 20 -feet of landscaping is included in the 30 -foot setback. Staff stated it was included. 15. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Anderson /Harbison to recommend approval as submitted subject to staff conditions, and as amended as follows: a. The applicant would submit to the Planning Commission elevations for the half two story half one story unit for their approval. b. Condition #4: The block wall on Washington Street shall be stucco and compatible with the east wall (without the green tile. C. Condition #10: The perimeter wall with the exception of Washington Street shall be painted block wall to match the stucco color on Washington Street. d. The driveway should be 36 -feet wide on Washington Street with two lanes in and one lane out. VOTE: AYES: Boardmembers Anderson, Harbison, Wright, Campbell, Chairman Curtis. NOES: Planning Commissioner Ellson. ABSENT: Boardmember Rice. ABSTAINING: None. C. Plot Plan 93 -505; a request of Forecast Homes for approval of architectural plans for single family residences, located on the north side of Miles Avenue, east of Adams Street. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. DRBB -4 6 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 2. There being no questions of staff, Mr. Bruce Strickland, Vice President Forecast Homes gave a presentation of the project. 3. Commissioner Ellson asked what the price range would be. Mr. Strickland stated they had not been finalized but planned on a range of $102,900 to $128,000. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked what the name of the project would be. Mr. Strickland stated it would be called "New Beginnings" as most of their buyers were first time buyers. 4. Boardmember Wright expressed his concern that the existing property owners would have their property values affected. He felt the new homes should be graduated in and make a slow transition to the smaller homes. Mr. Strickland stated he was required by law to offer 10% of the smallest plan (Plan #2) as this was.their entry level product. Discussion followed as to which lots should have the larger homes. 5. Boardmember Anderson asked if the existing property owners would be notified of the changes. Staff stated they -would be notified of the August 24th Planning Commission meeting but it is not a requirement. 6. Boardmember Anderson stated the river rock veneer was not appropriate for La Quinta. Mr. Strickland stated he would use the veneer on the northern portion of the project. Boardmember Anderson asked if there was a stone veneer that is "culture" with a warmer shade than the cold slate grey shown on the sample board. The applicant stated he would look for something more earthy in the warmer colors for the homes adjacent to Phase I. 7. Boardmember Wright questioned the 18" overhang and dual glazing on the windows. Boardmember Anderson also stressed the importance of the building overhangs. Mr. Strickland stated there was dual glazing and he would, have a small overhang. •8. Boardmember Campbell stated the river rock veneer was not a desert product. He would prefer a different material such as slumpstone, tile, etc.' Mr. Strickland stated he would talk to his marketing people but he would not use the tile as their company does not, use this type of material on their homes. 9. Chairman Curtis asked how many of the smaller units would be built and what was the square footage of the units. Mr. Strickland stated he was required to have 10% of the units in his smaller home design if it was DRB8 -4 7 IF] Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 • offered, as required by law. Plan #2 was 1100 square feet and Plan #3 was 1237 square feet. 10. Commissioner Ellson stated she would like the units to be a minimum of 1,200 square feet. Mr. Strickland discussed the different type of units they build and the reason for the 1,106 square foot house size. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant would object to the Board placing a minimum number of these units in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Strickland stated he would prefer to have the flexibility to sell what the market is asking for. Discussion followed as to what other developments were offering regarding unit sizes. It was stated that La Quinta Del Rey offers a similar type home size to their request. 11. Commissioner Ellson questioned the use of the half round windows on the right side and rear elevation regarding the amount of heat they allow in. The applicant stated they were designed to add light to the dining rooms. 12. Boardmember Campbell asked about the multi -pane windows. Mr. Strickland stated they were metal inserts painted white. 13. There being no further discussion, Boardmembers Harbison /Campbell moved to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93 -505 subject to the conditions with the following conditions being added: a. The deletion of Condition #8. b. Lot 2 would be either a Plan 5 or 6; lot 96 would be a Plan 6; Lot 100 would be a Plan 5; lot 101 would be a Plan 6; and lot 116 would be a Plan 5. C. The yellow area which contains lots 6, 7, 74 -80, 102 -104, 114, and 115 would only contain Plans 4, 5, or 6 to allow a transition from the existing tract (Phase I). C. No dark colors will be allowed on lots 2, 6, 7, 74 -80, 99 -104, or 114 -116. d. An alternate desert tone to be offered in -lieu of the river rock. e. The elimination of Condition #10. Unanimously approved. D. Specific Plan 84 -004; a request of TD Desert Development for review of architectural elevations for residential units located on the east side of Washington street south of 48th Avenue within "The Orchard" project. DRB8 -4 8 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 1. 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. He presented revised units with sizes slightly different from the submitted plans.. 2. Mr. Chuck Strother gave a presentation of the units proposed. Chairman Curtis asked how the units would be mixed. Mr. Strother stated the styles would be grouped together with the mix of the different sizes. 3. Boardmember Wright asked what the price range would be. Mr. Strother stated the largest unit would. sell for $399,000, the tennis units $160- 175,000, and the 1800 square foot model $219,000. 4. Boardmember Campbell stated his concern about the applicant using simulated materials instead of the authentic materials. Mr. Strother stated that the authentic materials made the project exceed their intended costs and the decision was made to reduce material costs and spend the money on the public building.. 5. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant had any concern regarding the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Strother stated he did not. 6. Boardmembers Anderson and Planning Commissioner Ellson moved and seconded a motion to recommend approval of the revised plans for Specific Plan 84 -004, subject to the conditions. Unanimously approved. E. Specific Plan 84 -004; a request of TD Desert Development for review of preliminary landscaping plans for the Washington Street frontage south of 48th Avenue within "The Orchard" project. 1. 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. Boardmember Anderson asked if the citrus would be used similar to his other project where they are individually irrigated. Mr. Strother stated he would be utilizing the citrus from the south side of his property and would be planted the same way. Boardmember Harbison asked if they were mature trees. Mr. Strother stated they were. Commissioner Ellson asked if the fruit would be harvested. Mr. Strother stated he would not. They would be available for the homeowners. DRB8 -4 9 • • Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993. 3. Boardmember Wright asked when the project would start. Mr. Strother stated they were in the process now. Bids were out and they hopes to have the main street paved and landscaped by Thanksgiving. 4. Boardmember Harbison asked what the length would be for the lawn strip at the corner for the street curb. Mr. Strother stated it would be approximately 25 -30 feet coordinating with meandering sidewalk. They proposed to be 8 -12 foot meander but they will work this in conjunction with the trees as well as the Imperial Irrigation District transformer box locations. 5. Boardmember Harbison stated he felt the use of the Aptenia ground cover would not survive the summer well as there was to much sun exposure. The applicant stated he would look into an alternate and asked for any suggestions the Board would recommend. Boardmember Harbison asked if lawn would be planted around the citrus and what type of irrigation would be used. He stressed that water was not to be thrown onto the trees and large headers around each of the trunks and individually irrigation the trees and irrigate the grass separately. Mr. Strother stated they were aware of the problem and plans will be made to cover the irrigation problems. 6. Commissioner Ellson questioned Condition #1 regarding the landscaping to work with Parc La Quinta. Mr. Strother stated his landscape architect would be working to make the two sides compatible. 7. Boardmember Harbison noticed Condition #2 Oleanders are to be used and it should be stated they be dwarf Oleanders. Discussion followed as to where to use each type of the Oleanders. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Campbell/ Anderson to recommend approval of the preliminary landscaping plans for the Washington Street frontage for Specific Plan 84 -004, subject to conditions with the amendment to Condition #2 that the meandering sidewalk be approved by staff. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 2, 1993. Commissioner Ellson asked that.the Planning Commission Representative be corrected to read Commissioner Adolph. Boardmember Campbell asked that the word "weld" on DRB8 -4 10 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 • page 10, last paragraph be deleted. There being no further corrections, Boardmembers Campbell /Harbison moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 23, 1993. Boardmember Campbell asked that Page 2,. third line the word "only" be added to read ".:.like it was only designed to hid... ". Boardmembers Harbison /Anderson moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 7, 1993. There being no additions or corrections, Boardmembers Campbell /Anderson moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. OTHER - A. Chairman Curtis asked if staff had received information from all the Boardmembers regarding the rewriting of Board Guidelines. Staff stated almost everyone had submitted material. Boardmember Harbison stated he was working on landscaping guidelines but had not submitted. them as of yet. Following discussion, members asked staff to agendize.the guidelines so if there was time they could continue to work on the guidelines. B. Boardmember Campbell expressed his disappointment with the Planning Commission disregarding the entire Board's recommendation, to see a guardhouse of better quality. In addition, he expressed his concern for so much advertising banners for the Baskin Robbins ice cream parlor. Staff stated they had received Council approval for the signs for a "Grand Opening ". Otherwise they were allowed 10% of the window. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Campbell /Harbison to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on September 1, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 9:38 P.M., August 4, 1993. DRB8 -4 11 • DATE: PROJECT: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT AUGUST 4, 1993 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23913 (QUINTERRA) - PHASE 2; APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS' FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (MODEL HOMES) FORECAST HOMES TODD SCHERMERHORN, PROJECT MANAGER NORTH SIDE OF MILES AVENUE, EAST OF ADAMS STREET The tract is a 116 lot subdivision approved by the City in 1988. The subdivision was recorded in 1990. The original Applicant, Waldon Financial, had anticipated building single family homes ranging in size for 1,670 to 2,570 square feet. In 1990, Windsor Construction Company purchased the project. The existing 18 homes within Phase 1 were developed by Windsor Construction Company in 1990 & 1991. The homes built by Windsor Construction Company were one and two story units. Three floor plans were used varying in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet excluding garages. A Mediterranean architectural style was used and the exterior materials consist of stucco, wood trim, tile accents, and multi - colored roof tile. Colors are earth tones with Southwest accent colors, and a brown /beige roof tile. Three elevations were available for each plan. The homes sold for +$200,000. The Planning Commission approved the house plans on December 11, 1990. NEW PROPOSAL: The Applicant is in the process of purchasing the remaining lots within Phase 2 to develop single or two story homes on the existing +8,000 square foot lots. The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 23913 require that the Applicant submit to Design Review Board and Planning Commission architectural plans of any type of unit design to be built within the tract. Based on this requirement, the Applicant has submitted their model plans which includes three sizes of homes from 1,106 square feet to i,659 'square feet (3 & 4 bddroom units) . Each unit has an attached two car garage. Plans 2 thru 6 include three elevation types per size of home. Plan 6 is the only two story plan. The applicant is not sure where their model complex will be built at this time. They expect it to be on Ocotillo Drive and Adams Street. • • The architectural style is consistent with the mediterranean theme used in Phase 1. The front facades vary from stucco, to brick and /or stone veneer. The masonite lapsiding (i.e., Elevation "C") will not be used in this project because it cannot withstand the harsh desert climate. The units include covered entry patios, varied roof designs and embellishments, and other architectural characteristics. The homes are 17+ to 24+ feet in overall height. The exterior building colors will be similar to Phase 1. The colorboard will be available at the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed units are smaller in size than those built in Phase 1. The Applicant has stated that their market research has shown that smaller, more affordable units are selling whereas the larger homes are not as marketable in today's economic climate. The R -1 Zoning Code does not define the size of home which can be built similar to the SR Zoned areas which prescribe minimum 1,200 square foot homes. However, there is a section in the general guidelines which requires all homes in the City to be greater than 750 square feet. Staff has also researched both the tract Conditions and CC &R provisions to make sure the proposed homes can be built, as proposed. The Applicant's proposal meets these minimum standards, but to ensure that the original owners retain their property values, staff would like to require the applicant to meet a minimum house size requirement of 1,200 square feet. The front elevations are attractive and well proportioned. However, the eave overhangs are generally minimal except for the entry door locations. The side and rear elevations are plain and should have some additional architectural treatment similar to the front elevations (e.g. stucco pop -outs around the windows). The proposed architectural features will complement the overall building design and supplement the State's Title 24. Energy Efficiency requirements. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: The front yard of all lots, and in addition, the street side yard of corner lots, shall be landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or'edge of street pavement, whichever is furthest from the residence. 2. The landscaping for each lot shall include trees (minimum two 15- gallon trees on interior lots and five 15- gallon trees on corner lots) , minimum five gallon shrubs, and groundcover and /or hardscape of sufficient size, spacing and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the Manual on Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission. 3. A permanent water - efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas required to be landscaped. The provisions of Ordinance #220 shall be met. The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the City, the Coachella. Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission. 4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition by the property.owner. 5. The standards of the R -1 Zoning shall be met (e.g. setbacks, etc.) . DRB . 007 2 0 . 0 6. A minimum four -inch stucco pop -out shall be used around all exterior sliding glass doors and windows to ensure architectural compatibility to the Phase 1 units and to provide minimum shading from the exposure to the sun.. The minimum roof eave should be 18- inches or the windows should be recessed into the building facade. 7. If the model homes are 'converted to sales offices (e.g. converted garages, etc.) as part of the marketing program for the tract, the Applicant shall file with staff a floor plan or letter of intent detailing the work to be done. .A cash bond or another type of security should be posted to ensure that the home (s) is reconverted prior to its sale and /or occupancy. 8. A Plot Plan of the tract showing setbacks shall be submitted to the Planning & Development Department for approval. Units shall be plotted so that the largest units are adjacent to the existing Quinterra homes. The minimum home size for the tract should be 1,200 square feet. 9. If a temporary Real Estate tract office-is located within the subdivision the maximum installation period should not exceed the sale of the units and /or two years. A plot plan application is required. 10. The existing concrete roof tile in Phase 1 should be used in the development of Phase II (i.e. Pioneer Custom Hacienda, Class "All). RECOMMENDATION: Review plans in conjunction with Staff comments and determine acceptability. The Design Review Board .recommendation will then be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan of Tract 3. Architectural plans 1' 11 3 r� Z'r.. �, k .;e �I;Aw�• Vii.. <" i � i. i f x,. �', �' ", .. Air, • . tto O 4GEM OF THE DESERT GENERAL PLAN MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES 4 LANES ® 3 LANES 2 LANES INTERSECTION CONTROL QSIGNALIZED © STOP SIGN (4 WAY) ® FUTURE STOP SKIN LA OUINT'A 9 1 1 r TiIAC O11 25290 J I TRACT NO. 199(- M-5 2Z6/1P-5e M.S. 149/03-•00-, 4-- w i uwexnrao S 2i i —TYPOk FMW Tao woeurE TIiA►Qrt o� LM cart Previous Model Complex (Windsor) Ex._Parking Lot PROJECT SITE PLAN EX HIBIT 40 0 �� 46 (ar s- u. ♦ rr -u/ Y •tr ��4 i .-��' Ip•rA•Jf�l �— LU TS 6: 61 e0 `�'. Uj ,— OCOTILLO DRIVE I 72 71 I 74 • �P 7j 74. 77 PHASE i?d eq �; a try 9 1 1 r TiIAC O11 25290 J I TRACT NO. 199(- M-5 2Z6/1P-5e M.S. 149/03-•00-, 4-- w i uwexnrao S 2i i —TYPOk FMW Tao woeurE TIiA►Qrt o� LM cart Previous Model Complex (Windsor) Ex._Parking Lot PROJECT SITE PLAN EX HIBIT 40 0 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: First American Title Insurance Company 8 u� ! 1 cc g-1 r- WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: S b r-4 11 Q: MILES AND ADAMS ASSOCIATES � W 293 77 Rancho California Road, #200 > < N Teme W< cula, CA 92591 M F" R s Attn: Matthew . Pollack V RE: Quinterra Q U. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, executed this / day of �5 7 -410 '� , 1991, by MILES AND ADAMS ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnership, herein referred to as "Declarant," W I T N E S S E T H T AT: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the property in the City of La Quinta, County. of Riverside, State of California, described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto -1 and made a part hereof which property is herein referred to as "the Property;" and WHEREAS, Declarant is about to sell and convey all or portions of the Property and Declarant desires and intends to hereby subject the Property to mutual, beneficial restrictions under a general plan or scheme of improvement for the benefit of the Property and of the future owners thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of the .Property is and shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered, leased, rented, used, occupied and improved subject to the limitation's, restrictions, conditions and covenants herein set forth, all of which are declared and agreed to be in furtherance of a plan for the subdivision improvement and sale of the Property and are established and agreed upon for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the value, desirability and attractiveness of the Property and every part thereof.. All of the limitations, restrictions, conditions and covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding on all persons having or acquiring any right, title, interest or estate in the Property or any part thereof. ARTICLE 1 Definitions 1.1 Each of the following words and phrases shall, in this instrument, have the respective meaning shown below, unless a contrary meaning shall, by the context, be evident: 1.1.1 "Declaration" shall mean this instrument as the same may be amended pursuant to the Article hereof titled "Amendment ". i s MAR 26 1992 1 3� I` 321923 1.1.2 "Lots" shall mean all of the Lots which are shown on a final map of the Property recorded pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act and which, pursuant to the ordinances of the County of Riverside, may be used for residential purposes; "Lot" . shall mean any one of the Lots. 1.1.3 "Streets" shall mean all streets, whether public or private, now or hereafter lying within the Property. 1.1.4 "Owner" shall mean the person(s) who hold(s) record title to any Lot. Prior to the conveyance of a Lot(s) by Declarant, Declarant shall be, as to such Lot(s), the Owner. 2.1 remain upon any any attached or appurtenances. ARTICLE 2 Use No. building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to Lot other than one, detached single - family dwelling, together with detached private garage(s), carport(s) and /or other customary 2.2 . No building, fence, wall, hedge or other improvement shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain upon any Lot in such location or of such height as to unreasonably obstruct the view from any other residential structure in the vicinity thereof. Each Owner of a Lot shall be responsible for the periodic trimming and pruning of all hedges, shrubs, and trees located on his or her Lot so as not to unreasonably obstruct the view from any adjacent residential structures.. Each Owner, by accepting a deed to a Lot, hereby acknowledges that the view or line of sight from lots at the time such Lots were originally offered for sale to the public by Declarant may be subject to subsequent obstruction as a result of future construction or plantings of improvements by Declarant. 2.3 No radio or television dish or other antenna, or radio transmitter tower or facility, shall be erected on any Lot unless the same is wholly within a residence dwelling. 2.4 Within one hundred eighty (180) days after an Owner acquires record title to a Lot, the same shall, unless previously improved with lawns and other landscaping, be so improved. "Owner" as used in this Section 2.4, does not mean (i) Declarant or (ii) any merchant builder who acquires a vacant Lot(s) for the purposes of constructing on each such Lot a single - family dwelling and selling the same in a retail sale transaction to a homeowner. 2.5 No nuisance shall be permitted to exist or operate upon any Lot so as to be offensive or detrimental to any other Lot or to the owner thereof; and, without limiting the generality of any of the foregoing provisions, no external speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices, except devices ,used exclusively for security purposes, shall be located, used or placed upon any Lot. • 0 321923 2.6 No structure (including, but not limited to, dwelling units, garages, carports, walls and fences) shall be permitted to fall into disrepair. All structures shall, at all times, be, kept in good condition and repair and adequately painted or otherwise finished. Any and all repairs, redecoration, modifications or additions, interior or exterior, shall fully comply with all applicable building code requirements, rules and restrictions. 2.7 No animals or fowl, other than household pets, shall be kept or maintained on any Lot. At any one time the total number of household pets shall not exceed four (4) and the total number of any one species shall not exceed two (2). 2.8 No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which is or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. 2.9 No truck in excess of 3/4 ton, commercial vehicle, boat, trailer, motor home, camper shell, recreational vehicle,' aircraft or dune buggy shall be parked or stored on a Lot or a Street- so as to be visible from a neighboring Lot(s) or Street(s); and no such equipment or vehicle . shall be repaired on a Lot. However, temporary parking of such equipment or vehicle in the driveway of a Lot may be permitted for the purpose of loading or unloading equipment or the vehicle. 2.10 No rubbish, trash, or garbage or other waste material shall be kept or permitted upon any Lot, 'except in sanitary containers located in appropriate areas screened and concealed from view, and no odor shall be permitted to arise therefrom so as to render the Property, or any portion. thereof, unsanitary, unsightly, offensive or detrimental to any other property in the vicinity thereof or to is occupants. Trash containers shall be exposed to the view of neighboring Lots or the Streets only when set out for a reasonable period of time (not to exceed twelve (12) hours before and after scheduled trash collection hours). There shall be no exterior fires whatsoever, except barbecue fires contained within receptacles or fire pits commercially designed therefor. No clothing or- household fabrics shall be hung, dried or aired in such a way as to be visible from the Streets or other Lots. No lumber, grass, tree clippings or plant waste, metals, bulk materials, scrap, refuse or trash shall be kept, stored, or allowed to accumulate on any Lot, except within an enclosed structure or appropriately screened from view, and so long as no fire hazard is .created thereby. 2.11 There shall be no interference with or obstruction of, the established surface drainage pattern(s) over any Lot, unless an adequate alternative provision is made for proper drainage. Any alteration of the established drainage pattern must at all times comply with all applicable local governmental ordinances. Each Owner shall maintain, repair, and replace and keep free from debris or obstructions the drainage channels, systems and devices, if any, located on his or her Lot, except those for which a public authority or utility is responsible. 2.12 Each owner agrees that, by the acceptance of a deed, to permit free access by Owners of other Lots to slopes or drainage ways, if any, located on his or her Lot, which slopes or drainage ways affect said other Lots, when such access is essential for the maintenance or permanent stabilization of such slopes or for the maintenance of drainage ways for the protection or use of such other Lots. 321.923 ARTICLE 3 Architectural Control Committee .3.1 There shall be established a three (3) member Architectural Control Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ( "Committee "). The initial three (3) members of the Committee are James S. Weil, Matthew Pollack and Steve Keene, whose business address is Miles and Adams Associates, 293?? Rancho California Road, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92591. The majority of the Committee may designate a representative to act for it. In the event of death or resignation of any member of the Committee, the remaining members shall have - full . authority to designate a successor. Neither the members of the Committee nor its designated representative shall be entitled to any compensation for service performed pursuant to this covenant. At any time, the then record owners of ' a majority of the lots located within the property shall have the power through a duly recorded written instrument to change the membership of the Committee or to withdraw from the Committee or to restore to said Committee any of its powers and duties. 3.2 The Committee's approval or disapproval as required in these 'covenants shall be in writing. In the event the Committee or its designated representative fails to approve or disapprove. plans and specifications within thirty (30) days after such plans and specifications have been submitted to it, approval will not be required and such plans and specifications shall be deemed approved as submitted. No building shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot until the construction plans and specifications drawn by a duly licensed engineer or architect and a plan showing the location of the building on the lot have been approved by the Committee as to quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of exterior design with existing structures, location, enhancement or detraction from the value of surrounding. lots, and general aesthetic. appearance. Notwithstanding ,the foregoing, Declarant and its successors and. assigns shall not be subject to architectural control of the committee in . its construction of improvements within the Property. 3.3 Neither Declarant, the members of the Committee or its representative, their successors or assigns, shall be liable in damages to any one submitting plans to them for approval, or to. any owner or lessee *of any lot affected by this Declaration, by reason of mistaken judgments, negligence or nonfeasance arising out of or in connection with the approval or disapproval or failure to approve any plans submitted. Every person who submits plans to the Committee for approval agrees, by submission of such plans, and every owner or lessee of any lot within the Property agrees, by acquiring title thereto , or interest therein, that he will not bring any action or suit against Declarant, the members of the Committee, or its representative, to recover any such damages. , " . .. • 321.923 3.4 No building, fence, wall, sign or other structure shall be constructed, erected, placed or altered upon any of the Lots, nor shall any alteration or change be made to the exterior of any residential structure situated upon a Lot until the building or alteration plans, location plat and color scheme thereof have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee. In considering such plans, the Committee shall take into account (i) -the quality of workmanship and materials to be used, (ii) harmony of external design with existing structures on other Lots, (iii) location, (iv) enhancement or detraction from the, value of the surrounding Lots, (v) general aesthetic appearance, and (vi) compliance with this Declaration. In the event the Committee fails to approve or disapprove any such plans or specifications within thirty (30) days after all necessary plans and specifications have been received by the Committee, said plans and specifications shall be incontrovertibly deemed to be approved as submitted. ARTICLE 4 Landscape, Installation and Maintenance 4.1 Owner shall be responsible for the continued care, maintenance and upkeep of landscaped areas within Owner's Lot (including all vegetation and irrigation systems, whether same shall be on slopes or otherwise) and that certain strip of land which is located between the front of Owner's" Lot and the Street. Owner shall regularly irrigate and maintain such areas in a clean, neat and attractive manner. ARTICLE 5 Scope: Termination and Enforcement 5.1 The limitations, restrictions, conditions and covenants set forth in this Declaration constitute a general scheme for (i) the maintenance, protection and enhancement of value of all Lots and (ii) the benefit of all Owners. Said limitations, restrictions, conditions and covenants are imposed on each Lot for the benefit of every other Lot and the present and future Owners thereof. Said limitations, restrictions, conditions, and covenants are and shall be covenants running with the land or equitable servitudes, as the case may be. 321923 5.2 Every person who owns, occupies or acquires any right, title, estate, or interest in or to any Lot does and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to the reasonableness and binding effect of every limitation, restriction, easement, reservation, condition, and covenant contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Declaration is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Property, or any portion thereof. 5.3 Each and every of the limitations; restrictions, conditions and covenants contained herein shall cease, terminate and be extinguished, without necessity of further documentation of any kind on December 31, 2025. 5.4 Limitations, % restrictions, conditions or covenants contained hereof may be enjoined, abated or remedied by appropriate legal proceedings by (i) Declarant, (ii) the Architectural Control Committee, (iii) any Owner or (iv) the mortgagee under any real property mortgage or the beneficiary under any deed of trust given for value (which mortgagee and beneficiary are herein referred to as "Mortgagee "); all of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iv) above are herein collectively referred to as "enforcing person(s)." Damages at law for any breach of said limitations, restrictions, conditions or covenants' are hereby declared to be inadequate. 5.5 The result of or condition caused by a violation of any of said limitations, restrictions, conditions or covenants, is and shall be a nuisance, and every remedy in law or equity now or hereafter available, against a public or private nuisance may be exercised by any enforcing person. 5.6 Any of the foregoing to the contrary notwithstanding, no action to enforce this Declaration shall be instituted unless and until a written notice setting forth the facts of such breach and the legal description of the Lot affected thereby has been (i) filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside County, California and (ii) delivered by certified mail to the Owner of such Lot prior to such recording; and such breach has not been remedied within thirty (30) days after the recording of such notice. Any action _ instituted hereunder shall be commenced within ninety `(90) days but not prior to thirty -one (31) days, after the recording of such notice. 5.7 The failure of any enforcing person to enforce any of said. limitations, restrictions, conditions or covenants shall not-constitute a waiver of the right to enforce the same thereafter. No liability shall be imposed on or incurred by any enforcing person as a result of such failure. 5.8 In the event any enforcing person shall commence litigation to enforce any of said limitations, restrictions, conditions or covenants, such enforcing person, if it prevails in such litigation, shall be entitled to have judgment against and recover from any defendant (other than nominal) in such litigation such attorneys' fees as the court may adjudge reasonable. • 0 321923 ARTICLE 6 Rights of Mortgagees 6.1 Anything contained in this Declaration to the contrary notwithstanding, a breach or violation of any of the limitations, restrictions, conditions or covenants herein set forth shall not affect, impair, defeat or render invalid the lien, charge or encumbrance of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value as "to any Lot(s). However, in the event of (i) a trustee's sale under any such deed of trust, (ii) a foreclosure under any such deed of trust or mortgage or (iii) a conveyance in lieu of foreclosure of any such deed of trust or mortgage, said limitations, restrictions, conditions and covenants shall be binding upon and effective against any transferee acquiring title to such Lot(s) pursuant to one of the aforementioned events, except that said title shall be free from the effect of any breach or violation occurring prior to any such acquisition thereof. ARTICLE 7 Transfer of Declarant's Rights 7.1 Declarant may assign, any or all of its rights, powers and reservations herein contained, by written instrument (i) signed and acknowledged by Declarant, (ii) bearing, or to which is attached, the acknowledged written acceptance of such assignee and (iii) filed for record in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, California. Each such assignment shall effect a complete release of the assignor from all further liability which may arise in connection with said rights, powers or reservations which are assigned. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be deemed to impose any duty or obligation upon Declarant to exercise any of its rights, powers or reservations. The term "Declarant," as used herein, shall include all such assignees. ARTICLE 8 Amendment 8.1 At any time(s), and from time to time, hereafter, this Declaration may be amended by written instrument (or counterparts thereof) (i) signed and acknowledged . by the Owners of at least seventy -five percent (75 %) of the Lots, (ii) bearing, or to which is attached, written consent of the Mortgagees (as of the time of recording such amendment) of such Lots and (iii) filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside County, California. Each such amendment shall become effective upon such recording. However until ninety percent (90 %) of the Lots are conveyed, in retail sales transactions to homeowners, no such amendment shall be effective absent the written approval thereof of Declarant. • 321923. 8.2 Each amendment made pursuant to Section 8.1 shall from and after its effective date, be as effective as this instrument as to all (i) the Lots, (ii) the Streets, (iii) the Owners as of the effective date, and their successors in interest, and. (iv) the Declarant. ARTICLE 9 Exemption and Rights of Declarant 9.1 Nothing in this Declaration shall limit the right of Declarant to complete construction of improvements on the Property or to alter the foregoing, or to construct such additional improvements as Declarant deems advisable prior to the completion and the sale by Declarant, of all the Lots. Such rights include, but shall not be limited to, erecting, constructing, and maintaining on any portion of the Property owned by Declarant such structures and displays as may be reasonably necessary for the conduct of its business of completing the work and disposing of Lots by sale, lease, or otherwise. Declarant specifically reserves the right to use any unsold Lots for models and sales offices for marketing and further reserves the right to rent any unsold Lots. The Declaration shall not limit the right of Declarant, at any time prior to acquisition of title to a Lot by a purchaser from Declarant, to establish on the Lot additional easements, reservations, and rights -of- way for itself, utility companies, or others as may from time to time be reasonably necessary for the proper development and disposal of the property. The rights of Declarant hereunder may be assigned by Declarant in whole or in part, to any successor to all or part of Declarant's interest in the Property. The provisions of this Article shall not be altered or terminated without the prior written consent of Declarant for so long as Declarant owns one (1) or more Lots in the Property. ARTICLE 10 General Provisions 10.1 Notices required by the Declaration, or desired, to be given shall be conclusively deemed serviced, W if personally served, at the time of such service, and (ii) forty -eight (48) hours after deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the person(s) to whom such notice is to be given at the last known address of such person(s). 10.2 Breach of any of the limitations, restrictions, conditions, covenants, or provisions in the Declaration and the continuation of any such breach may be enjoined, abated, or remedied by appropriate legal. or equitable proceedings by an Owner, by the Committee or by Declarant. However, any matter duly approved . by the Committee, as provided herein, shall be deemed not to be in violation of any provision of this Declaration. It is hereby agreed that recovery of damages at law for any breach of the provisions of this Declaration would not, be an adequate remedy. Breach of any limitations, restrictions, conditions, covenants, or provisions in this Declaration shall not defeat or render invalid the lien on any recorded mortgage, or any part thereof, made in good faith and for value, as to any Lot of the Property; but such limitations, restrictions, condition, covenants, 'or provisions shall be binding and effective against any Owner of a Lot or Lots whose title thereto is acquired by foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise. 1 321923 10.3 If an action is instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce any of the limitations, restrictions, • conditions, covenants, or provisions in this Declaration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorneys' fees and. court and other costs incurred. The "prevailing party" means the party determined by the court to have most nearly prevailed, even if such party did not prevail in all matters; not necessarily the one in whose favor a judgment is rendered. 10.4 No representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, have been given or made by Declarant or its agents or employees in connection with the Property or any portion of the Property dealing with its physical condition, zoning, compliance with applicable laws, purpose for intended use, nor in connection with the subdivision, sale, operation or use of the Property except as specifically and expressly set forth in this Declaration and except as may be filed by Declarant from time to time with any other governmental authority. 10.5 In the event any limitation, restriction, condition, covenant or provision contained in this Declaration is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Declaration shall nevertheless, be and remain in full force and effect. 10.6 This Declaration shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California. IN WITNESS_WJJJ=O this eclaration has been executed at Temecula, California, 11 as of `p .f'i►,, . t (, 1991. MILES AND ADAMS ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnership BY: Quinterra La Quinta, Inc., a California corporation as General Partner BY its: S. c � BY: its: rI • 321923 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIV E On / 1991, before , me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Matthew Pollack personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed the within instrument as the Secretary, on behalf of Quinterra La Quinta Inc., a California corporation, as General Partner, the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors, said corporation being known to me to be the general partner of Miles and Adams, Associates, a California Limited Partnership, that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same as such partner and that such partnership executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL t.: VIRGINIA A. TISDALE ® Notary Ptb1ic — Callomia RIVERSIDE COUNTY My Comm. Expaee JUN 19.1995 • • 321.`923 EXHIBIT "A" Lots 1 through 116, inclusive of Tract No. 23913, in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, as shown by Map on file in Book 226, Pages 72 through 76 inclusive, of Maps, Records of Riverside County, California. s SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (Aviso a Acusado) CITY OF LA QUINTA, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (A Ud. le est& demandando) PRIMERIT BANK, FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this Sum•• mops is served on you to file a typewritten re- sponse at this court. A letter or phone call will not protect you; your typewritten response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money and pro- perty may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you, do not know an attorney, you may call an attorney refer- ral service or a legal aid office (listed in the phone book.) I(- 1(o -q� 'S FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA USO OE LA CORTE) Despu6s do quo Ie entreguen esta citaci6n judicial usted tiene un plazo de 30 DIAS CALENDARIOS para presentar una respuesta escrita a mliquina on esta corte. Uns carte o una Ilamada telef6nica no le ofrecerd protecci6n; su respuesta escrita a mAquina tiene quo cumplir con [as formalidades legates apropiadas si usted quiere quo Ia. corte escuche su caso. Si usted no presenta su respuesta a tiempo,.pueds perder el caso, y le pueden quitar su salario, su dinero y otras cocas de su propiedad sin aviso-adicional por parts de la corte. Existen otros requisites legates. Puede quo usted quiera Ilamar a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede Ilamar a un servicio de referenlcia de abogados o a una oficina de ayuda legal (vea el directono telef6nico). CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso) The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direcci6n de Ia corte es) 1942 PS Superior Court of The State of California For The County of Riverside 3255 E. Tahquitz Canyon clay Palm Springs, California 92262 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direcci6n y el numeeo de teldfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es) Joseph A. Gibbs, Esq. (619) 320 -7161 Robert W. Loewen, Esq. (714)451 -3800 Schlecht, Shevlin & Shoenberger, ALC Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 801 E. Tahquitz Canyon Hay, Suite 100 Jamboree Center, 4 Park Plaza Palm Springs, California 92262 Irvine; California 92714 -8557 DATE: 6, ARTHUR A. Sj %. CLFF Eby by NOY (Fecha) _ .� W�� NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served (SEAL) 1. & as an individual defendant. . 2. as the person sued unde the fictitious name of (specify): e �'rY Of_ �Nlk)" -3. Q on behalf of (specify): under: Q CCP 416.10 (corporation) Q CCP 416.60 (minor) Q CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) Q CCP 416:70 (conservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partners ip) CCP 416.90 (individual) other: to ().% t� \ r+^ 4. by pe onal delivery on (date): .� ( i (0j Forth Adopted by Rule 982 Judicial Council of California 982(a)(9)(Rev. January 1, 19841 (See reverse for proof of Service) SUMMONS CCP 412.20 (MB PROOF OF SERVICE - - SUMMONS • (Use separate proof of service for each person serveo) I served the a. 0 summons 0 complaint 0 amended summons 0 amended complaint 0 completed and blank Case Questionnaires Q Other (specify): b. on defendant (name): c. by serving Q defendant Q other (name and title or relationship to person served): d. Q by delivery Q at home Q at business (1) date: (2) time: (3) address: e. Q by mailing (1) date: (2) place: 2. Manner of service (check proper box} a. Q Personal service. By personally delivering copies. (CCP 415.10) b. Q Substituted service on corporation, unincorporated association (including partnership). or public entity. By leaving, during usual office hours, copies in the office of the person served with the person who apparently was in charge and thereafter mailing (by first -class mail, postage prepaid) copies to the person served at the place where the copies were left. (CCP 415.20(a)) c. Q Substituted service on natural person, minor, conservatee, or candidate. By leaving copies at the dwelling house, usual place of abode, or usual place of business of the person served in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of the office or place of business, at least 18 years of age, who was informed of the general nature of the papers, and thereafter mailing (by first -class mail, postage prepaid) copies to the person served at the place where the copies were left. (CCP 415.20(b)) (Attach separate declaration or affidavit stating acts relied on to establish reasonable diligence in first attempting personal service.) d. Q Mail and acknowledgment service. By mailing (by first -class mail or airmail, postage prepaid) copies to the person served, together with two copies of the form of notice and acknowledgment and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender. (CCP 415.30) (Attach completed acknowledgment of receipt.) e. Q Certified or registered mail service. By mailing to an address outside California (by first -class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt) copies to the person served. (CCP 415.40) (Attach signed return receipt or other evidence of actual delivery to"the person served.) f. 0 Other (specify code section). 0 additional page is attached. 3. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows (CCP 412.30, 415. 10, and 474): a. 0 as an individual defendant. b. 0 as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): c. 0 on behalf of (specify): under: 0 CCP 416.10 (corporation) 0 CCP 416.60 (minor) 0 other: CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) 0 CCP 416.70 (conservatee) 0 CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) 0 CCP 416.90 (individual) d. 0 by personal delivery on (date): 4. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 5. Fee for service: $ 6. Person serving: a. 0 California sheriff, marshal, or constable. f. Name, address and telephone number and, if applicable, b. 0 Registered California process server. county of registration and number: c. Q Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server. -d. 0 Not a registered California process server. e. Ej Exempt from registration under Bus. & Prof. Code 22350(b) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: (SIGNATURE) 982(a)(9) [Rev. January 1, 19841 (ForCalifomia sheriff, marshal, or constable use only) I certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: (SIGNATURE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28: GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER ROBERT W. LOEWEN, STATE BAR NO. 066620 TANYA S. MCVEIGH, STATE BAR NO. 158012 Jamboree Center, 4 Park Plaza Irvine, California 92714 -8557 (714) 451 -3800 SCHLECHT, SHERLIN & SHOENBERGER JOSEPH A: GIBBS STATE BAR NO. 82118 801 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 -2774 (619) 320 -7161 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff PriMerit Bank, Federal Savings Bank SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PRIMERIT BANK, FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner and Plaintiff V. CITY OF LA QUINTA, AND DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Respondents and Defendants. NO . 71942 OFFER OF COMPROMISE MADE BY PETITIONER AND PLAINTIFF PRIMERIT BANK PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE SECTIONS 998 and 1021.1 TO THE CITY OF LA'QUINTA: Petitioner and Plaintiff PriMerit Bank, Federal Savings Bank ("PriMerit"), hereby offers to allow judgment, pursuant to California Code of Civil'Procedure Sections 998 and 1021.1, as follows: 1. A writ of mandate would be issued, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, as follows: Gibson, DLmn a Cnitdw 1 a. the City shall not apply Interim Ordinance 2 No. 236 to the development proposed by.Forecast 3 Development ( "Forecast ") of Property described 4 in the Petition and Complaint herein; and 5 b. the City shall promptly (but not less than ten 6 (10) days following entry of the Writ of 7 Mandate) consider the appeal brought by Forecast 8 of the September 14, 1993'decision of the 9 Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta 10 with respect to Forecast's proposed development 11 of the Property described in the Petition and 12 Complaint, 13 2. The Petition and Complaint on file herein would be 14 dismissed with prejudice, provided, however, that such dismissal 15 shall have no effect on the right of PriMerit to seek relief from 16 any subsequent action of the City, including., without limitation, 17 denial of Forecast's appeal. 18 If the City accepts this Offer within thirty (30) days 19 after, it is made, the City may file this offer with proof of 20 acceptance, and the Clerk of-the Court is hereby authorized to enter 21 judgment in accordance with this offer. If the City does not accept 22 this Offer within 30 days, the Offer shall be deemed withdrawn. 23 IF THE CITY DOES NOT ACCEPT THIS OFFER AND IT FAILS TO 24 OBTAIN A MORE FAVORABLE JUDGMENT, THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION MAY 25 AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES, PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE 26 S 1021.1 (WEST 1987), AS WELL AS COSTS, INCLUDING THOSE OF SERVICES 27 28 2 Crib.on, Dunn 6 Crutdw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OF EXPERT WITNESSES, PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE 5.998 (WEST 1986). DATED: November 15, 1993 Gibson, Dunn & crutdw 3 SCHLECHT, SHERLIN.& SHOENBERGER JOSEPH A. GIBBS GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER ROBERT W. LOEWEN TANYA S. MCVEIGH' By: ROB EAT W. LOEWEN. Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff, PriMerit Bank, Federal Savings Bank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2.7 28 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER ROBERT W. LOEWEN, STATE BAR NO. 066620 TANYA S. MCVEIGH, STATE BAR NO. 158012 Jamboree Center, 4 Park Plaza Irvine, California 92714 -8557 (714) 451 -3800 SCHLECHT, SHERLIN & SHOENBERGER JOSEPH A. GIBBS STATE BAR NO. 82118 801 E.'Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 -2774 (619).320-7161 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff PriMerit Bank, Federal Savings Bank SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PRIMERIT BANK, FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner and Plaintiff, VAq CITY OF LA QUINTA, AND DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Respondents and Defendants. NO. "x1942 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Petitioner and Plaintiff PriMerit Bank, Federal Savings Bank ( "PriMerit ") alleges: COMMON ALLEGATIONS 1. PriMerit is a Federal Savings Bank, chartered by the United States of America. PriMerit's principal place of business is in Las Vegas, Nevada. Gibson, Dun & Crutdw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. PriMerit is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the City of La Quinta is, and at all times mentioned, herein was, a general law city duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The City-of La Quinta is located in the County of Riverside, State of California. 3. PriMerit is not aware of the.true names and ' capacities, whether individual, corporate, government entity, or otherwise, of respondents and defendants designated as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore PriMerit sues these respondents and defendants by these fictitious names. PriMerit is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that respondents and defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, have been or will be responsible in some manner for the wrongful conduct alleged in this Petition and Complaint and the damages alleged herein. PriMerit will ask leave of court, if necessary, to amend this Petition and Complaint when the names and capacities of Does 1 through 100, inclusive; are ascertained. Hereinafter, respondents City of La Quinta and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are referred to collectively as the "City ". 4. PriMerit is the owner of certain real property located in the City of La Quinta and recorded as Lots 1 and 2, Lots 6 through 80, Lots 96 through 98, Lots 99 through 116, Parcel A, and Lots T and Q of Tract 23913 in the Recorder's Office of the County of Riverside (the "Property "). The tentative tract map for.the Property was approved by the City by Resolution No. 88 -127, which permitted the subdivision for construction of single- family residences. At the-time that the tentative tract map was approved, and at all times thereafter, Section 9.156.040 of the City's C:Mchw K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Municipal Code imposed a minimum house size of 750 square feet for single - family residences. None of the conditions set forth in City Council Resolution No. 88' -127 imposed any further limitations on the sizes of houses permitted to be built on the property. Indeed, the conditions of approval do not even mention house size notwithstanding the fact that they impose a minimum lot size and impose certain height limitations. 5. The final map on the property was recorded on or about October 23, 1990. The owner of the property at that time was Windsor Construction Company ( "Windsor ")_ 6. The Property consists of 116 subdivided lots. Windsor constructed 18'homes on the Property ranging in size from 2,072 square feet to 2,593 square feet. Windsor funded the acquisition, development and construction of the Property through a loan from PriMerit. Windsor sold only six of the 18 homes during a period of longer than one year. In or about March-, 1993,.PriMerit acquired the Property through foreclosure. PriMerit sold the remaining twelve homes at substantially discounted prices. 7. PriMerit offered the remaining lots for sale to developers.' PriMerit soon learned that the best market for the Property.was with developers who wished to build more affordable houses that were smaller than the existing homes since larger homes were not selling in the current economic climate. 8. On.or about July 19, 1993, PriMerit entered into an agreement with Forecast Development, a California limited partnership ( "Forecast "), to sell the remaining lots to Forecast. Forecast's obligation to purchase the remaining lots was expressly Gibson, Ounn & Crutdm 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 i 23 24 25 26 27 28 conditioned upon Forecast's ability to obtain building permits for the construction of its products. 9. Thereafter, Forecast, on its own behalf and on behalf of PriMerit, submitted its plans to the City for the purpose of obtaining building permits. The plans submitted for review proposed houses ranging in size from 1,106 square feet to'1,659 square feet. The plans complied in all respects with the City's Municipal Code, zoning ordinances, tentative.map conditions, and general plan; as well as the design requirements of the applicable covenants,' conditions and restrictions, and all other existing requirements for construction of single family housing in the City. 10. Despite the absence of any City requirement for design review of the subdivision, on or about August 4, 1993, the City's Design Review Board approved the proposed elevations for Forecast's homes. 11. on or about August 14,'1993, the City Planning Commission met to consider "A Request of Forecast Homes for Approval of Architectural Plans for Single - Family Residences." After' consid_rable public comment, at which local residents complained about the size of the homes proposed by Forecast, the matter was continued to September 14, 1993. 12. Following a hearing on or about September 14, 1993, the Planning Commission "approved" Forecast's plans, but it imposed several conditions upon Forecast's right to obtain building permits. 13. Forecast, acting on its own behalf and on behalf of PriMerit, filed a timely appeal from the decision of the Planning 1. Commission. Forecast and PriMerit objected, among other things, to the imposition of Condition No. 16, which limits the minimum house 4 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 size permitted for construction on the Property to 1,650 square feet, and only one other unit of 1,868 square feet was offered as a compromise by Forecast, and to Condition No. 7, which requires that homes of 1,868 square feet.be constructed on specified lots, which were adjacent to existing homes. Since only one proposed unit in Forecast's original application was larger than 1,650 square feet, the effect of the Planning Commission's order was to disapprove Forecast's proposed project and therefore thwart PriMerit's attempt to sell the Property to Forecast. 14: In its appeal, Forecast argued to the City Council that the City did not have jurisdiction to impose a minimum house size of 1,650 square feet. First, nothing in the City's ordinances or procedures provided the City with discretion, after final map approval, to limit house size. Second, California Government Code § 65961 prohibits the City from imposing new conditions in the form of a new minimum house size that it could have imposed at the time of tentative tract map approval but did not. Third, the policy of the State of California, as set forth in numerous statutes, in favor of promoting construction of low to moderate income housing prohibited the City from considering the impact on house values that would result from construction of smaller homes in the same neighborhood with larger homes. 15. In its appeal Forecast also contended that its homes were "compatible" with the local market area. The Property is located in'a relatively small market area bordered.by Fred Waring Drive on the north, Jefferson Street on the east, Topaz Development (Miles Avenue) on the south, and Washington Street on the west. The City Council was informed that from 47% to 61% of the homes within Gibson, Dun ! Cnadw 11 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • i this. market area were similar in size to the homes proposed by Forecast, and no evidence contradicting this fact was introduced to the City. 16. On October 19, 1993, a hearing was held before the City Council on Forecast's appeal. PriMerit and Forecast both appeared at the hearing. Considerable public comment was heard in which local residents complained about the house sizes in Forecast's proposal and about the impact that Forecast's smaller homes would have on existing homes in the area. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council continued the appeal to November 2., 1993. 17. Forecast and PriMerit appeared at the City Council meeting on November 2, 1993, as scheduled. Before considering the Forecast appeal, however, the City Council adopted Ordinance 236 entitled "An Interim Ordinance of the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, Amending Title 9, Chapter 9.32 of the Municipal Code By Adding Section 9.32.020 G, Moratorium on Design Deviations in Residential Subdivisions ". The stated purpose of the proposed moratorium was to provide the City Council with time to study "a potential zoning ordinance change . . . to put in place or at least consider putting in place some regulations relating to the completed build -out of subdivisions that have already started and wish to come in and somehow alter the original plans that were approved for." This stated purpose was improper as applied to the Property because any such zoning changes would impose, in violation of California'Government Code Section 65961, new conditions that could have been imposed, but were not, at the time that the tentative map was approved . Gibson, Dun 6 Crutcher 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 E • 18. :Ordinance 236 was considered by the City.Council without any notice to Forecast or PriMerit. Although a draft of Ordinance 236 was attached to the staff report relating to Forecast's appeal, the staff report was not given to Forecast or PriMerit until they arrived at the City Council chambers about 20 minutes before the meeting began. Previous staff reports concerning Forecast's application had been sent to Forecast prior to the scheduled meetings of the Planning Commission and the City Council. PriMerit is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the City intentionally withheld the planning staff report from Forecast and PriMerit to limit the time during which they could prepare a response.to the proposal for a moratorium but allowed certain homeowner groups, and their counsel, who opposed Forecast's proposal, to review the proposed ordinance prior to the meeting. 19. Over the strenuous objections of Forecast and PriMerit, the City Council adopted Ordinance 236, which provides: No building permit, design approval or subdivision amendment.shall be granted to construct a unit in a, residential subdivision where some portion of the subdivision has previously been constructed and the square footage of the unit to be constructed will deviate more than ten percent (10 %) from the square footage of that portion of the subdivision previously constructed. 20. After it enacted Ordinance 236, the City Council announced that in'light of the moratorium it would not hold further public hearings on Forecast's appeal as previously announced. GibBan, Dum d C"drr 7 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • • Without any formal motion and without providing any opportunity for Forecast or PriMerit to be heard, the City Council declined to address Forecast's appeal in any way. The effect of this action by the City Council has been to deprive PriMerit of its property rights by preventing Forecast, as the prospective purchaser of the Property, from obtaining building permits for houses that had satisfied all other existing requirements of the City. 21. By enacting Ordinance 236, the City acted improperly because there was no "urgency" in that the City had been aware of Forecast's application for over two months and there were no applications from other developers that were to be acted upon imminently by the City. 22. By enacting Ordinance 236, the City acted improperly and in excess of its police powers because it did not make adequate findings to support the conclusion that there was a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 23. By enacting Ordinance 236, the City acted improperly and in excess of its police powers because even if it had made findings concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the community, such findings were not supported by substantial evidence. 24. By enacting Ordinance 236, the City acted improperly and in excess of its police powers because it deprived Forecast and PriMerit of equal protection of.the laws and due process of law under the.Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California. 25. By enacting Ordinance 236, the City acted improperly and-in excess of its police powers because it acted contrary to the Gibson, Dun IN C"dw 8 1 policy of the State of California in favor of construction of low 2 and moderate income housing. 3 26. By enacting Ordinance 236, the City acted improperly 4 and in excess of its police powers because the zoning changes to be 5 studied under the moratorium would violate California Government 6 Code Section 65961 as applied to the development proposed by 7 Forecast for the Property. 8 27. By applying the moratorium adopted under 9 Ordinance 236 to preclude consideration of Forecast's appeal, the 10 City deprived Forecast and PriMerit of due process of law in 11 violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and 12 the Constitution of the State of California because it acted without 13 legal authority. 14 28. By conditioning the obtaining. of building permits 15 upon a minimum house size, the City has violated California 16 Government Code § 65961 since such conditions could have been 17 imposed, but were not imposed, at the time that the tentative tract 18 map was approved by the City. 19 29. The City had a duty to allow Forecast to submit its 20 proposed plans for a ministerial plan check for the purpose of 21 obtaining building permits without imposing further conditions as to 22 house size. The °City breached this duty by allowing the Planning 23 Commission to impose additional plans and by imposing a moratorium 24 that precluded the City from correcting the Planning Commission's 25 decision. '26 _ 27 28 9 Gibson, Dunn & Cnacher 1 2, 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • 0 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Petition for Writ of Mandate -- C.C.P. 55 1085 and 1094.6) 30. PriMerit repeats.and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, of this Petition and Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 31. The imposition of house size restrictions on the proposal for development of the Property and the application of a moratorium to block the proposed development of the Property were illegal acts. Accordingly, the City has a clear and present duty to allow Forecast, or another designee of PriMerit, to submit the proposed plans for a ministerial plan check for the purpose of obtaining building permits without limitation as to house size and without further discretionary review. The City further has a duty to consider Forecast's appeal without regard to the moratorium, and once the appeal is considered, to remove all conditions concerning house size from the Planning Commission's approval of the project. The City further has a duty, for a period of five years from the recording of the final map, not to impose any new restrictions on development of the Property, including restrictions on house size, which the City could have imposed as conditions of tentative tract map approval but did not. The City is currently refusing to perform these duties. 32. PriMerit, as the owner of the Property, has a clear. and present beneficial interest in having the City perform the duties described in the preceding paragraph in that if the City continues to block Forecast's proposal, PriMerit will not be able to sell the Property to Forecast, and PriMerit, or its successor, will Gibson. Dunn & Cnrteher 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • . • not be able to develop the Property in a manner to which it is legally entitled. 33. A writ of mandate is necessary to require the City to perform its duties as PriMerit has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law. 34. PriMerit has been damaged, and continues to be damaged by the delay in the approval of Forecast's proposal in an amount as yet-undetermined but which PriMerit reasonably believes to be in excess of this court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, PriMerit is entitled.to recover damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1095. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION. (Declaratory Relief) 35. PriMerit repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, of this Petition and Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 36. An actual controversy has arisen between the City and PriMerit in that PriMerit contends, and the City denies, the following: Gibson, Dun & CnRdw a. b. C. The City may not reject Forecast's proposed plans on the ground of house size; The City may not condition approval of projects proposed for the Property upon house size limitations greater than the existing 750 - square foot limitation; The City may .not apply �toblock the moratorium------ adopted as Ordinance 3 the proposed development of the Property; and 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 �J • d. The City may not refuse to consider Forecast's appeal on the basis of the moratorium. 37. A declaration of this court resolving this controversy is necessary and appropriate at this time, and PriMerit requests the court to enter an order affirming PriMerit's position on each and every point asserted in the preceding paragraph. 38. PriMerit will be damaged as a proximate result of the positions asserted by the City as set forth above in an. amount not yet determined. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive Relief) 39. PriMerit repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, of this Petition and Complaint as if fully set forth 15 II herein. 16 WA 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 40.'.The conduct of the City as set forth above has resulted and will continue to result in irreparable injury to PriMerit's property and business in that the City is preventing PriMerit from developing the Property in the manner that it has a legal right to do. 41. PriMerit has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries that have been and will be suffered as a result of the wrongful conduct of the City in that the right to develop the Property is unique, making money damages inadequate and difficult to determine; the fluctuating value of real estate and the costs of development will further complicate any attempt to calculate money, damages;,and any remedy short of the injunction requested below will fail to protect PriMerit adequately against future injury and the 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 '9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 necessity of bringing a multiplicity of lawsuits to address such injury. 42. PriMerit is entitled'to, and therefore requests, an injunction pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 526 as follows: a. Restraining the City from imposing house size limitations on Forecast's proposal; b. Restraining the City from applying the moratorium to Forecast's proposal; C. Restraining the City from applying the moratorium to any proposal for development on the Property ;. d. Restraining the City from imposing restrictions on house size greater than 750 square feet on any proposal for development on the Property; e. Restraining the City from imposing any new conditions on''development of the Property, including restrictions as to house size, until after.October 23, 1995; and f. Restraining the City from further delay in ruling on Forecast's appeal. WHEREFORE, PriMerit prays for relief against the City as follows: 1. For an alternative writ of mandate requiring the City to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue; 2. For a peremptory writ of mandate requiring the City to undertake the following: 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a. Cease applying the moratorium to Forecast's Gibwn, Duet & CMdw S proposal and promptly consider Forecast's appeal; b. Remove from the Planning Commission's conditions of approval any limitations on house size; C. Promptly conduct a ministerial plan check of the Forecast plans; and after it is determined that all plans comply with the applicable building codes, issue building permits on the Forecast plans; and d. Refrain from imposing any conditions on further development of the project, including conditions as to house size, until after October 23,1995; 3. For a preliminary and permanent injunction in accordance with paragraph 42 of this Petition and Complaint; - 4. For a judicial declaration in accordance with the contentions of PriMerit as alleged in paragraph 36 of this Petition and Complaint; 5. For damages according to proof; 6. For attorneys' fees;. 7. For costs of suit incurred herein; and ' Gibwn, Duet & CMdw S 1 8. For such other and further relief as the-court deems 2 just and proper. 3 DATED: November 15, 1993 4 SCHLECHT, SHERLIN & SHOENBERGER JOSEPH A. GIBBS 5 STATE BAR NO. 82118 6 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER ROBERT W. LOEWEN, 7 STATE BAR NO. 066620 TANYA S. MCVEIGH, 8 STATE NO. 1580 2 9 By: ROBE ROBERW W. LOEWEN 10 Attorneys for Petitioner and 11 Plaintiff, PriMerit Bank, Federal Savings Bank 12 13 OA933MO.179 re. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 Gibeon, Dum & autche. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16' `17 18 1s 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 VERIFICATION I, Stephen D. Humphrey, am a Vice President of PriMerit Bank, Federal Savings Bank, and I am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Damages and Injunctive Relief.and I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters which are stated in the Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Damages and Injunctive Relief are true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the'laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Verification was executed at Phoenix, Arizona on this day of November, 1993. MOW% bum a cro" i5 ep n D. Humph#y r CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 88 -127 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS CONFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23913 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A LAND SALES .SUBDIVISION ON A 33 + ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 23913 - WALDON FINANCIAL•CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25th day of October, 1988, hold a duly - noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Waldon Financial Corporation to subdivide 33+ acres into single - family residential lots for sale, generally located at the northeast corner of Miles avenue and Adams, street, more particularly described as: THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; EXCEPT THE SOUTHERLY RECTANGULAR 50 FEET THEREOF AS. GRANTED TO THE _ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BY DEED RECORDED MAY 2419' 1933 in BOOK 122 PAGE 376, OFFICIAL RECORDS; ALSO, EXCEPT THE WESTERLY 33 FEET • OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER.. SAID PROPERTY IS ALSO SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 8, RECORD. OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of November, 1988, .hold -a duly- noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the Environmental Analysis and Tentative Tract Map No. 23913.; and - 1 - BJ /RESOCC.019 C .• r � WHEREAS, said tentative map 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 tentative tract 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 City Council did find the following facts to justify the approval of said tentative tract map: 1. That Tentative Tract No. 23913, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, R -1 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site has a rolling topography because of the sand dunes, with the overall slope going from the western to the eastern side of the property. The proposed circulation design and single - family lot layouts, as conditioned, are, therefore, suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 23913 may cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will lessen this impact. 9. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 23913 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 2 - BJ /RESOCC.019 6. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 23913, as conditioned, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas. 7. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 23913, -as. conditioned, provides storm water retention, park facilities, and noise mitigation. 8. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in :conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the City Council has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public. service needs of the residents of the ..City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; 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 Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the. conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 88 -100 relative to the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; - 3. That.it does hereby approve the, subject- Tentative Tract Map No. 23913 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject. to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 15th day of November, 1988, by the following vote, to.wit: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Cox, Sniff, Mayor Pro -Tem Pena NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Hoyle ABSTAIN: None 3•- BJ/RESOCC.019 0. r x oe MAYOR, City La Qu nta A EST: AUNDRA L. JUHOLA ity Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: BARRY BRANDT, City Attorney City,of La Quinta, California 4 - BJ /RESOCC.019 J l Y CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 88 -127 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23913 NOVEMBER 15, 1988 A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 23913 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire two years after the original date of approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a City -Wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the District and to offer for dedication such easements as. may be required for maintenance and operation of related facilities. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis, as required by law. 4. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon discovery of any archaeological remains or artifacts and employ appropriate mitigation measures during project development. 5. The Developer of this subdivision of land shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. Traffic and Circulation 6. The Applicant shall construct street improvements to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code, as follows: (a) Miles Avenue shall be constructed to City standards for a 110 -foot right -of -way width (Primary Arterial), with an 18 -foot raised median island, six -foot sidewalk, and two - percent cross slope to centerline plus joins. (1/2 street width plus one lane and /or suitable conforms plus bond for 50% of 18, median). (b) Adams Street shall be constructed to City standards for an 88 -foot right -of -way width (Secondary Arterial), with a curb -to -curb width of 64 feet, with a five -foot sidewalk and two - percent cross - 1 - BJ /CONAPRVL.010 CONDITIONS OF AP� 'AL • i TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23913 slope to centerline plus joins (1/2 street width plus suitable conforms). Adams Street shall be designed .for ultimate grade from Fred Waring Drive to Miles Avenue, and constructed adjacent to Tract 23913, and as necessary for reasonable transitions and surface drainage requirements. (c) Miles Avenue and Adams Street shall be improved from edge of tract boundary to the intersection of said streets per City Engineer requirements. - Reimbursement may be provided for improvements not fronting on this tract, in accordance with future any future policy which may be established. B. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL 7. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall submit a proposal to the Planning Commission, for recommendation to the City Council, for meeting parkland dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code. The proposal for dedication, fee -in -lieu, or combination thereof shall be based upon a dedication requirement of 1.02 acres, as determined in accordance with said Section. B. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the tract design.-- The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming and landscaping, etc.), and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments. 9. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning & Development Department. 10. Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a Maintenance District under Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets & Highways Code, Section 5820 et seq.) or the Lighting & Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets & Highway Code 22600 et seq.) to implement maintenance of all improved landscape buffer and storm water retention areas. It is understood and agreed that the developer /Applicant shall pay all costs of maintenance for said improved areas until such time as tax revenues are received from assessment of the real property. 2 - BJ /CONAPRVL.010 •- CONDITIONS OF A&,'OVAL • �' � : TENTATIVE TRACTMMIAP NO. 23913 ° 11. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conversion Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. Gradina and Drainage 12. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that 'is prepared by a registered civil engineer who will be required to supervise the grading and drainage improvement construction and to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade stage are - as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is required prior to final map approval. Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to. final approval. of grading construction. 13. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's water management program. 14. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. The report's recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval-. The soils engineer and /or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 15. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided- as required by the Public Works, Director including any drainage fees required therewith. Drainage facilities shall be capable of retaining 100 -year storm flows on -site. 16. The Applicant shall obtain slope easement agreement from adjoining owners when construction and maintenance of slopes are proposed on adjoining owners land, all subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Traffic and Circulation 17. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Public Works Department: a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required, including all corner cutbacks. b. The Applicant shall submit street improvement plans that are prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs and 3 BJ /CONAPRVL.010 CONDITIONS OF AP 'FAL TENTATIVE TRACT iW NO. 23913 markings and raised median islands (if required by the City General Plan), shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code (three -inch AC over four -inch Class 2 Base minimum for residential streets). C. The Applicant shall provide such reasonable cash deposits and /or other security for the payment of costs for the installation of street name signs by the City. d. The Applicant shall provide to the City a bond for 25% of the projected cost of the traffic signal at the intersection of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. 18. Applicant shall dedicate, with recordation of the tract map, access rights to Miles Avenue and Adams Street 'for all individual parcels which- front or back -up to those rights -of -way. Tract Design 19. A minimum 20 -foot landscaped setback shall be required along Miles Avenue; a minimum 10 -foot setback along Adams Street. Design of the setbacks shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. Setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right -of -way lines. - a. The minimum setbacks may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or curvilinear wall design is used. b. Setback areas shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition No. 11, unless an alternate method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. 20. The tract layout shall comply with all the R -1 zoning requirements, including minimum lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum lot size to be recorded in a final map shall be 7,200 square feet. Walls Fencing, Screening.and Landscaping 21. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. 22. Prior to final map approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: 4 - BJ /CONAPRVL.010 �GONDITIONS OF A _r 'AL TENTATIVE TRAC' NO. 23913 -' a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing �- locations, and irrigation system for all landscape buffer areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. b. Location and design detail of any proposed and /or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 23. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for landscaping of all individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for two trees and an irrigation system. C. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 24. 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 _ Division o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation 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. 25. 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. 26. Eighty percent of dwellings units within 150 feet of the ultimate right -of -ways of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story, not to exceed 20 feet in height. The Applicant shall submit, to the Planning and Development Department for approval, a drawing showing the location of any units higher than one story along the Miles Avenue frontage. 27. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. Temporary construction facilities 5 - BJ /CONAPRVL.010 CONDITIONS OF i "AL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23913 b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage C. On -site advertising /construction signs 28. The Applicant shall revise the architectural elevations for all units to provide complete (all building sides) architectural treatments. The revised elevations are subject to Planning Commission review and approval as a Business item. The architectural standards shall be included as part of the C.C. & Rs. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 29. The Applicant shall provide a bond at 25% the proportionate cost of all fees necessary for signalization costs at the corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street, -as` determined by the City Engineer. 30. The termination point of the- future street stubs on Tentative Tract Map shall be barricaded to the satisfaction of the Public works Department. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 31. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. 32. The Applicant shall comply with all- requirements of the -Coachella Valley Water District. Any necessary parcels for district facility expansion shall be shown on the final map and conveyed to the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to City standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer, as may be required. ZONE CHANGE APPROVAL 33. Prior to final map approval, the companion Zone Change Case No. 88 -034, shall have been approved by the City Council and the ordinance changing the property to an R -1 zone district shall be in effect. J 6 - BJ /CONAPRVL.010 PAST LA QqIN7A SUBr&ISIONS REPORTED SALES BY SQUARE -FOOTAGE RANGE AS OF: ,SEPTEMBER 1993 LESS TIUW 1301- 1501- 1701- 1901 - DEVELOPMENT 13'00 1500 1700 1900 2100 2101- 2300 2301+ TOTAL ,QUINTERRA 7 11 18 RANCHO OCOTILLO 7 29 36 TOPAZ 1 5 11 13 14 44 ACACIA HOMES 24 25 47 96 CACTUS FLOWER 22* 62 41 22 7 154, LA QUINTA VISTA 14 1 13 17 53 LA QUINTA HIGHLANDS 6 13 20 24 63 LA QUINTA DEL REY 25 35 17 77 LA QUINTA DEL ORO ------------------------------------------------ 8 24 32 TOTALS 31 95 112 115 a 110 102 573 OF TOTAL MIX 5% 17% 20% 20% 1% 19 18% TOTAL MIX--LESS THAN 1900 SQUIARE FEET: 355 UNITS OF 573 TOTAL (62%) SOURCES: The Meyers Group, On-Site Personnel and Ditplays QUINTERRA SALEM PRICES AND FORECAST XZCOMMENDA`IONS LA QUINTA MARKET AREA SEPTEMBER 1993 QU TERRA ' SALNB—PRIMERIT 91 QUINTERRA_ _.SALES-- WINDOU 04/93 Lot $a_1es Price Square Feet Cloaing Date 87 $2000,000 2072 01/9.2 86 205,000 2363 03/92 84 198,500 2072 06/92 81 248,000 2593 09192 95 189,900 2072 11/92 82 200,000 2593 12/92 QU TERRA ' SALNB—PRIMERIT 91 $179,900 2593 04/93 93 149,900 2072 05/93 94 159,900 2363 05/93 88 169,900 2363 05/93 83 175,361 2363 05/93 85 179,900 2593 05/93 5 1991900 2363 05/93 (MODEL) 4 210,000 2593 07/93 (MODEL) 89 149,900 2072 08/93 3 179,900 2072 08/93 (MODEL) 90 149,900 2072 N.A. 92 175,000 2593 N.A. LJ 0 RECOMME FORECAST ES ASE PRICES plan Base Prijag SQUare Feetrige /SQ. Ft. 3 $107,990 1237 $87.3a 4 114,990 1415 81.27 5 119,990 1520 78.94 6 125,990 1659 75.94 7 139,990 1868 71.39 INAL '0123:NTEgga URIMER1 RASE PRIC Plan; Base Price &Wtare Feet Price /Sg Ft. 1 $149,900 2072 $72.35 2 159,900 2363 67.67 3 175,000 2593 67.49 LJ 0 • PAST LA QUINTA fi VISIONS • REPORTED SALES BY SQUARE FOOTAGE RANGE AS OF: SEPTEMBER 1993 LESS THAN 1301- 1501- 1701- 1901- 2101- DEVELOPMENT 1300 1500 1700 1900 2.100 2300 2301-x- TOTAi, QUINTERRA -- -- ---- -- 7 -- 11 18 RANCHO OCOTILLO -- -- --- -- -- 7 29 36 TOPAZ -- 1 5 11 -- 13 14 44 ACACIA HONES -- 24 -- 25 --- 47 -- 96 CACTUS FLOWER -- 22 62 41 -- 2'2 7 154 LA QUINTA VISTA -- -- 8 14 1 13 17 53 LA QUINTA HIGHLANDS 6 13 20 24 -- --- -- 63 LA QUINTA DEL RBY 25 35 17 --- --- -- -- 77 LA QUINTA DEL ORO - - -- ----------------------- -- -.- - ----------------------------------------- -- -- -- 8 --------------------------- 24 32 TOTALS 31 95 .112 115 8 110 102 573 % OF TOTAL MIX 5% 17% 24% 20% 1% 19% 18% TOTAL MIX -. --LESS THAN 1900 SQUARE FEW: 355 UNITS OF 573 TOTAL (62 %) SOURCES: The Meyers Group. On -Site Personnel and Displays �M f� r� QUINTERR.A SALVO PRICES ANY PORECAST RECOMMENDATIONS LA QUINTA MARKET AREA SEPTEMBRR 1993 QUINTERRA SAIM-- PRIMERIT 91 QUINTERM. SALES-- WIND8QR 04/93 Lot Sales Price Square Feet Closing Date i 87 $200, 000 2072 01/52 86 205,000 2363 03/92 84 198,500 2072 06/92 81 248,000 2593 09192 95 189,900 2072 11/92 82 200,000 2593 12/92 QUINTERRA SAIM-- PRIMERIT 91 $179,900 2593 04/93 93 149,9.00 2072 05/93 94 159,900 2363 05193 88 169,900 2363 05/93 83 175,361 2363 05/93 85 179,900 2593 05/93 5 199,900 2363 05/93 (MODEL) 4 210,000 2593 07/93 (MODEL) 89 149,900 2072 08/93 3 179,900 2072 08/93 (MODEL) 90 149,900 2072 N.A. 92 175,000 2593 N.A. _ RECOHMENDED- rOBECAST HOMES-RASE PRICES Plain Base F Square Feet price %.._Ft. 3 $107,990 1237 $87.30 4 114f990 1415 81.27 5 119,990 1520 78.94 6 1251990 1659 75.94 7 139,990 1868 71.39 FINAL 021NTERRA (PRIMERIT).RASE PRICING Play; Base Prig 2qUare Feet Price /Sq. Ft. 1 $149,900 2072 $72.35 2 159,900 2363 67.67 3 175,000 2593 67.49 io 0 i city La Quinta. Developers Project Approvals Form Prior to the issuance of Building Permits for (13) SFD (see attached sequence sheet) in the Quinterra Tract 23913, Phase S, Roger Snellenberger & Associates. as contractor, the following Departmental clearances must be obtained. Please return completed form to the Building and Safety.. Department at your earliest convenience to expedite the permit process. The plans have been revised to reflect the 1994 code change.. After this phase, there will be 20 units remaining. Planning and Development Department /. Date Associate Planner y_ D e Engineeri Departme Steve Speer, Sera ineer tAte Building and Safety Department Mark Harold, Building and Safety Department Manager Health Department Date Fire Department Date Schools Fees Paid Date Date .'1 SEQUENCE SHEET QUINTERRA TRACT #23913 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA March 4,19W PHASES Lot No. Street Address A.P.N. Plan No. Reverse S.F. Lot Size (Sq FQ - 31 79-130 Canterra Drive 604281 -014 1 R.. 2015 80,546 32 79-120 Canterra Drive 604261 -013 1 — 2015 8,523 33 79-110 Canterra Drive 604261 -012 1 R 2015 8,792 34 79-100 Canterra Drive 604261 -011. 1 — 2015 8,926 35 79-090 Canterra Drive 604261 -010 1 R 2015 8,928 36 79-080 Canterra Drive 604261-009 3 R 2359. 8,922 49 44-545 Pala Circle 604262-005 1 R 2015 10,056 50 44575 Pala Circle 604262-006 4* R 2730 13,651 51 44 -605 Pala Circle 604262 -007 1 R 2015 10,498 52 44570 Pala Circle 604262 -019 1 — 2015 12,690 53 44540 Pala Circle 604262 -009 1 — 2015 11,319 54 79-115 Canterra Drive 604262 -020 1 2015 10,522 55 79-150 Ocotillo Drive 604262 -021 4 ,— — 2730 9,921 Product Mix: Plan 1' 10 Plan 2 0 Plan 3 1 Plan 4 2 Total 13 o.ans ! .• QUINTERRA - TRACT 23913 116 units approved, 4 are retention basins. Original owner and contractor: Windsor Projects - B 432709 . 29377 Rancho California #200 Temecula, CA 92390 Windsor built 3 models and 15 SFD homes in 1991, plans were drawn under the 1988 UBC. Lot Address , Plan S.F. Permit # '3 44 -890 Los Manos Drive 1 2072 Model 9072 - 4 44 -860 Los Manos Drive 3 2593 Model 9074 5 44 -830 Los Manos Drive 2 2363 Model 9073 81 79 -140 Ladera Drive 3 2593. 9480 82 79 -130 Ladera Drive 3 2593 9481 83 79 -120 Ladera Drive 2 2363 9476 84 79 -110 Ladera Drive 1 2072 9470 85 79 -100 Ladera Drive 3 2593 9482 86 79 -090 Ladera Drive 2 -2363 9477 87 -79 -080 Ladera Drive 1 .2072 9472 88 44 -935 Tortola Circle 2 2363 9478 89 44 -965 Tortola Circle 1 2072. 9485 90 44 -960 Tortola Circle 1 2072 9473 91 44 -930 Tortola Circle 3 2593 9483 92 44 -935 Tortola Circle 3 2593 9478 .93* 44 -965 Tortola Circle 1 2072 9485 94 44 -960 Malia Circle 1 2072 9479 95 44 -930 Malia Circle 1 .2072 9475 a* . In 1995 Roger Snellenberger & Associates acquired the property with 94 units remaining. They have 4 plans. In Phase 1, they built 4 models and 11 SFD units, permits were issued August 18, 1995. The plans were drawn under the 1991 UBC. Lot Address Plan S.F. Permit # 99 79 -190 Ladera Dr. 1 1968 Model 15670 100 79 =180 Ladera Dr.. 2 2132 Model 15671 101 79 -170 Ladera Dr. 3 2359 Model 15672 102 44 -860 Fronterra Drive 4 2593 Model 15673 80 44 -825 Fronterra Drive 4 2593 15674 79 44 -795 Fronterra Drive 2 2132 15.675 78 79 -115 Arbola Circle 2 2132 15676 77 79 -105 Arbola Circle 3 2359 15677 76 79 -095 Arbola Circle 1 1968 15678 75 79 -085 Arbola Circle 1 1968 15679 .74 79 -080 Arbola Circle 4 2593 15680. 73 79 -090 Arbola Circle 3 2359 15681 72 79 -100 Arbola Circle 1 1968 15682 71 79 -110 Arbola Circle 2 2132 15683 70 79 -120 Arbola Circle . 4 2593 15684 79 units remaining. These 5 SFD permits were pulled between Phase I and Phase H and issued December 7, 1995. Lot Address Plan S.F. Permit # . 61 79 -090 Ocotillo Drive 1 1968 9512 =010 62 79 -080 Ocotillo Drive 11 1968 9512 -011 16 79 -190 Latigo Circle 1 1968 9512 -012 17 79 -180 Latigo Circle- 3 2359 9512 -013 18 79 -176 Latigo Circle 1 1968 9512 -014 .74 units remaining. 7 In Phase H-they built 13 SFD units, permits were issued January 4, 1996. The bedroom on plan 4 was enlarged. Lot Address Plan S.F. Permit # 13 79 -195 Latigo Circle 1 1968 9601 -003 14 79 -205 Latigo Circle 4 2783 9601 -015 15 79 -200 Latigo Circle 1 1968 9601 -004 . 19 44 -570 Ocotillo Drive 1 1968 9601 -005 8 79 -200 Nuevo Drive 1 1968 9601 -006 9 79 -190 Nuevo Drive 1 1968 9601 -007 10 79 -180 Nuevo Drive 3 2359 9601 -013 11 79 -175 Latigo Circle 2 2132 9601 -010 12 79 -185 Latigo Circle 1 1968 9601 -008 56 79 -140 Ocotillo Drive 1 1968 9601 -009 57' 79 -130 Ocotillo Drive 2 2132 9601 -011 108 44 -860 Fronterra Drive 3 2359 9601 -014 109 44 -655 Los Manos Drive 2 2132 9601 7-012 ` 61 units remaining. On Phase III, 17 SFD permits were issued on February 6, 1996. The building plans were updated to the 1994 UBC. Lot Address Plan S.F. Permit # 6 79 -195 Nuevo Drive 2 -2149 9602 -019 7 79 -205 Nuevo Drive 1 2015 9602 -020 103 44 -830. Fronterra Drive 1 2015 9602 -021 104 44 -800 Fronterra Drive 1 2015 9602 -022 113 44 -775 Los Manos Drive 1 2015. 9602 -023 114 44 -805 Los Manos Drive 1 2015 9602 -024 115 44- 835"Los Manos'Drive 2 2149 9602 -025 116 44 -865 Los Manos Drive 1 2015 9602 -026 58 79 -120 Ocotillo Drive 1 ` 2015 9602 -027 59 79 -110 Ocotillo Drive 1 2015 9602 -028 60 79 -100 Ocotillo Drive 3 2359 9602 -029 105 44 -770 Fronterra Drive 2 2149 9602 -030 106 44 -740 Fronterra Drive 1 2015 9602 -031 107 44 -710 Fronterra Drive 1 2015. 9602 -032 110 44 -685 Los Manos Drive 1 2015 9602 -033 111 44 -715 Los Manos Drive 1 2015 9602 -034 112 44 -745 Los Manos Drive 4 2730 9602 -035 44 units remaining. Phase N permitted 11 SFD on March 6, and 14, 1996. Lot Address Plan ST. Permit # 20 79 -165 Canterra Circle 2730 9602 -143 . 21 79 -175 Canterra Circle 1 2015 9602 -144 . 22 79 -185 Canterra Circle 1 2015 9602 -145 23 79 -195 Canterra Circle 1 . 2015 9602 -146 24 79 -205 Canterra Circle 3 2359 9602 -147 . 25 79 -210 Canterra Circle 1. 2015 9602 -148 26 79 =200 Canterra Circle 1 2015 ' 9602 -149 27 79 -190 Canterra Circle 1 2615 9602 -150 I. 28 79 -180 Canterra Circle 2 2149 9602 =151 29 79 7170 Canterra Circle 1 2015 9602 -152 30 ` 79460 Canterra Circle 1 2615 9602 -153 33 units remaining. - T4t�t 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX- (619) 777 -7101 August 29, 1995 Mr. Roger Snellenberger, President Snellenberger and Associates 41 -865 Boardwalk, Suite 212 Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: QUINTERRA (TRACT 23913) - COMPATIBILITY REVIEW Dear Mr. Snellenberger: In June and August, we had, sent you letters concerning your request to develop single family homes in the Quinterra project on Miles Avenue. On August 18, your son submitted various letters, material samples, and revised plans that were to reflect our past comments. In review of the new plans, we find that our past comment on the garage size issue has not been met. In our initial letter in June we said. that the three car garages needed to be a minimum size of 20' by 30'. After further review, we found that you could match the existing sizes of the Phase One homes which vary but are not less that 20' by 20' (inside' dimension) for the required two -car garage and include an additional 10' by 18' third car space. We find that you still have garage spaces that are less in size than noted (i.e., Plans 1 and 4). This problem shall be corrected during the construction of the homes. If you should have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (619) 777 -7067. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Very truly yours, CMHF��AN C UN�I1T ;DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR d-- GREG SDELL ks-te Planner GT. MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 ��(� 78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) 777 -7101 August 16, 1995 Mr. Roger Snellenberger, President Snellenberger and Associates 41 -865 Boardwalk, Suite 212 Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: QUINTERRA (TRACT 23913) - COMPATIBILITY REVIEW; MINOR CHANGE Dear Mr. Snellenberger: On August 11, we received your construction plans to develop single family homes at the Quinterra project on Miles Avenue. We conceptually approve of your request provided the following information is presented and approved. L. A letter shall be submitted to staff stating that your construction improvements will match the existing construction materials used in the initial Phase One homes (i.e., roof tile, colors, fencing, landscaping, stucco texturing, etc.). The letter shall be submitted before any building permits are issued. Please be aware that perimeter masonry fencing is required. during. the construction of each home. 2. A Precise Plan application shall be filed with our department. The filing fee is $25.00. The application shall be submitted before building permits are issued. 3. The landscape /irrigation plans shall be submitted to our department within 30- days. The, plans will require our approval and that of the Coachella Valley Water District and the Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner before they will be considered final. You can submit the plans to our department concurrently with their reviews. Before submission, please get a copy of the City's Water Conservation Ordinance and review the Compatibility Ordinance and R -1 landscape standards. 4. The home (two stories) planned for Lot 80 will be allowed because a two -story home was plotted by the previous developer. 5. The concrete roof tile (i.e., Life Tile Mission) shall be one color and match the existing light colored brown tile used in the Phase One homes. MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 ��� . 6. We assume your precise grading plan will be used for your site planning needs since you have not submitted separate site plans with the attached exhibits. We reviewed this plan previously, and it was acceptable then although we did not have access to your building plans during our review. This approval allows eleven (11) homes per the attached information. 7. Exterior plant -ons shall be used. around all exterior windows (including sliding glass windows) and exterior attic vents. The minimum wood size is 2" by 4" With stucco: If the field construction was different from the approved drawings, please let me know. 8. The accent tile and two -tone stucco exterior used on the front elevation of the original homes in phase one shall be incorporated into your plans since we did not receive a color board depicting the color combinations planned by your company. 9. ' The A.C. compressors can be located in the side yards of each home provided the mechanical equipment is not within five (5) feet of the property line. 10. The front elevations do not adequately identify the recess dimensions of each facade element. The dimensions shall be identical to the existing 'homes developed by Windsor Construction. If they are not identical, we have decided that they must be reviewed by the Planning Commission under the provisions of the Compatibility Ordinance. The problem should be corrected before building permits are issued. 11. Minor adjustments were made to the front elevation of the Plan 3 and 4 units that were not depicted in your previous transmittal. The plans should be corrected to reflect the previous plan's features. The transom windows over the front doors should be reincorporated. Additionally, the Plan 3 unit shall also have the covered, projecting entryway used in the original homes. These problems should be corrected before building permits are issued. 12. The garage doors shall be metal. The doors. shall be sectional and have decorative grid patterns. No window panel lites should be used since none were installed in the initial phase. 13. Minor changes have been made to the side and rear elevations (e.g., windows, doors, etc.) but the plans are consistent with the existing homes if the front elevations are corrected (See Item 11). 1.4. All dual pane front yard windows shall include internal square metal grids throughout. A few of the elevations did not describe this feature or include the necessary design detail. 15. A final inspection by our department before final occupancy will be required for all future homes. This should be done concurrently when you call the Building Department for a final release of your on -site utilities. Our staff decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission. If you would like to appeal. our decision, please file your written appeal with our office with 10 -days. The filing fee is $300.00. If you should have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (619) 777 -7067. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN COWU�4_TY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 5ffKOUSDELL to Planner GT. c: Kelly Tropple, Building Technician �a cu Developers Project Approvals Form Prior to the issuance of the Building Permits for 11 SFD and 4 Models at Tract 23913 - Quinterra, Snellenbeger & Associates as contractor, the following Departmental clearances must be obtained. Please return completed form to the Building and Safety Department at your earliest convenience to expedite the permit process. l.' Planning and Development Department 6 /a G / Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Date ® Engineering Department w1ft d 40 Fred Bouma, Associate Engineer Building and Safety Department Mark Harold, Building and Safety Department Manager Health Department Fire Department Date Date Date Date AUG 9 1995 CITY OF LA GUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HUG -01 -1995 14 :50 ROGER SNELLEIABERGER Fs. F.SS P.01 SEQUENCE SHEET QUINTERRA TRACT 923913 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA Lot No. Street Address A.P.N. Plan No. Reverse MODELS Co. /Dept. v + V- 'Dt04- L.o. c+�MA Co. �++ Phone # Phone # 17 7 —7 7 6 Fax u -T ! -y -7--76) Fax 4y T7 -7 - -7 7 (-V .._ 99 3 79-10 L.adera Drive 6041 -007 ' 1 R 100 79-180 Ladera Drive 604- •006 2 -- 101 79-170 Leders Drive 604- -005 3 R 102 44860 Fronterra Drive 604- -004 4 — PHASEI 80 4I -825 Fronterra Drive 60 019 4 R 79 44.795 Fronterra Drive 604-27 -010 2 — 78 79-115 Arbola Circle 604-27 -009 ' 2 R 77 79-105 Arbola Circle 604- 27-008 3' R 76 79-095 Arbola Clrcle 604-27 -007 1 R 75 79.085 Arbola Circle 604- 27-005 1 -- 74. 79 -080 Arbola Circle 604-27 -005 4 R 73 79 -090 Arbola Circle 604 -27 -004 3 -- 72 79 -100 Arbola Circle 604-27 -003 1 — 71 79-110 Arbola Circle 604-27 -002 2 R 70 79-120 Arbola Circle 60427 -001 4 — Post -it` Fax Note 7671 Date 19es► To l Jq From . ` Z:> Co. /Dept. v + V- 'Dt04- L.o. c+�MA Co. �++ Phone # Phone # 17 7 —7 7 6 Fax u -T ! -y -7--76) Fax 4y T7 -7 - -7 7 (-V .._ TOTAL P.01 'S FOq �17SES ONLY 1'• POR. SW 114 NW 114 SEC 20, US R.7E. Vas' 3S'3p f COT L 26 T.R.A. 020-0// 604-27 M -049 604_07 I %\�� _ - -- I\ . � - LOTO - — (�7 1 Yt�iM^ G�° ¢�,� Gs.90 80.0 L� 0 ;'!' VA •.up a•.sv,.Icr i2i.9e /�O.ao 7400 ♦�.7+ "'� �•�30 y 1161 010 -049 _ — 7K.0► 3,,;5s, — — — LOT A — — — — — — — TRA coo -a / — AHL ES- - N -� 148 O6 OAW LLA 91- M. B. 226172-76 Tio c 1 No. 23'9/3 4� •I? 'AP, SK. 604 27 (/#rr, CALF" t "00, 1 °sue= 0 I N T E R MEMO O F F I C E To: Jerry Herman, Director of Community Development Stan Sawa, Principal Planner From: Greg Trousdell Subject:. Compatibility Review (Quinterra) Date: June 13, 1995 On June 8, 1995, I received preliminary plans from Jim Snellenberger requesting our review of their plans for Tract 23913 (Quinterra). Mr. Hanson and Mr. Robertson reviewed their plans according to your request (see attached). I have reviewed the plans and my observations are as follows: Plan 1 (Snellenberger) is similar to Plan I by Windsor Development. The difl'erences.are to the rear elevation windows, roof pitch, and garage sizes. We could approve these minor deviations, but the garage size would need to be increased to conform with our R -1 standards. Plan 2 (Snellenberger) is similar to Plan 2C by Windsor Development.. (Same comments as above) However, front elevation .needs to be upgraded. Plan 3 (Snellenberger) is the same as Plan 2B by Windsor Development. They photocopied the original drawings by Windsor. No changes are necessary. Plan 4 (Snellenberger) is the same as Plan 3A by Windsor Development. They photocopied. the original drawings by Windsor. No changes are necessary. Final Comments: We will need to require the developer to build rear yard masonry walls that match Phase 1. They will also have to plot the two -story homes so that they do not build a two - story home behind or next to an existing one story. The roof tile should match the existing homes (ie., Pioneer Custom Hacienda Tile). Attachments: 1. Letters 2. My notes 3. Plans( June 7, 1995 Roger Snellenberger & Associates 41 -865 Boardwalk, Suite 212 Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 Dear: Sirs ra fR, i3N..�� wrfy i �.a� G ii•i • f �,aP We have reviewed your proposed square footage for the build out of the balance of tract' 23913.• We understand that they are approximately as follows. Plan 1 1968 Plan 2 2131 Plan 3 2359 Plan 4 2573 We approve of the above. ncerely James Hanson, H.C. Ludlam 79- 130.Ladera Drive La Quinta, Ca. 92253 0 June 7, 1995 Roger Snellenberger & Associates 41 -865 Boardwalk, Suite 212 Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 Dear: Sirs J U Di O 1995 We have reviewed your proposed square footage for the build.out of the balance of tract. 23913. We understand that they are approximately as follows. We also understand that your product will follow the existing elevations in the tract. Plan 1 1968 Plan '2 2131 Plan 3 2359 Plan 4 2601 We ap_urove of the above.- �� ���- ✓- ���'�-' % nGs Sincerely /��i , Russel Robertson 44 -930 Tortola Circle La Quinta, Ca. 92253 A-zl - -c� -. - Ci s 3 /a'� eDk/ S- CIA Pro I�l►a� z c v t,�a�k Pig Z-S IDLE COPU " 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) 777 -7101 March 21, 1994 Mr. Bruce Strickland, Vice President Forecast Homes 10670 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -505 - PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL Dear Mr. Strickland: The City Council conducted a public hearing on March 15, 1994, to discuss the appeals by you and Best, Best, and Krieger of the Planning Commission's decision of September 14, .1993, regarding your request to build single family homes within Phase II of Tract 23913 (Quinterra). The City Council voted to deny the request. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, PLANNINC,1 AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GG''TROUSDELL As ociate Planner GT : kaf cc: City Manager Mr. Jim Ahmad Mr. Stephen D. Humphrey, PriMerit Bank Ms. Tanya S. McVeigh, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Mr. Douglas S. Phillips, Best, Best & Krieger Ms. Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 LTRGT.196 MAR 15 '94 09 :05AM GIBS DUNN i Ap 6MSON, DUNN & CRUT= Jamboree Canter 4 Park Plan Irvine, California 927144557 Cm P.1 TELEPHONE: (714) 451.3800 FACSWELE: (714) 431.4220 FACSUv= TItANSMIISSION RWORMATION i Marsh 15, 1994 TO: Mr. /Ms.: Ms. Saundra Juhola Company: City of Le Quints City, State: Facsimile No.: La Ouinta,, CA i J61 9) 777.7101 Mail► Telephone: 16191 777 -7000 I I FROM: Edward L. Xanders Room 1537 Extension 3956 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER LETTER: 4 1 U you do not receive all of the pages transmitted, please contact our facsimile operator immediately at telephone number (714) 4514219. i Fax Operator The written message is for the exclusive use of the addressee and contains confidential, privileged and non- disclosable .information. If the recipient of this message is not the addressee, or a person responaible for delivering the message to the addressee, such recipient is prohibited from reading or using this massage in any way. If you have received thiI message by mistake, please call us immediately and destroy the telecopy message. E: Please distribute to city council members ASAPIII Thank you. SEND ALL TmmE COPIES To FACSmLL DEP'ARTMEIII' MAR 15 '94 09 :05AM GIBS DUNN I P.Z i GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LOG ANGELES LAWYERS JAB. A. 018504, IS61•t900 532 SOUTH DRANO AVENUE PAM1110099 CENTER I �'�'• C. DUNN, Iepl -1016 A68GRY CRUTCMGR, 1850'1071_ '.OS ANGELES. CAL 110 RNIA 90071.3197 4 PARK PLAZA CENTURY CITY !RVINE. CALIFORNIA 92714-8557 NEW YORK " 8008 CENTURY PARK CAST :00 NAR AVEN SOS ANOELE B, CALIFORNIA 90087.3028 �r 10 G'01q3 EW YCRK Y . NEW YORK 100L iA CRAMGNTO (714) 481.3600 WA9MIN0TON 400 CAPITOL MALL FACSIMILE; (714) .451-4220 1 1060 CONNECTICUT AVENVS. `I•Y•• SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 90014.4407 WASHINGTON. D.C. 80036-6Z01. 1994 BAN DIEGO March 15, � AV[NU[ Lou19e 6e 760 0 9TRGGT 9-IDDO 911V99EL5. 8ELOtUM SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 90101.4606 PARIS IC4 AVENUE RAYMOND POINCARtf IAN FRANCISCO 75116 RA FRANCE CNE MONTGOMERY STRGGT. TCLE519 TOWER LONDON SAN FRANCISCO• CALIFORNIA 94104 -4501 30/36 GALL MALL 7ALLA6 I LONDON 9WIY 96► t117 MAIN STREET NONO KONG DALLAS, TE XAS 76101.7390 B CONNAUGHT PLACE MONO KONG 0[NV R TOKYO '601 CALIFORNIA 5TREE: •••! M CHIYODA•K� DENVER. COI.ORA00 SORO1.1614 TOKYOUCHI. TOKYO 100. JAPAN 9EATYL8 I AFFILIATED BAUCI ARABIA OF-CC 090 THIRD AVENUE JARIR PLAZA. OLAYA ATREET 6EATT6G• WASMINOTON SS104 -70SS A.O, 8071 15670 gIrAOM 11454, SAUDI ARABIA WRITER'$ DIRECT CIAL NUMBER I OUR FILE NUMSSR (714) 451 -3894 TELECQFILAM T 72589 -00004 VIA U.S. The City Council MAIL City of La Quinta Post Office BOX 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 ! Reo. Dear City Council Members: This firm represents PriMerit Bank, Fedieral Savings Bank ( "PriMerit"), the owner of certain lots in Tiract 23913, which your planning staff has been referring to a the Quinterra subdivision (the "Property "). PriMeritlis attempting to sell the Property .to Forecast Develppment (now The Forecast Group, L.P.) ( "Forecast "). This firm also represents Forecast. Forecast submitted its plan's for approval by the City. The City Planning Commissi n approved the plans, but it conditioned its approval upon c mpliance with a minimum house size of 1,650 square feet. hat condition was not acceptable to Forecast and, if eft in place, would defeat PriMerit's plans to sell the property to Forecast. r Forecast therefore appealed to the City council. on November 2, 19930 the City Council declined to rule on MAR 15 '94 09 :06AM GIBS DUNN • P.3 GIB50N, DUNN & CRUTCHER The City Council City of La Quinta March 15, 1994 Page 2 Forecast's appeal because of an interim ordinance!, Ordinance No. 236, adopted that day by the City Council, which imposed a moratorium on the issuance of building permits ir narrow circumstances that applied only to the applications of Forecast and perhaps one other builder. The staled purpose of the moratorium was to enable the City of La Quin a to consider certain changes in the City's zoning ordinances.11 ordinance No. 346 was purportedly extended on December 7, .993 by the adoption of City Ordinance No. 240. On January, 1994 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 242, which became effective on March 3, 1994. Ordinance No. 242, inter alia,1 imposes a new minimum house size of 1400 square feet for all homes built in single family developments throughout the City and imposes certain "compatibility" standards for proposed single family homes within subdivisions where the City has previously approved units. PriMerit and Forecast have been advise that the City Council intends to conduct a public hearing on March 15, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., regarding Forecast's appeal. f the Planning commission's decision. we have receive a copy of a related Memorandum from the Planning and Developlent Department which recommends that the City Counci]1 "deny the application of Forecast Corporation because the xisting plans do not meet the provisions of Ordinance 242." P ;iMerit and Forecast strenuously object to any use of Ordina ce 242 to deny Forecast's appeal, and request that the Cit� Council grant Forecast's appeal on the following grounds:` 1. Ordinance 242 is a discriminatory measure designed to forestall the Forecast proposal even though building permits should have been issued to Forecast long before the moratorium and Ordinance 242 were enacted. 2. Application of Ordinance 242 to the Forecast proposal would violate California Government Codg S 65961. All developments such as the Property that have een partially built out must have a recorded final map, and PriMerit and gg9r Ga4 are n9t W ri 9t $ Y ti al 1 =0 €Qr sg94 developments hav ng een recorded more tan ve years ago. Therefore, the City is prohibited by Section 65961 from imposin new conditions on those developments, including the roperty, that could have been imposed at the time of tentative map approval, and Ordinance 242 does precisely that. 3. Application of Ordinance 242 to t a Forecast proposal would violate the rights of PriMerit and to 1 Z7r MAR 15 '94 09:07AM GIB DUNN • P.4 I GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER The City Council City of La Quinta March 15, 1994 Page 3 due process and equal protection of the laws under the Constitutions of both the United States and the S ate of California. Forecast and'PriMerit are entitled t have the City rule upon Forecast's appeal based upon the 1 ws that existed before the moratorium and ordinance 242 w re adopted, and that law.would require the City to remove -all conditions relating to house size from the Planning Commission's approval of Forecast's plans. 4. Pursuant to California Government Code-S 65961,. PriMerit and Forecast are entitled to have Forecast's plans submitted for a ministerial plan check without fu�ther conditions being placed upon them. Insofar at ordinance 242 would defeat that result, it is illegal as applied to the Forecast proposal. Accordingly, PriMerit and Forecast urgei that the City Council grant Forecast's appeal of the Planting Commission's decision. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. very truly yours, Edward L. Xanders ELX /dk cc: Paul L. Gale, Esq. (via telecopy) OAW7W.l77/-i; ip f CITY OF LA QUINTA adv. PRIM[ERIT BANK PRIVILEGE LOG RE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PRIlvIERIT BANK 1/12/94 1. Facsimile transmission dated 8/20/93 from Jon Goetz to Jerry Herman. 2. Facsimile transmission dated 10/14/93 from Greg Trousdell to Dawn Honeywell. 3. Memorandum dated 6/24/93 from Greg Trousdell to Dawn Honeywell. 4. Correspondence dated 10/14/93 from Dawn Honeywell to City of La Quinta City Council. uT1:14388_1 13601 B2588.37 City Council City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253. Re: Plot Plan 93 -505 (Quinterra Phase II) Appeal Dear Council Members: This is our third letter to the City Council on behalf of our client, PriMerit Bank, in connection with the above - referenced appeal. Following the meeting of the City Council on October 19, 1993, we obtained a copy of a letter from Best, Best & Krieger dated October 19, 1993, which evidently had been delivered to the City Council prior to the meeting., - Following is our response to that letter. Moreno Valley Litigation This firm provided copies of briefs and the court's order from litigation between Forecast Development and the City of•Moreno Valley to the City Attorney at her request. We pointed out that although Forecast was a plaintiff in that litigation, it has no intention of becoming involved in litigation with the City of La Quinta and has expressly agreed with our client, PriMerit Bank, that Forecast need not purchase the subject property if the City does not approve Forecast's plans. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER - LOS ANGELES LAWYERS JAS. A. GIBSON, 1852-1922 333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE JAMBOREE CENTER W E. DUNN, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-3197 ALBERT CRUTCHER, R, 1 18660 0 -1931 ,i. 4 PARK PLAZA CENTURY CITY 2029 CENTURY PARK EAST IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 -8557 NEW YORK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-3026 200 PARK AVENUE SACRAMENTO (714) 451-3800 NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10166.0193 400 CAPITOL MALL SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 FACSIMILE: (714) 451-4220 WASHINGTON 1050 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. SAN DIEGO WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036-5306 750 B STREET October 2 6 1993 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-4605 / BRUSSELS AVENUE LOUISE 222 SAN FRANCISCO 8-1050 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM ONE MONTGOMERY STREET, TELESIS TOWER ' SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 9410 4-4 50 5 '. PARIS 104 AVENUE RAYMOND POINCARE MENLO PARK 75116 PARIS,,FRANCE 3000 SAND MILL ROAD. BUILDING I ' MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025 LONDON DALLAS 30/35, PALL MALL .. LONDON' SWIY 5LP 1717 MAIN STREET DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 -7390 - HONG KONG DENVER 8 CONNAUGHT PLACE 1801 CALIFORNIA STREET HONG KONG , DENVER, COLORADO 60202 -2694 TOKYO SEATTLE 1-1-3 MARUNOUCHI, CHIYODA-KU 999 THIRD AVENUE TOKYO 100, JAPAN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 -7089 ' AFFILIATED SAUDI ARABIA OFFICE _ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUILDING WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER - P.O. BOX 15870 RIYADH 11454, SAUDI ARABIA (714) 451 -3894 OUR FILE NUMBER T 72589 -00004 City Council City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253. Re: Plot Plan 93 -505 (Quinterra Phase II) Appeal Dear Council Members: This is our third letter to the City Council on behalf of our client, PriMerit Bank, in connection with the above - referenced appeal. Following the meeting of the City Council on October 19, 1993, we obtained a copy of a letter from Best, Best & Krieger dated October 19, 1993, which evidently had been delivered to the City Council prior to the meeting., - Following is our response to that letter. Moreno Valley Litigation This firm provided copies of briefs and the court's order from litigation between Forecast Development and the City of•Moreno Valley to the City Attorney at her request. We pointed out that although Forecast was a plaintiff in that litigation, it has no intention of becoming involved in litigation with the City of La Quinta and has expressly agreed with our client, PriMerit Bank, that Forecast need not purchase the subject property if the City does not approve Forecast's plans. • GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October 26, 1993 Page 2 • Best, Best & Krieger points out certain differences between PriMerit's position in the instant appeal and Forecast's position with the City of Moreno Valley. PriMerit acknowledges that there are differences, but the similarities are more instructive than the differences. This firm tried the Moreno Valley case on behalf of Forecast. In that case Forecast purchased 107 lots in a 130 - lot subdivision in which 23 homes had already been built. The original builder defaulted on its loan, and the lender sold the remaining lots to Forecast. Forecast proposed to build homes on the remaining lots that were an average of 400 smaller than the existing homes. Under intense pressure from the owners of the 23 existing homes and other homeowners in the area, the City of Moreno Valley denied plot plan approval to Forecast. Forecast filed suit, and the Superior Court issued a writ of mandate requiring the City of Moreno Valley to approve Forecast's project. Forecast now has its building permits, but the delay cost Forecast millions of dollars. A second phase of the trial is presently scheduled for November 15, 1993, to determine the amount of Forecast's damages. Although the court ruled that the City of Moreno Valley had breached its development agreement - -a fact that is not present in the current appeal - -its decision was based upon a number of alternative grounds, some of which are directly applicable here. First, in both the Moreno Valley case and the present appeal, the developer has final map approval, and the tentative map does not restrict house size. Forecast argued in Moreno Valley that it was improper under California Government Code Section 65961 for the City of Moreno Valley to impose a new condition - -house size - -on the developer when that condition could have been placed in the tentative map. Similarly, the City of La Quinta said nothing about house size when it issued tentative map number 23013, and it was improper for the Planning Commission to impose that condition at this late stage in the development process. Second, the City of Moreno Valley argued that it had reserved discretion under its plot plan review ordinance to consider house size because the ordinance generally required development "to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property." The court in Moreno valley rejected the City's argument, holding that such broad language was never intended to include a review of house size. Best, Best & Krieger relies upon nearly identical • • GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October 26, 1993 Page 3. language to support its position that the City of La Quinta has jurisdiction to consider house size here. Under the decision in Moreno Valley, it plainly does not. Third, in the Moreno Valley case the Building Industry Defense Foundation submitted a brief arguing that it was beyond the City of Moreno Valley's police powers to turn down the proposed downsizing in contravention of the public policy in favor of low to moderate income housing. The same argument applies here. Before the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley turned down Forecast's downsizing request, a compromise was worked out between Forecast and the Planning Commission. Forecast was quite disappointed when the City Council rejected the compromise proposal, and after nearly three years of litigation, we are confident that the City of Moreno Valley wishes that it had compromised as well. Government Code Section 65961 Best, Best & Krieger acknowledges that Government Code "Section 65961 prohibits the City from imposing any condition on a development that a City could have imposed, but did not impose, at the tentative tract stage." The Planning Commission's "conditions" in this case, particularly conditions 7 and 16, could have been imposed as conditions on the tentative map. Since the City elected to say nothing about house size in the tentative map conditions, Section 65961, even as interpreted by Best, Best & Krieger, prohibits the Planning Commission from limiting house size now, and the Planning Commission should be reversed to the extent that it has imposed conditions on development that are not permitted by the Government Code. Proposed Moratorium Best, Best & Krieger suggests to the City that it should adopt "an interim moratorium" to stop development until a preservation ordinance is in place, presumably adopting procedures under which the City could deny Forecast's proposal. While apparently acknowledging that the City does not now have procedures in place to prohibit the proposed development, Best, Best & Krieger's proposal would not achieve the effect desired by its clients. First, there is insufficient evidence before the City Council to support a moratorium. Second, even if the City were to enact an GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October 26, 1993 Page 4 ordinance retaining for itself discretion to prohibit development based on house size, Government Code Section 65961 would prohibit the City from exercising such discretion here because PriMerit already has final map approval and the tentative map has no conditions concerning house size. Third, the law prohibits the City from enacting legislation designed to preclude the proposed development; the City may not do through the back door that which it is prohibited from doing through the front door. In addition to the foregoing legal reasons for rejecting the proposal of Best, Best & Krieger for a moratorium, there are a number of practical arguments against the proposal as well. These arguments were well stated at the City Council meeting on September 21, 1993, and need not be repeated here. Compatibility We have also obtained a copy of the letter dated October 19, 1993 from Rose Lemons, a local appraiser, apparently in support of the notion that if the homes proposed by Forecast are built existing homes will lose value. The flaw in Ms. Lemons' analysis is that she does not properly consider all of the available data, which is attached to the report of Market Profiles. Once the available data is properly considered, Ms. Lemons' analysis actually supports the Forecast proposal. Ms. Lemons says, "The typical homes in the North La Quinta area generally bounded by Washington, Fred Waring, Miles and Jefferson are at $200,000 average price." Exhibit I -1 of the report of Market Profiles, which,we submitted to the City Council by letter dated October 181- 1993, provides the actual prices of units in the designated market area, and even a cursory review of that data reveals that the "typical" price is far below $200,000. In fact, of the nine subdivisions surveyed five offer no models priced over $199,900, three have no models priced over $169,900, four offer units priced under $150,000, and all offer units priced under $170,000. Thus, Ms. Lemons' assessment of what is "typical" in the area is not supported by the available evidence. Ms. Lemons opines, without any reference to studies, analyses or other evidence, that smaller homes will bring down, the prices of larger homes except in certain circumstances. i • GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October 26, 1993 Page 5 She then suggests the circumstances that would limit the devaluing effect. When these circumstances are carefully evaluated, however, it does not appear that the Forecast homes would significantly devalue larger homes. Ms. Lemons suggests, for example, should "[r)equire concrete block walls, not Forecast has already agreed to do so in all Since Ms. Lemons does.not suggest.that wood not visible could affect the value of neigh: presumably the Forecast homes would have no impact. that the City wood fences," but visible areas. fences that are boring properties, detrimental Ms. Lemons also suggests a number of quality upgrades, most of which will be offered by Forecast to prospective purchasers. Following is a comparison of Ms. Lemons' suggestions to Forecast's current proposal: • Tile Roofs: These are already included in the Forecast design; • Large Lots: The size of the lots will not change under the Forecast proposal, and the density will be the same as originally approved for the Quinterra development; • Generous Front Yard Landscaping: Forecast will apply the same standards and use the same materials as were used in the existing Quinterra homes; • Tile or Corian Counters in Kitchens and Baths: Forecast will use tile in all kitchens; it does not use tile or' corian in the baths, but this difference from the existing homes is not meaningful; • Custom Fixtures: Forecast offers these as. options to its buyers; • Upgraded Carpets: The standard carpets used by Forecast are of high quality, and Forecast also offers upgrades to its customers; • GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October 26, 1993 Page 6 • Decorative Glass Block or Tile in Exteriors and Interior Finish: The existing homes do not have exterior glass block or tile, and it has never been suggested that Forecast should include such items in its design; • Bullnosed Corners in Interior: Forecast does not have this feature, but it is plainly a trivial item that does not affect the value of.its homes. Thus it can be seen that Forecast's homes would comply with all of the important features that Ms. Lemons believes are necessary "[t]o minimize the negative effect on values in the neighborhood." Accordingly, Ms. Lemons has not demonstrated that the Forecast homes would have a significant negative effect on the values of existing homes in the area. Finally, Ms. Lemons suggests that the City "[r]equire the size of the units to be within the same general range as the smallest units of the predominant existing developments, and not to fall below that range." As pointed out by Market Profiles, the Forecast proposal complies with this proposal since its house sizes fall within the range of 470 of the homes in the market area identified by Ms. Lemons, and the neighboring property has already been approved for 1200 square foot homes, which are smaller than the smallest units being proposed by Forecast. In short, Ms. Lemons' report is not significantly at odds with the analysis of Market Profiles; it only makes some faulty assumptions about what is "typical ",that are,not - supported by the data.'.When the data is properly considered,,' the proposed homes are compatible with'the surrounding market,' area even under Ms. Lemons' analysis. • GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October 26, 1993 Page 7 Conclusion For all of reasons stated in our should be sustained. RWL /rwl the foregoing reasons, and for the previous letters, Forecast's appeal Very truly yours, Robert W. Loewen cc: Dawn C. Honeywell, Esq. (via overnight mail) OA932960.007 /2+ Ll BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFE88K1NAL CORPORATKINS LAWYERS ARTHUR L. UTTLEWORTH• DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS' EUSE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO SUITE 312 GLEN E. STEPHENS• ANTONIA GRAPHOS WILLIAM D. DAHLING, JR. MARY E. G.L.TRAP n/ 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE WILLIAM R. DeWOLFE• BARTON C. GAUT- GREGORY K. WILKINSON WYNNE S. FURTH MATT H. MORRIS JEFFREY V. DUNN GLENN P. SABINE S CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON OCT ` V P� Q FFICE BOX 1555 PAUL T. SELZER' DALLAS HOLMES• DAVID L. BARON GENE TANAKA STEVEN C. D.BAUN ERIC L. GARNER JOANE GARCIA- COLSON PHILIP J. KOEHLER RANCr GE, CALIFORNIA 92270 CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER' BASIL T. CHAPMAN DENNIS M. COTA DIANE C. WIESE /1 TELEPHONE (619) 568 -2611 RICHARD T. ANDERSON• WAHLIN' TIMOTHY M. CONNOR VICTOR L. WOLF RACHELLE J. NICOLLE ROBERT HARG REAVES �� REBECCA MARES DURNEY CITY O F � DOROTHY I. ANDERSON Q Q PIER (6191 340 -6698 JOHN E D. MICHAEL D. HARRIS* - ARR DANIEL E. OLIVIER JANICE L. WETS L. G. HENRY WELLES �'�� . W. CURT EALY' THOMAS S. SLOVAK' DANIEL J. MCHUGH HOWARD B. GOLDS PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE KIRK W. SMITH JAMES R. HARPER � � +��� DINA O. HARRIS Eti�s O FF'r JDHN E. BROWN' STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON D. OABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON E V L MICHAEL T. RIDDELL- MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A. SNOW RICHARD T. EGGER MEREDITH A. JURY' JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A. EASTER PATRICK D. DOLAN OF COUNSEL MICHAEL GRANT' MARTIN A. MUELLER - DIANE L. FINLEY DEAN R. DERLETH JAMES B. CORISON FRANCIS J. BAUM• J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. DREYER ANNE T. THOMAS' VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL D. MARTIN NETHERY• JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH CHRISTOPHER DODSON JOHN O. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. FLOYD, JR. JACK B. CLARKE, JR. BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HARDKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E. HILL OFFICES IN KENDALL H. MACVEY CLARK H. ALSOP' BRADLEY E. NEUFELD SHARYL WALKER KEVIN K. RANDOLPH - JAMES B. GILPIN RAYMOND BEST (1868 -1957) RIVERSIDE (909) 686 -1450 DAVID J. ERWIN• PETER M. BARMACK MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913.1975) PALM SPRINGS (6191325 -7264 MICHAEL J. ANDELSON' JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893 -1981) 1 ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION October 25,1993 VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY 619/777 -7101 City of La Quinta: Mayor John Pena Mayor Pro Tem. Stanley Sniff Councilwoman Glenda Bangerter Councilman Ron Perkins Councilman Michael McCartney 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Appeal Regarding Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for.the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Once again, we represent homeowners in the Quinterra and Rancho Octillo subdivisions with respect to the above - referenced matter. This letter is written to address issues raised at the October 19, 1993 City Council meeting and by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in their October 15, 1993 correspondence on behalf of PriMerit Bank. A. Mediation. The Council has requested that the parties to this dispute consider mediation. Our clients are more than willing to meet under any reasonable circumstances to attempt to resolve this dispute. They ask only that there be some basis for a belief that the mediation will be a productive-exercise. RWH42708 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & kRIEGER Mayor and City Council Members City of La Quinta October 25, 1993 Page 2 B. Shumway Appraisal Report. 0 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, on behalf of PriMerit Bank, submitted a report by John Shumway regarding the effect of the proposed downsizing on surrounding home values. The Shumway report concluded that "the Forecast homes would not cause reduction in pricing or resale value of the existing homes." (Report, page 3.) The Shumway report employs a methodology that is fundamentally flawed to reach a conclusion. that defies common sense. The report lumps Quinterra and .eight neighboring subdivisions into one market area. The report is premised on the notion that the nine subdivisions are "very homogeneous," a conclusion that is probably not shared. by anyone who has visited the area and knows the significant difference among the subdivision in terms of size and quality of the homes. The report concludes that Forecast's smaller homes would not be in dominate numbers in the enlarged market area sufficient to cause a reduction in prices throughout that area. The report misses the point. The question is not the effect of the downsizing on house values more than a mile away.. The relevant question is the effect on the adjacent existing homes in the Quinterra subdivision, as well as the Rancho Octillo subdivision. Each subdivision is unique and has established its own standard of quality that varies considerably from one subdivision to another. Anyone who has purchased a home knows that the predominate quality of homes in the immediate neighborhood significantly impacts the value of homes within that neighborhood. No one can seriously. doubt that the value of existing Quinterra homes will be significantly diminished if the remainder of the tract is built out with homes half the size that are sold for half the price. That is the conclusion reached by Rose Lemmons, an accredited senior appraiser who has fourteen years of experience appraising homes in the Coachella Valley, in her letter to the City Council dated October 19, 1991. C. Government Code Section 65961 is Inapplicable to This Case. In its .letter of October 15, 1993, . Gibson, Dunn argues that Government Code Section 65961 voids any discretion the City may have to consider house size. Section 65961 prohibits the City from imposing any condition at the building permit stage that could have been imposed, but was not imposed, on the tentative tract. Gibson, Dunn argues that the City could have imposed a minimum house size RWH42708 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Mayor and City Council Members City of La Quinta October 2.5, 1993 Page 3 at the tentative tract map stage but, having failed to do so, cannot impose it now. We have addressed this argument in our letter of October 19, 1993. Section 65961 does not apply to zoning restrictions that are normally not imposed at the tentative tract stage. Minimum house size is generally not an issue at the tentative tract map stage. Instead, minimum house size is established by the zoning code and enforced at the building permit stage. What is addressed at the tentative tract map stage is the compatibility of the development, both internally and with neighboring subdivisions. For that reason, the planning commission specifically required, through condition number 28, that the architectural design of the, homes be approved by the planning commission. The design review ordinance clearly contemplates that design review will consider issues of preservation, enhancement, and harmonious development of neighborhoods. It is those concerns that have led the planning commission to reject the smaller homes proposed by Forecast. In so doing,.the planning commission is not imposing a minimum house size. It is imposing a requirement that new homes be compatible with, and preserve the quality of, the neighborhood in which they are to be located. As the planning commission specifically reserved the right to review these factors, . the planning commission is not imposing a new condition prohibited by Section 65961. D. Government Code Section 65589.5 Does Not Apply In This Case. Gibson, Dunn implies that Government Code Section 65589.5 limits the City's discretion in this matter. Section 65589.5 provides that a city shall not disapprove low- and moderate - income housing unless the city makes certain findings. As discussed in our letter of September 9, 1993, Section 65589.5 is inapplicable to the Forecast proposal. Low- and moderate - income housing is defined by statute to be housing that is made available at a certain percentage of the area medium income. Currently, such housing will need to sell for approximately $75,000 to $100,000. Forecast has made no commitment to offer its housing for such prices. Gibson, Dunn further 'argues that the planning commission refused to approve the smaller house sizes because of concerns RWH42708 LAW OFFICES OF . BEST, BEST 6. KRIEGER Mayor and City Council Members City of La Quinta October 25, 1993 Page 4 . regarding the quality of persons that would be attracted as first- time home buyers. (See letter of October 18, 1993 at page 6.) Such an assertion is an insult to the City. Neither the planning commission nor the residents of Quinterra have any intention of discriminating against persons of low or moderate income. The City of 'La Quinta is composed of persons of all income segments who have cooperated together to make the City the f ine community. that it is. The City has done an admirable job in promoting housing opportunities for all segments of its population. There currently exists within the City abundant opportunities for home ownership for all income groups. The issue in this case is the compatibility of the housing proposed by Forecast with existing homes in the subdivision. California law requires that housing opportunities be made reasonably available to all income segments of the community. It does not require that houses of substantially different sizes be intermixed in a manner that significantly detracts from the value of existing homes so as to make existing homes more "affordable." To the contrary, an essential goal of the land -use planning process is to ensure the logical and compatible development of the land in a manner that preserves values of existing uses. That is what the homeowners of Quinterra respectfully request of this Council: that appropriate actions be taken to protect the value of their investments and those of similarly situated homeowners throughout the City. We respectfully request that this Council act to effectuate the mandates of the City Code that development proceed in an orderly and harmonious fashion; and to protect the reputation of the City as a secure place for quality investment. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS of BEST., BEST & KRIEGER DSP:RWH:js enclosures cc: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney Client RWH42708 Oct 1 9 93 1' 1:58 21-1 h R wmo PAIMADES LETMR SHOP so via Ot La Paz Pacific Pslisades, California 90272 (3 L•0) 454 -5316 _v i, .4780006 13= 18874004<- P . 1 i aa Y TELECOM ER COVER Lg R DAM. .0 FROM: C) JAAlE OkJR FAX NO: 310- 454 -1 072 Rtj.yu_ jVo --�,[(f)-4S4-L7Oo4--3 PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES cr-y MA NA E r .. FAX NO: q .777 - WQ1 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COLTER SHEET. u; ` _- ` ` ^- `\ ' . . ^ � . � � ` 0 v^ ~ ~ N~ .� ' ..'~. 0 v^ ~ ~ N~ .� ' Extended Page OP TWP PAr.F.r, PI.F.ARF. rAl.L I JS AS SOON AS PoSSIBLF-j TV -Jn T T TN fn XTrn%-r D V t 7Xa* Ra 6� 4, a a, w AID A KIL Pic 17 ii i 49 I 1. .2 LOS ANGELES 333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071-3197 CENTURY CITY 2029 CENTURY PARK EAST LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-3026 SACRAMENTO 400 CAPITOL MALL SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814 -4407 SAN DIEGO 750 B STREET ..SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101-4605' SAN FRANCISCO ONE MONTGOMERY STREET, TELE515 TOWER SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104-4505 MENLO PARK 3000 SAND HILL ROAD. BUILDING 4 MENLO PARK. CALIFORNIA 94025 DALLAS 1717 MAIN STREET DALLAS. TEXAS 75201 -7390 DENVER 1801 CALIFORNIA STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80202-2694 SEATTLE 999 THIRD'AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104-7089 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (714). 451 -3894 VIA TELECOPY AND U.S. MAIL GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHE.R LAWYERS JAMBOREE CENTER 4 PARK PLAZA�� T . IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714-8557. - (714) 451 -3800 - FACSIMILE: (714) 451 -4220 City Council City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 October 18, 1993 CCa ' CC —_513 P JAS. A. GIBSON. 1852-1922 W. E. DUNN. 1861 -1925 ALBERT CRUTCHER. 1860-1931 _.i NEW YORK 200 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1016 6-019 3 WASHINGTON 1050 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036-5306 BRUSSELS AVENUE LOUISE 222 B -1050 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM PARIS 104 AVENUE RAYMOND POINCARE 75116 PARIS. FRANCE LONDON 30/35 PALL MALL LONDON 5WIY 5LP HONG KONG 8 CONNAUGHT PLACE HONG KONG TOKYO 1-1-3 MARUNOUCHI. CHIYODA-KU TOKYO 100. JAPAN AFFILIATED SAUDI ARABIA OFFICE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 15870 RIYADH 11454. SAUDI ARABIA OUR FILE NUMBER T 72589 -00004 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505 (Quinterra /Phase II) Appeal Dear Council Members: At the last City Council meeting that I attended, I heard speculation by many who addressed the Council that the. homes proposed by Forecast would adversely affect the value of surrounding homes. I was curious what an expert appraiser would say about that issue, and.I asked John Shumway of Market Profiles for his view. Attached is a letter from Mr. Shumway that you may find enlightening. Very truly yours, Robert W. Loewen 0 RWL /dk Enclosure cc: Dawn C. Honeywell, Esq. (w /enclosure) (via telecopy) OAOMIO.DZ? IO October 15, 1993 Mr. Robert W. Loewen, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER Jamboree Center 4 Park Plaza Irvine, California 92714 -8557 RE: QU1NTERRA, 94 -LOTS, NEQ MILES /ADAMS, LA OUINTA Dear Mr. Loewen: This letter is in response to your request of Market Profiles to evaluate the impact on existing home values in the Quinterra new -home development if the remaining 94 lots were built at a lower square footage than the 18 existing homes that have been built and are occupied. The Quinterra project is located at the northeast quadrant of Miles and Adams in. the City of La Ouinta. It is our understanding that Quinterra was originally a 116 unit new -home development on 8,000 square foot lots by Windsor Homes. The homes were designed with three floorplans sized at 2,072, 2,363 and 2,595 square feet. Our Residential New Home Trends' audit reveals that Windsor Homes began sales in September of 1991, with a total of three model homes and 15 units offered for sale. Real Estate Market Consultants In December of 1991, our audit registered prices at $188,900 (Plan 1), $223,900 (Plan 2), and $235,900 (Plan 3). During 1992, these units were initially sold ranging in price from $195,500 to $248,000. The balance of the 18 completed units less the three models were 3188-A sold in 1993 by the lender at prices ranging from $149,900 to $210,000. There are 94 Alrwav Arenue Cosla .Mesa - finished lots remaining for development, California 92626 141546 -3814 AX 7141546 -0953 { t 0 4 • Mr. Robert W. Loewen, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER October 15, 1993 Page 2 We further understand that Forecast Homes has become interested in the remaining lots and have proposed the following unit sizes and pricing. MARKET AREA Market Profiles determined after a review of our in -house data and a physical survey of the site, that the boundary of the market area should approximate Fred Waring on the North, Jefferson on the east, Topaz 'Development on the south and Washington Boulevard on the west. Within this established market area there are nine (9) subdivisions that have been active and have lots remaining for development. Only Acacia Homes - La Ouinta, La Ouinta Del Rey and Topaz can be considered active today. The square footages within these subdivisions range from 1,006 square feet at La Ouinta Del Rey to 3,400 square feet at La Ouinta Del Oro by Deane Homes. A breakout of these projects' characteristics, square footage, and pricing can be found in Exhibit I -1. The projects' locations are on Exhibit 1 -2. ISSUE To restate, the issue in question is "What will be the impact, if any, on value of the existing Ouinterra homes if Forecast Homes are built as proposed above ?" Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 ...... «: a 1 O7 ,990 a 114 1s,90 9 $125,990 x139.990 5.:.: .23 1 .43 1,563 1,705 1,868 20% 30% 2096 2096 1096 MARKET AREA Market Profiles determined after a review of our in -house data and a physical survey of the site, that the boundary of the market area should approximate Fred Waring on the North, Jefferson on the east, Topaz 'Development on the south and Washington Boulevard on the west. Within this established market area there are nine (9) subdivisions that have been active and have lots remaining for development. Only Acacia Homes - La Ouinta, La Ouinta Del Rey and Topaz can be considered active today. The square footages within these subdivisions range from 1,006 square feet at La Ouinta Del Rey to 3,400 square feet at La Ouinta Del Oro by Deane Homes. A breakout of these projects' characteristics, square footage, and pricing can be found in Exhibit I -1. The projects' locations are on Exhibit 1 -2. ISSUE To restate, the issue in question is "What will be the impact, if any, on value of the existing Ouinterra homes if Forecast Homes are built as proposed above ?" Mr. Robert W. Loewen, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER October 15, 1993 Page 3 As a first step in the determination' of a possible impact on value, Market Profiles examined the pricing structure and square footage proposed for the new product and , compared that to the last sales prices in Quinterra. The following table depicts the pricing and footages of the Forecast Homes and Duinterra's most recent sales and square footages. Market Profiles then examined the sizes and pricing of homes within the relevant market area. The sizes and price for both the proposed homes by Forecast and existing homes in Quinterra were found to be well- distributed within the market. Since pricing impacts occur over market area, not particular subdivisions and since pricing between the existing homes and the proposed Forecast homes is in line with the market place and not out of the ordinary, it is, in our opinion, that the introduction of the Forecast homes would not cause reduction in pricing or resale value of the existing homes. Market Profiles surveyed the market area to determine what the percentage of distribution by square footage was of homes that were higher in square feet than the size of homes being proposed by Forecast. There are 573 homes in the nine subdivisions: 306 homes or 53 percent have a square footage greater than 1,868 square feet (the largest home size proposed by Forecast Homes). The remainder, 267 homes or 47 percent, are units that contain square footage less than 1,868 square feet. Mr. Robert W. Loewen, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER October 15, 1993 Page 4 Market Profiles also examined the percentage of homes in the market less than 1,600 square feet to determine any emerging trends. This analysis revealed that of the 573 homes, 150 homes (26 %) were units with less than 1,600 square feet. Seventy -four percent or 423 homes were larger than 1,600 square feet. Again, these percentage relationships suggest nothing out of the ordinary. �•;0 Z 101RIPI L91 The results of this analysis are that the square footage and the sales price ranges in North La Quinta are distributed such as to make these nine subdivisions very homogenous. Specifically, the smaller square footage homes were found not to be in dominant numbers to the extent that would cause a weighting in square footage-toward the smaller range and subsequently, in the price of homes. It has been Market Profiles' experience that under the theory of conformity which most communities adhere to in their General Plans, a neighborhood or submarket area would have to become extremely out of balance to have any effect on the pricing and value of homes. For instance, the addition of 94 new homes by Forecast in the size ranges of 1,237 to 1,868 would increase the overall. percentage of smaller homes in the market from 47 percent to 54 percent. This relatively small change in the mix of smaller and large homes should have no impact on overall pricing. More over, in November Acacia Homes will open a second tract of 75 homes next to their existing development with units ranging from 1,280 to 2,400. This size range is larger than their earlier tract. Therefore, the square footage percentage of smaller units in the market area will most likely retreat to the earlier percentages. Market areas and neighborhoods fluctuate in square footage, in price, in style of home, but rarely is there so dramatic a change as to overturn the existing or established balance in a community: • Mr. Robert W. Loewen, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER October 15, 1993 Page 5 Therefore, it is Market Profiles' opinion that the larger square footage homes will = be adversely affected in terms of price if the new homes are constructed of comparable exterior materials, the elevation design /bedroom count is similar and there Is sensitivity in plotting the new product with a transition or buffer of new homes so that the larger new homes are plotted closest to the existing neighborhood. Sincerely, ;AR OFILES hn R. Shumway resident EXHIBIT 1 -1 LA QUINTA NEW -HOME SALES COMPETITIVE PROJECTS OCTOBER, 1999 5/19/83 QuintwW 9%01 8,000 2,072/7 169,900 112 18 0 0 94 Purchased by Forecast Min Ave d E. Adams St. 1 2,383/5 189,900 2,593IB 199,900 3/12192 Rancho 0coti1gj 12/89 8,700 2,175/8 178,900 119 33 0 0 Be for sale In buk Fred Waring Dr. S Adams 2.344/12 189,700 E.O.W111 ms Dev. 2,550/15 206.800 8/17/83 Topaz at La Quints/ 9/90 7200 1,406/5 169,890 190 39 0 5 148 Temporarily on hold Dune Palms Rd 6 S. 1,69012 189,990 Miles 1,830/8 194,990 H11 WWlams 2,173/15 216,990 2.581/14 235,990 8123/83 Acada Homes -La Quints/ 5/90 7,500 1,372124 129,990 120 97 5 0 75 Building scheduled to begin Miles Ave. & Washington 1,721/25 147,980 in 30 days. Units sized (5 Acada Homes 2,032131 187,990 plans) 1,280 to 2,400 at 2,162117 169,980 mix Is 20% ea. size. Cactus Flower North/ 2/89 8,102 1,338118 148,900 133 133 1 0 0 Project sold out in March, S.Fred Waring- E.Duns 1,821/40 159,900 1992 Palms Rd. 1,833/15 149,900 Final map on 52 addWonal UL Williams Dev. 1,687/42 161,900 lots. Links to be sked from [311411192 2,134/17 172,400 1,340 to 2,300 sf. Cunentty 2.378/1 195,900 on hold. 3 La Quints Vistas/ 8100 7,500 1,809/8 158,900 as 53 0 0 33 for sale in buk Fred Waring Dr.-E. Wash. 2,000/11 181,000 La Quints Vistas 2295111 205,000 Partnership 2,405123 218,000 Source: MARKET PROFILES & RESIDENTIAL TRENDS w i EXHIBfT I -1 LA OUINTA NEW440ME SALES COMPE1111 PROJECTS OCTOBER,.1999 8/14/91 Ls Ouinta Highlands/ 9/89 7200 1,220/8 199,900 185 45 1 0 120 for sale Fred Waring Dr. -E.Wash 1,400/9 147,900 Tiled PacMc Dev. 1,583/15 159,900 1,840/15 189,900 05/93 La Ouinta Del Rey / 2/92 8,100 1,008/4 105,990 99 77 5 0 51• Taking reservations (M). W.Las Vistas Dr-N. Mites 1,282/19 129,890 Century Homes Comm. 1,400/27 138,990 •29 addltlonal lots added to 1,587/15 139,980 original development ske 1,878/12 144,990 probably purchased from Highlands development. 11/18/92. Deane Homes -La Oulnta 1190 7,500 2,119/9 169,980 227 73 0 0 154 Owned by the bank Del Oro 2,712/37 249,890 Washington St. -Mlea 9.4000 285,980 Ave. Deane Homes TOTALS: 1,251 588 12 5 7911 Source: MARKET PROFILES & RESIDENTIAL TRENDS E Indian Wells /L9 Quinta Project Location Map 'THOUSAND s PALMS I E d �'�,t, t•� �a iii 10 9 iatra - Or. �j 1 r Q duA 1U) VALM... "" )ESERT Fred W, Dri�n � F 0 N l4"4 a �O Calif MII ,,.r" Hies I� WD10 . - PALM courm PARK 1739' rH . Fturwaty Dt: View Dr._.� NDI AN o Ls Qeints ay Rsdc v WELLS �R �� d : o „ f C Avenue Call Tam i o Indio Mtn. d 2226' E RZ M DevelocmeEd a ..„. i# •i 2 R QUINTA Ocotillo 3 Topaz 4 Acacia °1 5 Cactus Flower ... 6 La Quinta Highlands 7 La Quinta Del Oro 8 La Quints Del Rey 9 La Quinta Vistas Source: MARKET PROFILES & RESIDENTIAL TRENDS O 1111111!•®i 1 E-m 111 1w. .M a yz K e0 Elie ve Airport I Blvd. EXHIBIT I -2 r_ ■ 0 . MARKET- PROFILES Marketing, Management and Research Consultants 3188 -A Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa. CA 92626 (714) 546 -3814 MARKET PROFILES is the company real estate professionals have turned to for facts and solutions for 25 years. Our products and services include: ■ MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDIES Research studies for residential, commercial and industrial developments ranging from small subdivisions to large, mixed -use, master - planned communities to maximize penetration for identifiable market opportunities, enhancing success and reducing risk of project failure. ■ RESIDENTIAL NEW HOME TRENDS A quarterly data base providing current, precise data on new residential subdivision absorption and pricing trends for real estate professionals and financial institutions. Audit now covers most of California. ■ RESIDENTIAL TRENDS COMPANION SOFTWARE A powerful LOTUS - driven software program capable of analyzing competitive new 'For sale' residential product relative to other comparables in seconds. Quarterly updated disks preloaded with all vital marketing statistical data necessary for executive decision making — a companion software tool included in the price of RESIDENTIAL NEW HOME TRENDS. • EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY /LITIGATION SUPPORT Market Profiles' principals offer an effective combination of market understanding and level of detail for use in real estate - related court cases. • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES A separate division headed by experts drawn from the development side of the industry performs due diligence, financial analysis, entitlement work, and other 'out source' project development services. ■ LANDTRACKER SOFTWARE A revolutionary new software tool enabling real estate professionals to track available land in various stages of planning for future development. Easy, menu driven commands provide access to summary or detailed information updated quarterly from community planning departments and our in -house research. ■ RENTAL TRENDS A semi - annual data base publication featuring a detailed analysis of apartment projects in San Diego County (25 units and above). The largest database of its kind, providing project profiles, rental rate trends, vacancy trends and future development details. ■ ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH Analysis of primary socio-economic and demographic factors which quantify demand for various product types within macro or micro market regions. ■ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORTS .Powerful, yet condensed market data providing a statistical overview of residential markets in . Southern California. Perfect for the busy real estate executive who needs a quick reference or valuable trend information to gain or keep familiarity with broad market regions. ■ CONSUMER RESEARCH Site - speck or broad -based consumer 'research defining opinions, attitudes and trends which influence buying patterns for various real estate products, or to better understand other issues impacted by real estate development. XI UMMY F � QUALIFICATIONS Established in 1968, Market Profiles has conducted more than 2,000 major market feasibility studies on real estate developments throughout California, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas. The company is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California with offices in San Diego and Dallas, Texas. Market Profiles' approach toward market analysis brings together an inter - disciplinary project team comprised of analysts with expertise in real estate economics, land planning, development, advertising /marketing, and business administration. This team approach is particularly effective in ensuring the synergy between land uses and the accommodation of real world market dynamics that is so crucial for developing successful master- planned communities. Key properties for which Market Profiles has provided market studies in the past 20 years include the following: REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT LIST MASTER - PLANNED COMMUNITY /SPECIFICPLAN MARKET STUDIES PREPARED BY MARKET PROFILES *Foothill Ranch *Talega Rancho San Clemente Crown Hill *Rancho Santa Margarita Sycamore Canyon The Farm Sunnymead Ranch *Litchfield Park Moreno Valley Ranch Rancho Solano Sierra del Oro Chase Ranch *Corona Ranch ,�— (proposed) *La Cuesta Specific Plan *Portola Hills Wood Ranch Lenwood Ranch Shandin Hills *— (proposed) *Horsethief Canyon North Peak Hovechild Ranch Greer Ranch *Shell Ranch Siegal Ranch Audie Murphy Ranch Forster Ranch 2,743 3,500 1,943 412 5,000 325 714 1,700 14,400 3,959 642 1,150 228 703 283 640 1,000 4,026 1,300 685 205 957 1,064 570 550 810 3,429 991 1,914 rr El Toro San Clemente San Clemente Temecula Rancho St. Margarita Anaheim Hills Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Phoenix, Arizona Moreno Valley Victorville Corona Corona Corona Bakersfield Fontana El Toro Simi Valley Barstow San Bernardino Hemet Corona Lake Elsinore Beaumont Murrieta Yorba Linda Lake Mathews Sun City /Men fee . San Clemente Hon Arvida Nu -West Taylor Woodrow Homes Santa Margarita Company Woodcrest Lane Kuhn Pacific Markborough Goodyear/Westinghouse Warmington Paragon WSLA Bennett Consolidated Buie Centennial Centennial Baldwin Nu -West Paragon - Marlborough Garrett Properties Presley TMC Development Lewis Homes Inland Group Shell Oil S.I.C. Corp. Pacific Coast Homes Westinghouse Communities • • MARKET PROFILES REPRESENTATIVE CLIENT LIST FINANCIAL /INSTITUTIONAL: American Savings & Loan Home Savings of America Bank of America Industrial Bank of Japan Bank of California Imperial Savings & Loan Bankers Mutual Imperial Savings & Loan Canadian Bank Mitsubishi Bank Carlsberg Mortgage National Bank of Canada Central Savings & Loan Pacific Federal Savings & Loan Citicorp Pacific National Bank Downey Savings & Loan Prudential Bache First Federal Bank of California Security Pacific National Bank First Interstate Bank Soloman Brothers Gienfed Union Bank Home Federal Savings & Loan Wells Fargo CORPORATE;::: :. Continental Land Title /Lawyers Title National Gypsum Company Digital Equipment Corporation South Coast Medical Center Hughes Market Southern California Gas Company Lucky Stores Western Waste Mission Viejo Volvo Vitarel Micro Electronics PLANNING/ ENGINEERING /ACCOUNTING /BROKERAGE %MARKETING .: 41 Robert Bein, Wm. Frost Associates Kenneth Leventhal & Company CB Commercial The Marketing Department Danielian Associates Florian Martinez Associates J.F. Davidson PBR Forma Pannell Keerr Forster Grubb & Ellis Planning & Design Solutions Tom Hayes & Associates Stoneman, Roche Associates Stanley R. Hoffman Associates Tierra Planning Hunsaker & Associates Turrini & Brink The Keith Companies PUB=AGENCIES ,.. AMIGA City of San Bernardino City of Claremont Moreno Valley Unified School District City of Downey Orange Unified School District City of Moreno Valley City of Perris City of Redondo Beach ATTORNEYS; MARKET PROFILES REPRESENTATIVE CLIENT LIST BUILDERS/DEVELOPERS-.- A M /Greystone Homes Ferguson Partners Ahmanson Development The Fieldstone Company Akins Development Forest City Development American Retirement Villas Full Service, Inc. Arvida - G. E. Capital The Baldwin Company Garrett Properties Barratt Corporation The Grupe Company Bay Development Bayshore Devco Harwood Homes The Beck Company Homes by Polygon Bedford Properties Homestead Land Development Corp. Bennett Properties Hon Development Co. The Bergheer Company IDM Birtcher Development Corp. The Inland Group Bisco Land Development Ltd. The Irvine Company Bixby Ranch Company Kaufman & Broad Home Corp. Block Homes The Koll Company The Booth Group LDM Development Co. Braemar Homes, Inc. John Laing Homes Bramalea California Lewis Homes Brighton Homes Lightner Developoment - Brock Homes Los Allsos Development M. J. Brock & Sons John D. Lusk & Son Brookfield Development Co. The William Lyon Company The Buie Corporation Marlborough Development Bumett- Ehiine Development co. Mission Vlejo Company Califomia Communities, Inc. Mobil Land Development Co. Califomia Pacific Homes Nelson/Von der Ahe Calprop Corporation Osborne Development Cambridge Development Group Pacific Coast Homes Campeau Corporation Pacific Landmark Canaday & Company Pacific Gateway Homes Carlsberg Construction Co. Palm Desert Development Carlton- Santee Corporation Paragon Homes Carson Company The Plies Company Caryn /Rockfield Presley of Southern California Catellus Regis Homes Century American Homes Robertson Homes Chevron Development Company Rose Hills Development Coleman Homes S & S Construction Concordia Development Santa Anita Realty Enterprises Coombs, Inc. Santa Margarita Company Cordial Housing, Inc. Shell Oil Western E & P Costain Homes Signal Landmark Coultrup Spanish Hills Development Covington Homes Taylor Woodrow Homes Crown Valley Development Tozai Curry-Riach Unocal Land & Development Davidson Homes Valencia Company Davis Developments The Warmington Company EPAC Watt Homes Eadington Development Westinghouse Communities - Elsinore Homes, Inc. Weyerhauser Venture Company ECONOMIC, DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH & MARKETING CONSULTANTS MARKET PROFILES is a leader in providing economic, market research and marketing services covering the complete spectrum of real estate development: All residential uses including attached and detached housing, urban and suburban densities both rental and for -sale, from custom, to senior and health care (sale, rental, congregate, assisted living), single room occupancy (SRO), affordable and subsidized housing; Mixed -use and master - planned communities (including heavy recreation uses with golf and tennis facilities);. Commercial (office, hotels, .restaurants, retail, car care, promotional centers); Industrial (business parks, distribution centers, manufacturing facilities, research and development facilities, and multi- tenant industrial uses); Public sector support (redevelopment, fiscal impact, infill, land use .. opportunities, and implementation marketing plans). MARKET PROFILES' economic, market research, and marketing consulting is one of the most detailed, sophisticated, and innovative in the real estate industry: Positioning Studies - Residual Land Analyses Land Use Opportunity Analysis - Residential Database (22 yrs.) Land Use and Site Plan Analysis - Quarterly New -Home Audits. Product Critiques - Economic & Demographic Forecasts Product Development and Architectural Review Directives - Econometric. Forecasts Product Positioning and Pricing - Balanced Methodology /Supplyvs. Strategies Demand Merchandising Critiques & - Consumer Research Evaluations Expert Witness and/or. Litigation Marketing & Business Plan Support Development & Strategies Portfolio Assessments Marketing & .Merchandising Coordination & Implementation + ,, .. DEVELOPMENT ' SUPPORT SERVICES Market Profiles has extended its list of client services and can now support development needs from pre- acquisition through build -out and warranty. A ' full list of consulting services will complement developer requirements and does not compete with the development community. Our staff is well versed in the technical aspects of real estate development and offers the expertise to support development of: master planned communities; for -sale and rental housing including affordable and senior housing; commercial; industrial and office complexes up to five stories -in height. The services provided under each phase of the development process can be custom tailored to satisfy particular development needs and include the following. PRE - ACQUISITION & DUE DILIGENCE: The process of making the decision to control a piece of property by performing a complete and thorough analysis of the factors affecting the development of the project, develop a design concept and perform a financial analysis of that concept which will result in a decision whether to acquire the property. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS & PROJECT MANAGEMENT: To design a product, process it through. discretionary approvals; develop construction documents and receive the approvals, permits and clearances to construct the project. FINANCIAL: The coordination, preparation, processing, monitoring, and /or reviewing of the documentation, presentation and /or negotiations to the financial community including investors, joint venture partners, equity and non- equity lenders to fund the necessary fund the necessary dollars to develop, construct and /or market a project. CONSTRUCTION: To manage, monitor, review and /or perform the bidding, contracting, construction, customer service and /or warranty of a project. MARKET RESEARCH, MERCHANDISING, MARKETING & SALES: To develop, implement, monitor and /or review the market research, merchandising, marketing, sales and closing of a new or developed project or projects. "4 RESIDENTIAL NEW HOME TRENDS Residential New Home Trends is a quarterly audit providing precise and timely residential housing pricing and absorption trends for the major market areas of Northern, Central, and Southern Califomia. This information source tracks housing alternatives that are finding customer acceptance or rejection and identifies existing market voids. Residential New Home Trends lets you plan a more competitive, consumer - oriented product, and enhances the ability to plan product, for a rapidly evolving marketplace. The comprehensive Residential New Home Trends housing report provides objective and unbiased reporting of major market trends. Trained research analysts compile data on a continual basis through on- site detailed interviews with sales representatives at each development. Data on future proposed supply is generated through interviews with city and county governmental agencies involved In each 'step of the planning process. Subscribers to Residential New Home Trends are developers, lenders, appraisers, corporations and others who want to maximize their chances for success by having on -time, accurate data at their fingertips. We recently developed the industry's first and easiest- to-use Lotus -based Competid a Plan Comparison (CPQ software, which accompanies each audit. This software program coupled with our books provides an invaluable tool designed to save you time and money and most importantly, give you the edge you need in todays fast -paced real estate market. Residential New Home Trends is released quarterly for the following market areas: Orange County Riverside County San Bernardino County San Diego County Contra Costa County South San Joaquin Valley Sacramento Metropolitan Area Shasta County Santa Clarita /Antelope Valley San Fernando Valley San Gabriel Valley Ventura County Solano County The Central Valley Kern County Tehama County A current sample'of a Residential New Home Trends "Development Critique" is included for your review. 31.88 -A Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 714/546 -3814 714/546 -0953 FAX JOHN R. SHUMWAY — PRESIDENT Mr. Shumway, Market Profiles' president, comes to market research by way of the development and brokerage side of the real estate business. Prior to joining Market Profiles in 1983, he served as Director of Acquistions for Ponderosa Homes and Vice President for construction at San Roque Development. He is a Principal in the firm, and oversees both the residential and commercial divisions. A particular area of specialization involves developing land use recommendations for major master - planned /specific plan communities and large -scale mixed -use developments, creating a synergy between residential product lines and commercial /industrial elements. Representative projects include the following: Rancho Clelo Vista Shell 01 Master - planned community with golf course Foothill Ranch Hon Development Master - planned community with 300 -acre business park Summeriin, Las Vegas Sumitomo 55fif-acre master-planned community _ MainPlace /Santa Ana Shimizu 37 -acre urban mixed -use Centrelake (Ontario) Slckels 110 -acre mixed -use project Ontario Centre Chevron 570 -acre mixed -use project midway through build -out Savi Ranch Business Park (Anaheim Hillman 165 -acre complex with R&D, Hills) office and retail Rancho Cucamonga Business Barton /Rancor 300 -acre business park Park I I (office /retail /industrial /hotel) Litchfield Park (Phoenix, Arizona) I Goodyear/Westinghouse -I 14,000 -acre specific Mr. Shumway is on the board of the Commercial Industrial Development Association of Orange County (CIDA), and an active member of the Building Industry Association (BIA), the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP), and the Urban Land Institute (UU). He is a frequent speaker before these and other professional organizations as well as UCI, UCLA classes and other academic groups. Mr. Shumway has been called as an expert witness on litigation cases involving commercial and residential development. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Administration/ Economics from the University of Oregon. fAMASRESUKRES 10/92 LOS ANGELES ' 333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 00 71 -319 7 CENTURY CITY 2029 CENTURY PARK EAST LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 -3026 SACRAMENTO 400 CAPITOL MALL SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814 -4407 SAN DIEGO 750 B STREET SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 9 2101 -4 6 0 5 .SAN FRANCISCO ONE MONTGOMERY STREET. TELE515 TOWER SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 9 4104 -4 50 5 MENLO PARK 3000 SAND HILL ROAD. BUILDING I MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025 OALLAS 1717 MAIN STREET DALLAS. TEXAS 75201-7390 DENVER 1801 CALIFORNIA STREET - DENVER. COLORADO 60202-2694 SEATTLE 999 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 -7089 1 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (714) 451 -3894 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LAWYERS JAMBOREE CENTER' 4 PARK PLAZA IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 -8557 (714) 451 -3800 FACSIMILE: (714) 451 -4220 VIA OVER1yIGHT MAIL City Council City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 October 15, 1993 JAS. A. GIBSON. 1852-1922 W. E. DUNN. 1861-1925 ALBERT CRUTCHER. 1860.1931 NEW YORK 200 PARK AVENUE NEW "ORK, NEW YORK 10166-0193 WASHINGTON 1050 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036-5306 BRUSSELS AVENUE LOUISE 222 B -1050 BRUSSELS. BELGIUM PARIS 104 AVENUE RAYMOND POINCARE 75116 PARIS, FRANCE LONDON 30/35 PALL MALL LONDON 5WIY 5LP HONG KONG e CONNAUGHT PLACE HONG KONG TOKYO 1-1-3 MARUNOUCHI. CHIYODA -KU TOKYO 100. JAPAN AFFILIATED SAUDI ARABIA OFFICE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 15870 RIYADH 11454, SAUDI ARABIA OUR FILE NUMBER T'72589 -00004 Re: Plot Plan 93- 505- (Quinterra /Phase II) Appeal Dear Council Members: We represent PriMerit Bank, the owner of tract 23013, which is the subject of the above - referenced appeal. PriMerit urges the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission's decision to restrict housing.size within the tract to a minimum of 1,650 square feet, and in some cases 1,868 square feet. PriMerit specifically objects to. conditions 7 and 16 of the Planning Commission's approval of the project.l As discussed in detail below, the City lacks - jurisdiction to regulate housing si.ze in tract 23013, but in the spirit of compromise, we propose a minimum square footage of 1,200, as is consistent-with adjoining developments, and we propose to add a plan that is 1,868 square feet in size. 1PriMerit also objects to conditions 12 and 13. These are design issues that will be addressed at the City Council meeting. • GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER . City Council City of La Quinta October 15, 1993 Page 2 . FACTUAL'BACRGROUND • Tentative map 23013 was approved by Resolution No. 88 -127 of the City Council on November 15, 1988. The final map for tract 23013 was recorded on October 23, 1990. The initial owner was Waldon Financial Corporation. Waldon sold the property to Windsor Construction Company, which funded the acquisition, development and construction of the project through a loan from PriMerit. Eighteen homes were built in the 116 -lot subdivision when* the developer defaulted and PriMerit became the owner of the property through foreclosure. Only six of the eighteen homes were sold by the original developer. PriMerit sold the remaining homes at discounts of approximately 20 %. PriMerit has entered escrow to sell the remaining lots to Forecast Development. The sale is conditioned, however, upon the issuance of building permits for Forecast's product, which consists of single - family residences ranging in size from 1,106 square feet to 1,689 square feet. If the City does not approve these smaller homes, Forecast will not purchase the, property, and PriMerit might be left with an unmarketable.property,.al -1 of which would cause PriMerit to suffer significant damages. On August 4, 1993, Forecast's request for plot plan approval was reviewed by the Design Review Board. The matter came before the Board for a review of model homes. The Board approved Forecast's plans without restriction as to house size. On August 14, 1993, the Planning Commission met to consider "a request of Forecast Homes for approval of architectural plans for single family residences." After considerable public comment, the matter was continued to September 14, 1993. A staff report dated September 14, 1993 identifies the procedure before the Planning Commission as "Plot Plan .93 -505 (Model Homes)," but the public comment before the Planning Commission focused exclusively upon the size of the homes proposed for the entire subdivision. The Planning Commission "approved" Forecast's plot plan, but it imposed several conditions upon Forecast's right to obtain building permits, two of,which are at issue in this appeal: GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October 15, 1993 Page 3 7. A Plot Plan of the tract showing setbacks shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for approval. The units shall be plotted so that 1,.868 square foot units are adjacent to the existing homes (e.g. Lots 2, 6, 7, 74 through 80, 99 through 104, and 114 through 116). Three car garages shall be provided on Lots 2, 99, 100, and 101. . . 16. The minimum dwelling unit size within Phase 2 shall be 1,650.square.feet.excluding the two or three car garage. In a letter to Forecast dated September 17, 1993, a. member of the City's staff accurately summarized the effect of these restrictions: "This requirement eliminates your Plan 2 through 5 homes." In.effect, the Planning Commission has rejected Forecast's proposal. REASONS FOR APPEAL Forecast has appealed, on behalf of PriMerit, from' the decision of the Planning Commission for the reasons stated below, each of.which constitutes'a separate and independent basis for reversal: 1. The Planning Commission Lacked. Jurisdiction to Impose Conditions 7 _ and 16. ' The City has established by ordinance certain procedures for the review of development, including proposals for construction of single - family residences. After careful review of the City's Municipal Code, we were only able to locate one provision requiring any plot plan or design review of the project being.proposed.by Forecast -- section 9.32.O1OB(2), which requires plot.plan review of "[t]emporary real estate tract offices ". Condition 28 of the tentative map approval for this subdivision also requires: The Applicant shall revise the architectural elevations for all units-to provide complete (all building sides) architectural treatments. The revised elevations are subject to Planning. Commission review and approval as a,Business item.- The architectural standards shall be included as part of the C.C. & Rs. • GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October 15, 1993 Page 4 • Neither of these provisions offers .the Planning Commission or the City Council discretion to disapprove a residential real estate project on the ground that the houses are too small. Indeed, it is clear that the above - quoted provisions were not designed to have the Planning Commission consider house size at all. .Typically, "elevations" show design and. architectural style, but they do not show dimensions. Therefore, condition 28 of the tentative map did not contemplate an examination of house size. Nor is'there any merit in the contention of Best, Best & Krieger (see letters dated August 19, 1993 and September 9, 1993) that the general purpose of plot plan review to consider "compatibil[ity] with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property" requires a review of house size. If-such sweeping review had been intended, certainly the Code would have required review of the entire subdivision and not just the model homes. The language quoted by Best, Best & Krieger was borrowed by the City of La Quinta from the County of Riverside's zoning ordinance. In practice the County has not used plot plane review to review house size, and we doubt that, until now, the City of La Quinta has done so' either. We were also unable to find any general requirement that Forecast submit its entire development to design review. Even if design review were required here, it would not require Forecast to submit to a review of house size. Best, Best & Krieger quotes out. of context words such as "harmonious development" from the design review provisions of the Municipal Code, but it omits the specific requirement that design review be carried out when "[p]lans are compared to adopted standards and criteria." We are.not aware of any "adopted standards and criteria" that permit review of house size after final map approval. Even if the City had purported to reserve for itself the discretion to consider house size here, which it plainly did not, that reservation of discretion would be void under_ California Government Code Section 65961, which provides in relevant part, "...during the five year period following recordation of the final map.-..a city ... shall not require as a GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October 15, 1993 Page 5 condition to the issuance of any building permit or equivalent permit for such single - ...family residential units; conformance with or the performance of any conditions that the city ... could have lawfully imposed as a condition to the previously approved tentative... map." The City could have imposed a house size limitation when it approved the tentative map had it thought such a restriction important. Since it did not, section 65961 prohibits the City from doing so now. Best, Best & Krieger cites Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Commission, 209 Cal. App. 3d 732 (1989), in support of the City's purported discretion to consider housing size. Guinnane has nothing to do with the proposal.before the City Council. In that case a city planning commission, reviewed an application to build a single 6,000 square foot home on four lots in an area that had only recently been removed from the "open space" element of.the master plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the project at the same time as it was reviewed under CEQA, and it acted pursuant to a resolution permitting the "power of discretionary review" over proposed development in the area and an ordinance granting the Planning Commission much broader authority than.the review provisions adopted by the City of La Quinta. The permit application did not arise, as here, years after the final discretionary review permitted by ordinance had been completed and after the final map had been recorded. Guinnane also does not address Government Code Section 65961 or any of the other interpretation issues presented above. In short, Guinnane sheds no light on the scope of the City's purported discretion here. Finally, the City is without authority to impose conditions 7 and 17 for constitutional reasons. First, it is an invalid exercise of the police power for the City to impose austere size limitations on the proposed development in contravention of the public policy, announced by the State Legislature in several statutes; in favor of affordable housing. Second, insofar as the City interprets the vague language of the Municipal Code and condition.28 of the tentative map quoted above to permit the broad discretion exercised by the Planning Commission, PriMerit has been deprived of its right to procedural due process of law because it could not reasonably have anticipated that result. L J GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October 15, 1993 Page 6. 2. The_Plannina Commission's House size Restrictions Are Inconsistent with Both State Law and the City's General Plan Because They Limit the Availability of Affordable Housinv. The California legislature has acknowledged the lack of affordable housing in this state as a "critical problem which threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California." Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(a)(1) (West 1990). California's lack of affordable housing is due in large part to the "activities and policies of many local governments which limit the approval of affordable housing." Id—at § 65589.5(x)(2). Accordingly, the State legislature has undertaken significant efforts to assure "that local governments make a diligent effort through the administration of land use ... to significantly reduce housing development costs of affordable housing, including housing for elderly persons and families," Cal. Gov't Code § 65913 (a)(3) (West 1985), and "to provide greater encouragement for local and state governments to approve needed and sound housing developments." Id. at § 65913(b). Specifically, California law prohibits a city and /or county from discriminating against a residential development because it is intended for occupancy by persons and families of lower,.moderate or middle income. Cal. Gov't Code §.65008(c)(1)(West 1984). Moreover, in exercising its authority to regulate subdivisions, a city and /or county shall "[r]efrain from imposing criteria for design, as defined by Section 664.18, or improvements, as defined by Section 66419, for the purpose of rendering infeasible the development of housing for any and all economic segments of the community." Cal. Gov't Code § 65913.2(a) (West 1983). PriMerit believes that the Planning Commission imposed size restrictions on Forecast's proposal for reasons that are improper under the aforementioned statutes. Much of the public comment at the Planning Commission meetings focused upon concern by current residents about the quality of people that will be attracted as first -time home buyers.. PriMerit strongly disagrees with the assertion that first -time buyers do -not make good neighbors, but more importantly, the State 7� GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October 15, 1993 Page 7 Legislature has prohibited the City from listening to it! The reasons given for opposing downsizing in this instance runs afoul of the Government Code, and the size restrictions imposed by the Planning Commission must be reversed for that reason. Moreover, Government Code § 65589.5 provides that "(a] local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project affordable to low- and moderate - income households or condition approval in a manner which renders the project infeasible for development for the use of low- and moderate - income households unless" it makes certain findings. (Emphasis added.) The burden is,on the City to make the necessary findings. La Quinta's Housing Element explicitly acknowledges a shortage of homes for first -time purchasers and low- and moderate- income families. For example, La Quinta acknowledges in its Housing Element an "existing need"-resulting from the number of lower income households which were spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs as of January 1, 1987. Id. at 14. La Quinta concluded that 63% of its lower income households were paying 30% or more for housing costs. This figure represented 50.5% of all La Quinta households in 1989. Housing Element at 18. La Quinta also acknowledged in its Housing Element that most purchase-opportunities were beyond the: capability of lower income families. Housing Element at 29. Moreover, while concluding that first -time buyers accounted for 37.8% of housing sales, La Quinta noted that such consumers were being eliminated from the "starter" house market, and as such, "an increasing segment of the population was not being provided housing in the market place." Id. at 55 -56. The Planning Commission's decision to reject all of Forecast's smaller homes is inconsistent with the objective of the Housing Element to increase the availability of affordable housing. Forecast's homes are oriented to first -time owners, single parents and the elderly -- exactly the segments La Quintals Housing Element says are in need of housing. The City Council should'makehome ownership available to low and moderate income residents by,reversing the Planning Commission's imposition of conditions 7 and 16. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER City Council City of La Quinta October.15, 1993 Page '8 30 The Forecast Proposal is "Compatible" With House sizes in surrounding Neighborhoods: Recently, the City approved an extension of Tentative Tract 25953, which is immediately adjacent to PriMerit's property, but required as a condition of that extension that house sizes be at least 1200 square feet. Thus, the houses immediately adjacent to the subject property may well be the same size as those proposed by Forecast. Although a transition may be required with the existing homes in the Quintera development, that same transition would also be. required if the Quintera development had been built out with larger houses as originally planned; it just would have occurred in a different location. In addition, neither the planning staff nor the Design Review Board found that - .Forecast's proposal was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Accordingly, there was no reasonable basis for the Planning Commission to conclude that the Forecast plans were incompatible with the surrounding house sizes. 4. Conclusion. For all of the foregoing reasons, PriMerit respectfully requests that conditions 7, .12, 13 and 16 of the Planning Commission's approval be deleted and that the Planning Commission's approval.of Forecast's proposal be confirmed in all1other respects. Very truly yours, Robert W. Loewen RWL /dk cc: Dawn C. Honeywell, Esq. (via overnight mail) UO328W.020 /4+ BEST, BEST & KRIEGER fib,, >.L` „'', _ k ",r1 a4 A PARTNERSHIP INCWDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATON9 LAWYERS OCT 0 1 '993 ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH' DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS` ELISE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO SUITE 312 GLEN -E. STEPHENS' ANTONIA GRAPHOS WILLIAM D. DAHLING, JR. MARY E. GILSTRAP ..z.,,... -ter,, .39700 HOPE DRIVE WILLIAM R. DeWOLFE' GREGORY K. WILKINSON MATT H. MORRIS GLENN P. SABIHE ` ti4�'_._..:.�,«--- ,,.. -,, BARTON C. GAUT' WYNNE S. FURTH JEFFREY V. DUNN CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON, �P,OSTjOFFICE BOX 15555 PAUL T. SELZER' DAVID L. BARON STEVEN C. DeBAUN JOANE GARCIA- COL SON Ram c•,RANCHO•NIfRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 DALLAS HOLMES' GENE TANAKA ERIC L. GARNER PHILIP J. KOEHLER RamlP ?C.; rJP'�''�A' , *NI-n. M CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER' BASIL T. CHAPMAN DENNIS M. COTA DIANE C. WIESE „�. _ TE§216NEQ(619) 568 -2611 RICHARD T. ANDERSON' TIMOTHY M. CONNOR RACHELLE J. NICOLLE REBECCA MARES DURNEY •�•` -- JOHN D. WAHLIN' VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HARGREAVES DOROTHY !, ANDERSON TEL'ECOPIER: (619)c34P 6698 MICHAEL D. HARRIS' DANIEL E. OLIVIER JANICE L. WEIS G. HENRY WELLES W. CURT EALY' DANIEL J. McHUGH PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK' HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH DINA O. HARRIS JOHN E. BROWN' STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON O. DABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL T. RIDDELL' MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A. SHOW RICHARD T. EGGER OF COUNSEL MEREDITH A. JURY' JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A. EASTER PATRICK D. DOLAN MICHAEL GRANT' MARTIN A. MUELLER DIANE L. FINLEY DEAN R. DERLETH JAMES B. CORISON FRANCIS J. BAUM J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. DREYER ANNE T. THOMAS' VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL D. MARTIN NETHERY' JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH CHRISTOPHER DODSON JOHN O. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. FLOYD, JR. JACK B. CLARKE, JR. BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HARDKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E. HILL OFFICES IN KENDALL H. M8CVEY BRADLEY E. NEUFELD KEVIN K. RANDOLPH RIVERSIDE (909) 686 -1450 CLARK H, ALSOP' SHARYL WALKER JAMES B. GILPIN RAYMOND BEST (1868 -1957) DAVID J. ERWIN' PETER M. BARMACK MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913 -1975) PALM SPRINGS (619)325 -7264 MICHAEL J. ANDELSON' JEANN ETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893 -1981) ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATON October 1, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Jerry Herman, Planning & Development Director City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505 (Quinterra /Phase II) - Appeal City of La Quinta Letter Dated September 29, 1993 Gentlemen: I have received your letter dated September 29, 1993, and note that you have requested that any additional material for the October 19 City Council packet be submitted to your office not later than today, October 1, 1993. I would first request that our letters to the Planning Commission dated August 19 and September 19, 1993, copies of which are attached, are included in the City Council packet. Second, I request that any petitions, letters, or other materials that were submitted by either myself or other individuals on behalf of the Quinterra and Rancho Ocotillo Homeowners be included in the City Council's agenda packet for the meeting of October 19, 1993. I am particularly interested that the petitions which were filed on behalf of. the Quinterra and Rancho Ocotillo Homeowners be included in the agenda packet for the City Council's review. Finally, I would request that I receive copies of any documents, letters, memoranda, or other written materials submitted DSP41800 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Greg Trousdell Associate Planner October 1, 1993 Page 2 51 by Forecast Homes or PriMerit Bank, or their representatives, or submitted by any other interested persons, will be sent to me on behalf of the Quinterra and Rancho Ocotillo homeowners. If you would prefer not to send the written materials from other persons to me, I would be happy to make arrangements to come by your office and pick those documents up. Please let me know your preference on this. DSP:pam cc: clients i DSP41800 Very truly yours, Dou las S* Phillips of Best, Best & Krieger a: T A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATON August 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Plot Plan-93-505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to. build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of.existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes will be lost. On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- RWH40196 AT • BEST, & KRIEGER A PARTNE"I P INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATONS LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH• DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS• ELISE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO SUITE 312 GLEN E. STEPHENS• ANTONIA GRAPHOS WILLIAM D. DAHLING. JR. MARY E. GILSTRAP _ 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE WILLIAM R. DeWOLFE' BARTON C. GAUT' GREGORY K. WILKINSON WYNNE S. FURTH MATT H, MORRIS JEFFREY V DUNN GLENN P. SABINE CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON POST OFFICE BOX 15'35 PAUL T. SE LZER• DAVID L. BARON STEVEN C. DeBAUN JOANE GARCIA•COLSON, RANCHO MIRAGE. CALIFORNIA 92270 DALLAS HOLMES. CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER. GENE TANAKA .BASIL T. CHAPMAN ERIC L. GARNER DENNIS M. COTA PHILIP J. KOEHLER DIANE C. WIESE TELEPHONE (619) 568 -2611 RICHARD T. ANDERSON- TIMOTHY M. CONNOR RACHELLE. 1. NICOLLE REBECCA MARES OURNEY TELECOPIER (619) 340 -6698 JOHN O. WAHLIN' VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HARGREAVES DOROTHY I. ANDERSON MICHAEL O. HARRIS- OANIEL E. OLIVIER JANICE L. WEIS G. HENRY WELLES W CURT EALY' DANIEL J. McHUGH PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK- HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH DINA 0. HARRIS JOHN E. BROWN• STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON 0. DABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON ' MICHAEL T. RIDDELL' MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A. SNOW RICHARD T. EGGER MEREDITH A. JURY• JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A. EASTER PATRICK D. DOLAN OF COUNSEL MICHAEL GRANT• MARTIN A. MUELLER DIANE L. FINLEY DEAN R. DERLETH JAMES B. CORISON FRANCIS J. BAUM' J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. DREYER ANNE F. THOMAS' VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL 0. MARTIN NETHERY' JEFFEEY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH CHRISTOPHER DODSON JOHN O. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. FLOYO. JR. JACK B. CLARKE. JR. BERNIE l WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HARDKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E. FALL OFFICES IN KENDALL H. MacVEY CLARK H. ALSOP' BRADLEY E. NEUFELO SHARYL WALKER KEVIN K. RANDOLPH JAMES B. GILPIN RAYMOND BEST (1868.1937) RIVERSIDE (909) 686 -1450 DAVID J. ERW IN' PETER M. BARMACK MARSHAI L S. RUDOLPH JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913.1975) PALM SPRINGS (6191325.7264 MICHAEL J. ANOELSON' JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893.1981) ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATON August 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Plot Plan-93-505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to. build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of.existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes will be lost. On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- RWH40196 BEST, BEST & KRI • Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 2 existing 18 homes in the Quinterra subdivision were built using those plans. These are all quality homes which originally sold for between $200,000 and $250,000. At the time Quinterra homeowners purchased their homes,.they were assured by Windsor that the quality of the neighborhood would be maintained throughout subsequent phases. The subdivision's CC &R's call for the establishment of an Architectural Control Committee that will review and approve all homes to be built in the subdivision (other than those built by the developer) to insure that standards within the neighborhood are maintained. Based on these representations, homeowners felt secure in investing a significant part of their life savings in their new homes. Forecast Homes now proposes to build significantly smaller homes (from 1,106 to 1,659 square feet) that will sell for half the price of the existing homes. We all know that the quality of a neighborhood significantly affects the value of each home within that neighborhood.. Forecast undoubtedly foresees that the value of its smaller homes will increase due to their close proximity to the larger existing homes. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. The value of existing homes will be reduced if smaller homes are allowed to be built in the same tract. In essence, approval of the smaller homes will allow Forecast to transfer value from existing homes to the new, smaller homes. Forecast will then sell this transferred value at a profit, while existing homeowners will suffer a loss in the value of.their investment. We are mindful that, in today's market, requiring Forecast to proceed with the project as originally planned may not provide Forecast with the fastest method of making a profit. But land -use planning is not about maximizing short -term profits for developers. It is about achieving coherent and consistent development of property that will preserve and enhance property values for all concerned - -the developer, the surrounding property owners and the City. Forecast's request comes before this Commission for design review as a plot plan. One of the goals of design review is to "foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of the City and its harmonious development . . . ." (La Quinta Municipal Code § 9.183.020(A).) Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to be RWH40196 BEST, BEST & KRIE Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 3 • compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property." (La Quinta Municipal Code S 9.180.040(B).) Forecast's proposed plans do not comply with those requirements. Degragation of the neighborhood through the construction of lower - value housing is not compatible with current development nor does it preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods. For that reason alone, Forecast's request should be denied. As the principal planning agency for the City of La Quinta, this- Commission is encharged with implementing a long -range perspective for the development of- the City. The Quinterra neighborhood will exist for years to come. By investing a substantial part of their life savings in quality Quinterra homes, existing homeowners have made a long-term investment in, and commitment to, the quality of their neighborhood and the City of La Quinta as well. This Commission should not allow that investment and commitment to be undermined by short -term market forces and Forecast's desire for a quick profit. It is our understanding that there are other subdivisions within La Quinta that face a similar dilemma. Initial phases of those subdivisions were built with larger, quality homes. Now, due to the depressed housing market, developers desire to build smaller, inferior homes within those developments. In an effort to move product, developers are sacrificing the quality of their projects. We believe that fairness and good planning demand that the City of La Quinta carefully examine the situation and craft a comprehensive, City -wide response. We suggest that a "neighborhood preservation ordinance" be implemented. The. ordinance would use zoning controls to balance the need to maintain existing neighborhood values with the desire of developers to respond to market conditions. Similar ordinances have been enacted in other cities to preserve existing neighborhoods from uncontrolled development that threatened to destroy the character of those neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would give La Quinta city planners, this Commission and the City Council increased ability to respond in a reasonable way to the needs of all segments of the community and to allow for the development in a manner that is fair to all. Until this City has had an opportunity to fully assess and respond to the threats to existing neighborhoods posed by subsequent, inferior development, we respectfully request that Forecast be required to continue to develop the Quinterra subdivision as previously planned by Windsor and approved by the RWH40196 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIfe Planning.Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 4 City. A hasty decision to allow lesser - quality development in this neighborhood will unfairly detract from the substantial investments made in good faith by Quinterra homeowners and from the reputation of the City of La Quinta as a secure place for quality investment. Very truly yours, DOUG S S. PHILLIPS of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER DSP:RWH:js cc: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney City of La Quinta Client RWN40196 • A PROFESSIONAL COR/ORATMN September 9, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P.1( O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: As you may remember, this lawfirm represents a number of the homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. In a letter to this Commission dated August 19, 1993, we presented the homeowners' concerns that approval of the smaller homes would significantly reduce the value of existing homes. We requested that the Forecast proposal not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that other similarly - situated neighborhoods be preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of the subdivisions as initially planned and approved. For your reference, we have attached a copy of the August 19 letter. We are writing this letter to address a few concerns that have arisen since the original letter. First, it has come'to our attention that proponents of the Forecast proposal may argue that Government Code Section 65589.5 prevents the City from denying the proposal. Section 65589.5 has been characterized as an "anti- NIMBY" law. The Section prohibits RWH40917 *ST BEST, & KRIEGER A PAATNEWIHIP Ir LUO1 PA FE9LdVAL CCR CIPArK" LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH• DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS- ELISE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO SUITE 312 GLEN E. STEPHENS• WILLIAM R. OeWOLFE• AN TONIA GRAPHOS GREGORY K. WILKINSON WILLIAM O. DAHLING. JR. MAFT H. MORRIS MARY E. GILSTRAP GLENN P. SABINE 39700 BOB MOPE DRIVE BARTON C. GAUT• WYNNE S. FURTH JEFFREY V. DUNN CHRISTINE L. RICHAROSON POST OFFICE BOX 1555 PAUL T. SELLER- DAVID L. BARON STEVEN C. De8AUN JOANE GARCIA-COLSON RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 DALLAS HOLMES• CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER• GENE TANAKA BASIL T. CHAPMAN ERIC L. GARNER DENNIS M. COTA PHILIP J. KOEHLER DIANE C. WIESE _ TELEPHONE (619) 568 -2611 RICHARD T. ANDERSON' TIMOTHY M. CONNOR RACHELLE J. NICOLLE REBECCA MARES GURNEY TELECOPIER (619) 340 -6698 JOHN D , WAHLIN• VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HARGREAVES DOROTHY 1. ANDERSON MICHAEL D. HARRIS` DANIEL E. OLIVIER JANICE L. WEIS G. HENRY WELLES W. CURT EALY• DANIEL J. McHUGH PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK- HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH DINA O. HARRIS JOHN E. BROWN- STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON O. DABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL T. RIDDELL• MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A. SNOW RICHARD T. EGGER MEREDITH A. JURY' JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A. EASTER PATRICK O. GOLAN OF COUNSEL MICHAEL GRANT' MARTIN A. MUELLER DIANE L. FINLEY DEAN R. OE RLE TH JAMES B. CORISON FRANCIS J. BAUM• J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. DREYER ANNE T. THOMAS- VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN. SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL D. MARTIN NETHERY' JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES — SCOTT C. SMITH CHRISTOPHER DODSON JOHN O. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. FLOYO. JR. JACK B. CLARKE. JR. BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HAROKE BRIAN M. LEWIS El AINE E. HILL OFFICES IN KENDALL H. M..VEY BRADLEY E. NEUFELO KEVIN K. RANDOLPH RIVERSIDE (909) 686 -.11 0 CLARK H. ALSOP• DAVID J. ERWIN- SHARYL WALKER . PETER M. BARMACK JAMES B. GILPIN MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH RAYMOND BEST (I W8. 1997) JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913.1979) PALM SPRINGS (619)32'5 -7264 MICHAEL J. ANDELSON` JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893 -1981) ONTARIO (909) 989.8584 • A PROFESSIONAL COR/ORATMN September 9, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P.1( O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: As you may remember, this lawfirm represents a number of the homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. In a letter to this Commission dated August 19, 1993, we presented the homeowners' concerns that approval of the smaller homes would significantly reduce the value of existing homes. We requested that the Forecast proposal not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that other similarly - situated neighborhoods be preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of the subdivisions as initially planned and approved. For your reference, we have attached a copy of the August 19 letter. We are writing this letter to address a few concerns that have arisen since the original letter. First, it has come'to our attention that proponents of the Forecast proposal may argue that Government Code Section 65589.5 prevents the City from denying the proposal. Section 65589.5 has been characterized as an "anti- NIMBY" law. The Section prohibits RWH40917 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KR16 .R I* Planning Commission City of La Quinta September 9, 1993 Page 2 local governments from denying housing projects that have at least 20% of the units set aside for low- and moderate - income households unless the local government makes certain specific findings. Section 65589.5 is inapplicable to the Forecast proposal because the Forecast proposal does not qualify as low- to moderate - income housing. Low- and moderate - income housing is defined by statute to be housing that is made available at a certain percentage of the area median income. Currently, such housing would need to sell for approximately $75,000 to $100,000. Forecast has made no commitment to offer its housing for such prices. Secondly, we are informed that the City of La Quinta is currently revising the housing element of its general plan. According to correspondence to the City from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, the City's current housing plan is not in compliance with current State requirements. We believe that it would be inappropriate for the City to make any decision to radically change the nature of the Quinterra subdivision in absence of a current statement of the City's housing goals that the housing element should provide. Finally, we wish "the Planning Commission to be aware of the case of Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 732. In that case, the court affirmed the City of San Francisco Planning Commission's denial of a building permit to construct a house that, because of its size, was not in character with the other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed house complied with the City's zoning laws and building standards but was considerably larger than surrounding homes. The court relied on the requirement in City's code that the commission "protect the character and stability of residential areas," to find that the commission retained sufficient discretion to deny the permit. As explained in our letter of August 19, 1993, La Quinta Municipal Code provides ample discretion for the denial of the .Forecast proposal. One of the goals of design review is to "foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of the City and its harmonious development . . . ." (La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.183.020(A)). Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property." (La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.180.040(B)). Forecast's proposal to degregate the neighborhood by construction of lower - quality homes does not preserve and RWH40917 -LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST b KR� �R Planning Commission City of La Quinta September 9, 1993 Page 3 enhance the neighborhood; is not consistent with the neighborhood's harmonious development; and, is not compatible with present and future logical development of the area. Therefore, the Forecast proposal does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. Once again, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission seriously consider the long -range deleterious effect of the Forecast proposal._ We are confident that the City will conclude, as we have, that the Forecast proposal is not in the best interest of Quinterra and surrounding neighborhoods or of the City as a whole. Very truly.yours, DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER DSP:RWH:js Enc. cc: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney 'City of La Quinta: Mayor John Pena Mayor Pro Tem Stanley Sniff Councilwoman Glenda Bangerter Councilman Ron Perkins Councilman Michael McCartney Client RWH40917 (fity�' FIL _ E COPY 78495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) 777 -7101 September 17, 1993 Mr. Bruce Strickland Forecast Homes 10670 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: .PLOT PLAN'93 -505 (QUINTERRA /PHASE II) Dear Mr. Strickland: The Planning Commission voted (4 -0) to approve your model home design request on September 14, 1993, but with a few modifications. The primary change was the Planning Commission choose to permit only 1, 650 square foot (or larger) single family homes within Phase 2. This requirement eliminates your Plan 2 through 5 homes . The final Conditions of Approval for your project are attached. If you desire to appeal the Planning Commission decision, please file an appeal with our office by October 4, 1993. The appeal fee is $25.00. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY NN NG DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GREG TROUSDELL ASSOCIATE PLANNER GT : ccs Attachment cc: Mr. Jim Ahmad Mr. Stephen D. Humphrey Mr. Douglas S. Phillips MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 LTRGT.004 y 0 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (FORECAST) September 14, 1993 + Modified by Planning Commission on September 14, 1993 ++ Added by Planning Commission on September 14, 1993 1. The front yard of all lots, and in addition, the street side yard of corner lots, shall be landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement, whichever is furthest from the residence. 2. The landscaping for each lot shall include trees (minimum two 24" box size trees on interior lots and five 24" box size trees on corner lots), minimum five gallon shrubs, and groundcover and /or hardscape of sufficient size, spacing and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the Manual on Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission. 3. A permanent water - efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas required to be landscaped. The provisions of Ordinance #220 shall be met. The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the City, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission. . 4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition by the property owner. 5.. The standards of the R -1 Zoning shall be met (e.g. setbacks, etc.) . 6. . If the model homes are converted to sales offices (e.g. converted garages, etc.) as part of the marketing program for the tract, the Applicant shall file with staff a floor plan or letter of intent detailing the work to be done. A cash bond or another type of security should be posted to ensure that the home (s) is reconverted prior to its sale and /or occupancy. +7. A Plot Plan of the tract showing setbacks shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for approval. The units shall be plotted so that 1,868 square foot units are adjacent to the existing homes (e.g. Lots 2, 6, 7, 74 thru 80, 99 thru 104, and 114 thru 116) . Three car garages shall be provided on Lots 2, 99, 100, and 101. 8. If a temporary Real Estate tract _ office is located within the subdivision the maximum installation period should not exceed the sale of the units and /or two years. A plot plan application is required. +9. The concrete roof tile in Phase 2 shall be similar in color to Phase I. CONAPRVL.005 10.' The Applicant's model complex shall be built north of the existing homes (e'.9- Ocotillo Drive & Adams Street) to reduce vehicle traffic to and from the sales area. 11. No building permits shall be issued for Phase 2 until the developer has paid the City's Parkland fee or dedicated land to the City to fulfill this outstanding tract map obligation. +12. The August 24, 1993, material sample colorboard is approved as submitted, except the Applicant will not be allowed to use the Saturn red brick veneer for the project. River Rock veneer will not be permitted. +13. The perimeter tract fencing shall be finished to match Phase 1. The individual lot fencing, if built, shall be constructed of either masonry or stucco wood frame to be compatible with Phase I. Wood fencing is not allowed. +14. A minimum four -inch stucco popout shall be used around all exterior sliding glass doors and windows to ensure architectural compatibility to the Phase 1 units and to provide minimum shading from the exposure to the sun. The minimum roof eave shall be 18- inches. ++15. Sectional metal garage doors shall be installed on all. garages. + +16. The minimum dwelling unit size within Phase 2 shall be 1,650 square feet excluding the two or three car garage. ++17. The proposed Medalist unit (i.e. 1,868 square feet) or other units not presented on September 14, 1993, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. CONAPRVL.005 2 0 79-496 Cda.L -E - FAkMpIC® 42UIN'rA. 4--.ALIFTCi7Pll^ 02263 - (010) 777 -7900 F^X (619) 777 -7101 Saptaarab(ax, 17, 1993 Mr. $rucas StrloklMtsd . Far ®cm•at Hom®s 10670 Civio Caaatar Drives Ra.aolxta Cucamor%wm. CA 01730 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -505 II) 13ewr Mr. strlcs2slaaaci: ' Tha PI'tn�iaag Comasaiaaaion vot ®a1 (Q -O) to approve your rs2oQe1 llaemra® ai ®sign rciqu ®eat omm Sept"mber 14, 19939 but wlth m Paw mc3- c2Mcatloa9a. TYaa I3r4aQkx,3r chaaw-B wale tho Plmmrnaing COmmiaaaia = ok%CaC.1043 to permit only 1 , 880 ®®,aia9r® toot (or laELrg ®r) 01%%al® rcLmjly homes within Ph ®ao 2. This z- ®a;ulr6m ®z2Lt aitminAst¢(s your Plana 2 throug4a 8 lzoasos. Tha Sisutl Coa.3itloam of Apparovml for your projaot ut^® att0.eaha344 , IP you daaaairas to ®ppaa�l thaa Plaaraiag Comaalmdalaa cEooi ®ion, plemmo4E& file nxn mpp4mal witli our offlc-" by OcYotr r 6, 1993. Tha aLppaaaal f ®® In $25.00. Sf you iieLva any alyaaretionm, plaaaras® ooataac't tho uaci ®r�lgzaecl. Vary truly youra, JERRY N P�. NN s��4 DI£VELOPMENT DZRECI`ORt ca it Zr liOUSDELL ASSOCIATE PLANNER C3T AttacYaanont ' 002 Mr. Jim Ahmacl Rir _ Staphe�a D _ l�iu�r:p.laray . AIr.. Douglas S Phillips. MAILi0NG6 ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1 BC�4 - L-A GIUIN rA.. CAL(POF MA D9283 LTRGFT.004t ' TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT WAS SENT COUNT*** # 3 *?c* SEND * ** (REDUCED SAMPLE AWOKE) NO REMOTE STATION 1.0. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 93253791 9 -17 -93 1 :51PM 2'27" 3 TOTAL 0:02'27" 3 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 • � � /4- M 3Zs -37gJ 4 78 -495 CALLE, TAMPICO — LA GIUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) 777 -7101 September 17, 1993 Mr. Bruce Strickland Forecast Homes 10670 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA -91730 SUBJECT:' PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (QUINTERRA /PHASE II) . Dear Mr. Strickland: The Planning Commission voted (4 -0) to approve your model home design request_ on September 14, 1993, but with a few modifications. The primary change was the Planning Commission choose to permit only 1, 650 square foot (or larger) single family homes within Phase 2. This requirement eliminates your Plan 2 through 5 homes. The- final Conditions of Approval for your project are attached. If you desire to appeal the Planning Commission decision, please file an appeal with our office by October 4, 1993.. The appeal fee is $25.00. . If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY N' PL NN NG DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR J GREG TROUSDELL ASSOCIATE PLANNER GT : ces Attachment cc: Mr. Jim Ahmad Mr. Stephen D. Humphrey Mr. Douglas S. Phillips MAILING ADDRESS = P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 LTRGT.004 F;w 0 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (FORECAST) September 14, 1993 + Modified by Planning Commission on September 14, 1993 ++ . Added by Planning Commission on September 14, 1993 1. The front yard of all lots, and in addition, the street side yard of corner lots, shall be landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement, whichever is furthest from the residence. 2. The landscaping for each lot shall include trees (minimum two 24" box size trees on interior lots and five 24" box size trees on corner lots) , minimum five gallon shrubs, and groundcover and /or hardscape of sufficient size, spacing and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the Manual on Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission. 3. A permanent water- efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas required to be landscaped. The provisions of Ordinance #220 shall be met. The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the City, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission. 4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition by the property owner. 5. The standards of the R -1 Zoning shall be met (e.g. setbacks, etc.) . 6. If the model homes are converted to sales offices (e.g. converted garages, etc. ) as part of, the marketing program for the tract, the Applicant shall file with staff a floor plan . or letter of intent detailing the work to be done. A cash bond or another type of security should be posted to ensure that the home (s) is reconverted prior to its sale and /or occupancy. +7. A Plot Plan of the tract showing setbacks shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for approval. The units shall be plotted so that 1,868 square foot units are adjacent to the existing homes (e.g. Lots 2, 6, 7, . 74 thru 80, 99 thru 104, and 114 thru 116) . Three car garages shall be provided on Lots 2, 99, 100, and 101. 8. If a temporary Real Estate tract office is located within the subdivision the maximum installation period should not exceed the sale of the units and /or two years. A plot plan application is required . +9. The concrete roof tile in Phase 2 shall be similar in color to Phase I. CONAPRVL.005 • i 10. The Applicant's model complex shall be built north of the existing homes (e. g. Ocotillo Drive & Adams Street) to reduce vehicle traffic to and from the sales area. 11. No building permits shall be issued for Phase 2 until the developer has paid the City's Parkland fee or dedicated, land to the City to fulfill this outstanding tract map obligation. +12. The August 24, 1993, material sample colorboard is approved as submitted, except the Applicant will not be allowed to use the Saturn red brick veneer for the project . River Rock veneer will not be permitted. +13. The perimeter tract fencing shall be finished to match Phase 1. The individual lot fencing, if built, shall be constructed of either masonry or stucco wood frame to be compatible with Phase I. Wood fencing is not .allowed. +14. A minimum four -inch stucco popout shall be used around all exterior. sliding glass doors and windows to ensure architectural compatibility to the Phase 1 units and to .provide minimum shading from the exposure to the sun. The minimum .roof eave shall be 18-inches. ++15. Sectional metal garage doors shall be installed on all garages. ++16. The minimum dwelling. unit size within Phase 2 shall be 1, 650 square feet excluding the two or three car garage. + +17. The proposed Medalist unit (i.e. 1,868 square feet) or other units not presented on September 14, 1993, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. CONAPRVL.005 2 • • CITY OF LA Q UINTA MEMORAND U Mop r- I -�,�t�— RLE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR PENA FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1993 SUBJECT: TIME LINE FOR QUINTERRA Per your request, the following information is a summary of the action taken by the Planning Commission on September 14, 1993, and a time line with procedure should the decision be appealed. The Commission approved the Quinterra project subject to: 1. A 1650 square foot house minimum. 2. Perimeter block wall and masonry or block wall interior fencing. 3. 1868 square foot homes adjacent to the.existing units. 4. Roll -up metal garage doors. 5. Front yard landscaping. In addition, the developer.must submit the plans and elevations for any unit not already reviewed 'and approved by the Planning Commission. The appeal.process, should someone want to appeal, is as follows: 1. The applicant, Council Member, or other interested party may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. 2. For the applicant or interested party, the appeal must be filed within fifteen calendar days after the date of the mailing of the Planning Commission decision. Staff plans to mail the decision letter to the applicant with a copy to Mr. Doug Phillips of Best, Best, and Krieger by Friday, July 17, 1993. The final date of appeal would then be October 4, 1993 as the 15th day falls on a weekend. 3. The appeal must be in writing and accompanied by the $25 filing fee (Council is not required to pay the fee or submit a written appeal). MEMOJH.302 y.. L 4. The Council would have to appeal the action on September 21st because the October 5th Council meeting is after the 15 -day appeal window. The dates available for the'public hearing would be October 5th or October 19th. 5. The City Clerk shall set the matter for hearing before the City Council not less than five days nor more than 30 after the date of appeal. Should the decision be appealed on the last date (October 4th), it would be added to the October 5th Council agenda to determine the public hearing date. The available dates are October 19th or November 2, 1993. Should someone file an appeal on or between September 20th and October, 1st, the only available public hearing date will be October 19th. 6. The City Council shall render its decision within 30 days following the close of the hearing. cc: City Council . City Manager MEMOJH.302 . 5EP 14 '93 15:00 � P.1 �.. i ' PRIM S E P 1 4 1993. ~et* Bank, Awww Savings Bank BANK ftsa Office Baer 96599 Lm Via, Nevaata 89199.8599 4_�� ( 19�d?L ;� 702 362.5555 P 0E ?Alf?T AE N' DATE: SC21AMbar LL 1 TELEPHONE: M • . FROM: 1r; • HUMPHUY TELEPHONE: —M). 955-IW FAX NO. 255-5199 NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) 4 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL JANESS AT (602) 955 -3527 THANK YOU. OUR FAX NUMBER IS (602) 955 -5199 CONFWENTTIIALffY NOTE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS UNTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THIS INDMUAL OR ENTTTY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRES5BLi.4n.l4,6?Y COW.jVA :I•.'-F0R�&4T_,Tom THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER THIS MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE. RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL ME$SAGE TO US AT THE 'ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. Big I Soft • ty SEP 14 '93 15 :00 MT BANK September 13, 1993 City of La Quinta Planning Commission La Quinta City Hall Counsel Chambers 78 -495 Calle Tampico . La Quinta, California P.2 Pr1MOO Bank, Pederal Savings Bank Post P&O Bax 985$9 Las Vogas, Nevada 89193.8595 702 362 -5555 I- SEP 14 1993 Re; Forecast Homes Application for Continued Development of the 94 Rimaining Lots in Quinterra Subdivision Dear Chairperson: This letter is being written. in response to the difficulty that ForwAst Homes is having receiving approval from the City of La Quinta td continue with, the development of the remaining lots located in the Quinterra Subdivision; La Quinta, California. Forecast Homes is presently in escrow with PriMerit Bank to purchase -those lots. PriMerit Bank's acquisition of those lots came as a result of a builders default on a loan which originated in April of 1990. PriMerit Bank had loaned monies to be used for the acquisition, development and construction of a 116 lot subdivision, After the development of the lots and construction of the sales models, sales of 15 production houses began in August of 1991. From that date until March of 1993, our borrower was only successful in selling 6 of the production homes, In March of 1993, when PriMerit Bank took possession of the property through a Trustee's Sale, we obtained numerous market studies and interviewed area' developers in an attempt to determine a selling price fof the remaining homes. It was apparent through our various market studies that due to market deterioration the original asking prices of the homes were much too high to allow for the timely liquidation of the remaining houses and models, Therefore it was decided, based on the recommendation from various real estate companies throughout the area, that the sales prices on the homes should be lowered to a point that an acceptable sales absorption or rate could be realized. From the project's inception in April of 1990 until March of 1993, the homes in the subdivision were offered at a prig which ranged from $87 to $91 per square foot. Upon PriMerit's acquisition of the property in March of 1993, the prices were lowered to between $69 and $72 per square foot in order to generate sales. This price adjustment was due entirely to the economic conditions facing the entire California area, The market studies and interviews with most of the area builders indicated that the overall sales prices for product selling in the area had fallen up to 25 -30 %. B4g,sO -PW&n uy 3EP 14 '93 15: ©1 1 • • P.3 City of La Quinta ,Page 2 After PriMerit Bank had employed a real estate broker to continue with the sales of the existing homes in the project we set upon the tads of finding a suitable developer to purchase the remaining lots from the Bank. - During the past five months we. have received numerous offers from Southern California builders/developers, all of which have indicated that to be marketable, the sales prices of finished homes in this area would fall between $100,000 and $140;000.. After entertaining several of these offers, PriMerit Bank entered into escrow with Forecast Homes. Forecast has a good reputation and has the ability to complete the project. Following this brief background on the project, we ,,offer the. following 'items for your consideration; 1. It is not by choice that PriMerit Bank owns this property. To date we have suffered losses in excess of $2.5 million dollars on this project and we expect those losses to increase with the final sales of the remaining homes and the closing of the sale to Forecast domes for the remaining. lots. The Bank is not in business to own property and is directed by our stockholder to liquidate this property. If the potential developers or builders of this project are restricted. from building a product that is within the existing zoning and City requirements and are further constrained as to the size of the product offered for sale, it may be necessary that the Bank further reduce its price for the property to allow the potential builders .to realize an acceptable level of profit. The Bank is prepared, if necessary, to reduce the price of this land to whatever level is necessary in order to liquidate this collateral prior to the end of 1993. We are not land developers, we do not. hold land for investment, and we are directed by our stockholder to liquidate property of this type in order to return the funds to the Bank for our normal banking practices. 2. The reduction in sales prices that have been felt by the residents of houses in the La Quinta area of similar size and similar . price range have been solely the result of economic conditions felt throughout the California area. The builders proposal of buffering.the existing property owners with his largest plan should be very successful in eliminating further economic impact to the existing property owners through the continued development of the project. 3. It is clear after reviewing all of our market studies and discussing sales results with most of the area builders and brokers, that house plans with square footage above 2,000 feet are simply not in demand at this time in La Quinta, California. Prospective purchasers are seeking to downsize due to utility costs, maintenance costs,. and the overall capital investment required for home ownership in today's economy. 4. We appreciate the efforts of the Planning Commission to appease both sides of this controversial issue. But it must be understood that government, in any form, cannot guarantee real property owners their future real property values. The external economic influences are too varied and too numerous for any government agency to attempt to SEP 14 '93 15:01 � P.4 City of La Quinta Page 3 control property values, in a given city or town. Anyone who has read the newspapers during the past five years or had active home ownership during that period realizes the volatility of real property prices. This volatility has been felt throughout the nation and is currently being felt particularly in the California market. Certain laws and zoning. restrictions have been enacted by the City of La Quinta to afford protection and to maintain an orderly development of the community as a whole. We as property owners are attempting to conduct our real estate practices within the confines of those existing zoning laws and ordinances. We understand that Forecast Homes has met all of the legal parameters and restrictions required under the present zoning of the property. Your decision can have a direct monetary impact on PriMerit Bank. We do not wish to be deprived of the use of the present zoning on the property. The use that Forecast has proposed is compliant with existing ordinances and denial of their proposal may effectively render our property unmarketable. Furthermore, denial may render La Quinta's zoning ordinances ineffective and meaningless. In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to air our views with regards to Quinterra project. The city in which this project is located and the project itself are fine representatives of communities in which home ownership is extremely desirable. We also hope that a prompt resolution or a negotiated settlement can be reached in regards to the future development of this property. I apologize for not being present at the meeting and again send our support for Forecast Homes. Sincerely, ` Stephen D. Humphrey Vice President SEP 14 '93 15:00 Pe MEWT BANK September 13, 1993 City of La Quints Planning Commission La Quinta City Hall Counsel Chambers 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California PM1 WIM Sm A599 I= V �, A• Ef9193. &599 7Q? 3 K- 5555 'I�S 14 1993 .� UJ �llli -. I fe 7: s; Re: Forecast Homes Application for Continued Development of the 94 Remaining Lots in Quinterra Subdivision Dear Chairperson: This letter is being written in response to the difficulty that Forecast Homes is having receiving approval from the City of La Quinta to continue with the development-of the remaining lots located in the Quinterra Subdivision-, La Quinta, California. Forecast Homes is presently in escrow with PriMerit Bank to purchase those lots. PriMerit Bank's acquisition of those lots came as a result of a builders default on a loan which originated in April of 1990. PriMerit Bank had loaned monies to be used for the acquisition, development and construction of a 116 lot subdivision. After the development of the lots and construction of the sales models, sates of 15 production houses began in August of 1991. From that date until March of 1993, our borrower was only successful in selling 6 of the production homes. In March of 1993, when PriMerit Bank took possession of the property through a Trustee's Sale, we obtained numerous market* studies and interviewed area developers in an attempt to determine a selling price for the remaining homes. It was apparent through our various market studies that due to market deterioration the original asking prices of the homes were much too high to allow for the timely liquidation of the remaining houses and models., Therefore it was decided,. based on the recommendation from various real estate companies throughout the area, that the sales. prices on the homes should be lowered to a point that an acceptable sales absorption or rate could be realized. From the project's inception in April of 1990 until March of 1993, the homes in the subdivision were offered at a price which ranged from $87 to $91 per square foot. Upon PriMerit's acquisition of the property in March of 1993, the prices were lowered to between $69 and $72 per square foot in order to generate sales. This price adjustment was due entirely to the economic conditions facing the entire California area. The market studies and interviews with most of the area builders indicated that the overall sales prices for product selling in the area had fallen up to 25 -30%. &SISO•Prond y 74 _ SEP 14 '93 15: 01 City of La Quinta Page 2 After PriMerit Hank had employed a real estate broker to continue with the sales of the existing homes in the project we set upon the task of finding a suitable developer to purchase the remaining lots from the Bank. During the past five months we have received numerous offers from Southern California builders/developers, all of which have indicated that to be marketable, the sales prices of finished homes in this area would fall between $100,000 and $140,000. After entertaining several of these offers, PriMerit Bank entered into escmw with Forecast Homes. Forecast has a good reputation and has the ability to complete the project. Following this brief background on the project, we offer the following items for your consideration: 1. It is not by choice that PriMerit Bank owns this.property. To date we have suffered losses in excess of $2.5 million dollars on this project and we expect those losses to increase with the final sales of the remaining homes and the closing of the sale to Forecast Homes for the remaining lots. The Bank is not in business to own property and is directed by our stockholder to liquidate this property. If the potential developers or builders of this project are restricted from building a product that is within the existing zoning and City requirements and are further constrained as to the size of the product offered for sale, it may be necessary that the Bank further reduce. its price for the property to allow the potential builders.to realize an acceptable level of profit. The Bank is prepared, if necessary, to reduce the price of this land to whatever level is necessary in order to liquidate this collateral prior to the end of 1993. We are not land developers, we do not hold land for investment, and we are directed by our stockholder to liquidate property of this type in order to return the funds to the Bank for our normal banking practices. 2. The reduction in sales prices that have been felt by the residents of houses in the La Quinta area of similar size and similar price range have been solely the result of economic conditions felt throughout the California area. The builders proposal of buffering the existing property owners with his largest plan should be very successful in eliminating further economic impact to the existing property owners through the continued development of the project. 3. It is clear after reviewing all of our market studies and discussing sales results with most of the area builders and brokers, that house plans with square footage above 2,000 feet are simply not in demand at this time in La Quinta, California. Prospective purchasers are seeking to downsize due to utility costs, maintenance costs, and the overall capital investment required for home ownership in today's economy. 4. We appreciate the efforts of the Planning Commission to appease both sides of this controversial issue. But it must be understood that government, in any form, cannot guarantee real property owners their future real property values. The external economic influences are too varied and too numerous for any government agency to attempt to SEP 14 '93 15:01 u • City of La Quinta Page 3 control property values in a given city or town. Anyone -who has read the newspapers during the past five years or had active home ownership during that period realizes the volatility of real property prices. This volatility. has been felt throughout the nation and is currently being felt particularly in the California market. Certain laws and zoning restrictions have been enacted by the City of La Quinta. to afford protection and to maintain an orderly development of the community as a whole. We as property owners . are attempting to conduct our real estate practices within the confines of those existing zoning laws and ordinances. We understand that Forecast Homes has met all of the legal parameters and restrictions required under the present zoning of the property. Your decision can have a direct monetary impact on PriMerit Bank. We do not wish to be deprived of the use of the present zoning on the property. The_ use that Forecast has proposed is compliant with existing ordinances and denial of their proposal may effectively render our property unmarketable. Furthermore, denial may render La Quinta's zoning ordinances ineffective and meaningless. In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to air our views with regards to Quinterra project. The city in which this project is located and the project itself are fine representatives of communities in which home ownership is extremely desirable. We also hope that a prompt resolution or- a negotiated settlement can be reached in regards to the future development of this property. I apologize for not being present at the meeting and again send our support for Forecast Homes. Sincerely, Stephen D. Humphrey Vice President ' A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION September 9, 1993 SUITE 312 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 1555 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (619) 568 -2611 TELECOPIER (619) 340 -6698 OF COUNSEL JAMES B. CORISON OFFICES IN RIVERSIDE (909) 686 -1450 PALM SPRINGS (619)325 -7264 ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 RD SEP 1 0 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico�'r`" P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: As you may remember, this lawfirm represents a number of the homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. In a letter to this Commission dated August 19, 1993, we presented the homeowners' concerns that approval of the smaller homes would significantly reduce the value of existing homes. We requested that the Forecast proposal not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that other. simi larly-situated neighborhoods be preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of the subdivisions as initially planned and approved. For your reference, we have attached a copy of the August 19 letter. We are writing this letter to address a few concerns that have arisen since the original letter. First, it has come to our attention that proponents of the Forecast proposal may argue that Government Code Section 65589.5 prevents the City from denying the proposal. Section 65589.5 has been characterized as an "anti- NIMBY" law. The Section prohibits RWH40917 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH' DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS' ELISE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO GLEN E. STEPHENS* ANTONIA GRAPHOS WILLIAM D. DARLING. JR. MARY E. GILSTRAP WILLIAM R. DeWOLFE' GREGORY K. WILKINSON MATT H. MORRIS GLENN P. SABINE BARTON C. GAUT' WYNNE S. FURTH JEFFREY V. DUNN CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON PAUL T. SELZER' DAVID L. BARON STEVEN C. DeBAUN JOANE GARCIA - COLSON DALLAS HOLMES' GENE TANAKA ERIC L. GARNER PHILIP J. KOEHLER CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER' BASIL T. CHAPMAN DENNIS M. COTA DIANE C. WIESE RICHARD T. ANDERSON' TIMOTHY M. CONNOR RACHELLE J. NICOLLE REBECCA MARES DURNEY JOHN D. WAHLIN' VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HARGREAVES DOROTHY L ANDERSON MICHAEL O. HARRIS' DANIEL E. OLIVIER JANICE L. WEIS G. HENRY WELLES W. CURT EALY' DANIEL J. McHUG H PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK' HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH DINA 0. HARRIS JOHN E. BROWN" STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON D. DABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL T. RIDDELL' MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A. SNOW RICHARD T. EGGER MEREDITH A. JURY* JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A. EASTER PATRICK D. DOLAN MICHAEL GRANT' MARTIN A. MUELLER DIANE L. FINLEY DEAN R. DERLETH FRANCIS J. BAUM' J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. DREYER ANNE T. THOMAS' VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL D. MARTIN NETHERY' JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH CHRISTOPHER DODSON JOHN 0. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. FLOYD, JR. JACK B. CLARKE, JR. BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HARDKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E. HILL KENDALL H. Me EY BRADLEY E. NEUFELD KEVIN K. RANDOLPH CLARK H. AL SOP ' SHARYL WALKER JAMES B. GILPIN RAYMOND BEST (1868 -1957) DAVID J. ERWIN' PETER M. BARMACK MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913 -1975) MICHAEL J. ANDELSON' JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893 -1981) ' A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION September 9, 1993 SUITE 312 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 1555 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (619) 568 -2611 TELECOPIER (619) 340 -6698 OF COUNSEL JAMES B. CORISON OFFICES IN RIVERSIDE (909) 686 -1450 PALM SPRINGS (619)325 -7264 ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 RD SEP 1 0 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico�'r`" P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: As you may remember, this lawfirm represents a number of the homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. In a letter to this Commission dated August 19, 1993, we presented the homeowners' concerns that approval of the smaller homes would significantly reduce the value of existing homes. We requested that the Forecast proposal not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that other. simi larly-situated neighborhoods be preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of the subdivisions as initially planned and approved. For your reference, we have attached a copy of the August 19 letter. We are writing this letter to address a few concerns that have arisen since the original letter. First, it has come to our attention that proponents of the Forecast proposal may argue that Government Code Section 65589.5 prevents the City from denying the proposal. Section 65589.5 has been characterized as an "anti- NIMBY" law. The Section prohibits RWH40917 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGE Planning Commission City of La Quinta September 9, 1993 Page 2 local governments from denying housing projects that have at least 20% of the units set aside for low -.and moderate - income households unless the local government makes certain specific findings. Section 65589.5 is inapplicable to the Forecast proposal because the Forecast proposal does not qualify as low- to moderate - income housing. Low- and moderate - income housing is defined by statute to be housing that is made available at a certain percentage of the area median income. Currently, such housing would need to sell for approximately $75,000 to $100,000. Forecast has made no commitment to offer its housing for such prices. Secondly, we are informed that the City of La Quinta is currently revising the housing element of its general plan. According to correspondence to the City from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, the City's current housing plan is not in compliance with current State requirements. We believe that it would be inappropriate for the City to make any decision to radically change the nature of the Quinterra subdivision in absence of a current statement of the City's housing goals that the housing element should provide. Finally, we wish the Planning Commission to be aware of the case of Guinnane y. San Francisco City Planning Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 732. In that case, the court affirmed the City of San Francisco Planning Commission's denial of a building permit to construct a house that, because of its size, was not in character with the other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed house complied with the City's zoning laws and building standards but was considerably larger than surrounding homes. The court relied on the requirement in City's code that the commission "protect the character and stability of residential areas," to find that the commission retained sufficient discretion to deny the permit. As explained in our letter of August 19, 1993, La Quinta Municipal Code provides ample discretion for the denial of the Forecast proposal. One of the goals of design review is to "foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of the City and its harmonious development . . . ." (La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.183.020(A)) . Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property." (La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.180.040(B)). Forecast's proposal to degregate the neighborhood by construction of lower - quality homes does not preserve and RWH40917 LAW OFFICES OF , T Ei� BEST, � KRIEG Planning Commission City of La Quinta September 9, 1993 Page 3 enhance the neighborhood; is not consistent with the neighborhood's harmonious development; and, is not compatible with present and future logical development of the area. Therefore, the Forecast proposal does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. Once again, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission seriously consider the long -range deleterious effect of the Forecast proposal. We are confident that the City will conclude, as we have, that the Forecast proposal is not in the best interest of Quinterra and surrounding neighborhoods or of the City as a whole. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER DSP:RWH:js Enc. cc: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney City of La Quinta: Mayor John Pena Mayor Pro Tem Stanley Sniff Councilwoman Glenda Bangerter Councilman Ron Perkins Councilman Michael McCartney Client RWH40917 • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION August 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. O. Box 1504 La*Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision_ Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of •homeowners in the Quinterra, and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of .their investments in their homes will be lost. On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain.the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map was approved. in 1988. Condition 28 of the. Conditions of Approval required that the. Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In-1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three. floor plans which varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- RWH40196 BEST, B% & KRIEGER A P ARTNERSMIP INCLLIfN PROFESKlN CORPORATIONS LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH• DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS' ELISE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO SUITE 312 GLEN E. STEPHENS' ANT NIA GRAPHOS WILLIAM D. DAHLING, JR. MARY E. GILSTRAP 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE WILLIAM R. DOWOLFE' GREGORY K. WILKINSON MATT H. MORRIS GLENN P. SABINE BARTON C. GAUT' WYNNE S. FURTH JEFFREY V. DUNN CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON POST OFFICE BOX 1555 PAUL T. SELZER' DALLAS HOLMES' DAVID L. BARON GENE TANAKA STEVEN C. DeBAUN ERIC L. GARNER JOANE GARCIA- COLSON PHILIP J. KOEHLER RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER• BASIL T. CHAPMAN DENNIS M. COTA DIANE C. WIESE TELEPHONE (619) 568.2611 RICHARD T. ANDERSON' TIMOTHY M. CONNOR RACMELLE J. NICOLLE REBECCA MARES OURNEY TELECOPIER (619) 340 -6698 JOHN D. WAHLIN' VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HARGREAVES OOROTHY 1. ANDERSON MICHAEL O. HARRIS. DANIEL E. OLIVIER JANICE L. WETS G. HENRY WELLES w. CURT EA DANIEL J. Mc HUGH PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK' HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH DINA O. HARRIS JOHN E. BROWN- STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON D. DABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL T. RIDDELL' MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A. SNOW RICHARD T. EGGER MEREDITH A. JURY' JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A. EASTER PATRICK D. DOLAN OF COUNSEL MICHAEL GRANT' - MARTIN A. MUELLER DIANE L. FINLEY DEAN R. DERLETH JAMES B. CORISON FRANCIS J. BAUM• J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. DREYER ANNE T. THOMAS' VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL D. MARTIN NETMERY' JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH CHRISTOPHER DODSON JOHN O. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. FLOYD, JR. JACK B. CLARKE. JR. BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HAROKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E. FALL OFFICES IN KENDALL H. M..VEY CLARK H. ALSOP• BRADLEY E. NEUFELD SHARYL WALKER KEVIN K. RANDOLPH JAMES B. GILPIN RAYMOND BEST (1868 -1957) RIVERSIDE (9091 686 -1 4 50 -1450 DAVID J. ERWIN' PETER M. BARMACK MARSHA[ L S. RUDOLPH JAMES H, KRIEGER (1913 -1975) PALM SPRINGS (619)3 4 MICHAEL J.- ANOELSON' JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893 -1981) ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION August 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. O. Box 1504 La*Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision_ Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of •homeowners in the Quinterra, and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of .their investments in their homes will be lost. On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain.the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map was approved. in 1988. Condition 28 of the. Conditions of Approval required that the. Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In-1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three. floor plans which varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- RWH40196 BEST, BEST & KRI , .Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 2 existing 18 homes in the Quinterra subdivision were built using those plans. These are all quality homes which originally sold for between $200,000 and $250,000. At the time Quinterra homeowners purchased their homes, they were assured by Windsor that the quality of the neighborhood would be maintained throughout subsequent phases. The subdivision's CC &R's call for the establishment of an Architectural Control Committee that will review and approve all homes to be built in the_ subdivision (other than those built by the developer) to insure that standards within the neighborhood are maintained. Based on these representations, homeowners felt secure in investing a significant part of their life savings in their new homes. Forecast-Homes now proposes to build significantly smaller homes (from 1, 106 to 1, 659 square feet) that will sell for half the price of the existing homes. We .all know that the quality of a neighborhood significantly affects the value of each home within that neighborhood. Forecast undoubtedly foresees that the value of it$ smaller homes will increase due to their close proximity to,the larger existing homes. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. The value 'of," existing homes will be reduced if smaller homes are allowed to be built in the same tract. In essence, approval of the smaller homes will allow Forecast to transfer value from existing homes to the new, smaller homes. Forecast will then sell this transferred value at a profit, while existing homeowners will suffer a loss in the value of their investment. We are mindful that, in today's market, requiring Forecast to proceed with the project as originally planned may not provide Forecast with the fastest method of making a profit. But land -use planning is not about maximizing short -term profits for developers. It is about achieving coherent and consistent development of property that will preserve and enhance property values for_ all concerned - -the developer, the surrounding property owners and the City. Forecast's request comes before this Commission for design review as a plot plan. One of the goals of design review is to "foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of the City and its harmonious development . . ." (La Quinta Municipal Code § 9.183.020(A).) Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to be RWH40196 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRI , Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 3 compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property." (La Quinta Municipal Code § 9.180.040(B).) Forecast's proposed plans do not comply with those requirements. Degregation of the neighborhood through the construction of lower - value housing is not compatible with current development nor does it preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods. For that reason alone, Forecast's request should be denied. As the principal planning agency for the City of La Quinta, this Commission is encharged with implementing a long -range perspective for the development of the City. The Quinterra neighborhood will exist for years to come. By investing a substantial part of their life savings in quality Quinterra homes, existing homeowners have made a long -term investment in, and commitment to, the quality of their neighborhood and the City of La Quinta as well. This Commission should not allow that investment and commitment to be undermined by short -term market forces and Forecast's desire for a quick profit. It is our understanding that there are other subdivisions within La Quinta that face a similar dilemma. Initial phases of ;those subdivisions were built with larger, quality homes. Now, due to the depressed housing market, developers desire to build smaller, inferior homes within those developments. In an effort to move product, developers are sacrificing the quality of their projects. We believe that fairness and good planning demand that the City of La Quinta carefully examine the situation and craft a comprehensive, City -wide response. We suggest that a "neighborhood preservation ordinance" be implemented. The ordinance would use zoning controls to balance the need to maintain existing neighborhood values with the desire of developers to respond to market conditions. Similar ordinances have been enacted in other cities to preserve existing neighborhoods from uncontrolled development that threatened to destroy the character of those neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would give La Quinta city planners, this Commission and the City Council increased ability to respond in a reasonable way to the needs of all segments of the community and to allow for the development in a manner that is fair to all. Until this City has had an opportunity to fully assess and respond to the threats to existing neighborhoods posed by subsequent, inferior development, we respectfully request that Forecast be required to continue to develop the Quinterra subdivision as previously planned by Windsor and approved by the RWH40196 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIS. , Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 4 City. A hasty decision to allow lesser - quality development in this neighborhood will unfairly detract from the substantial investments made in good faith by Quinterra homeowners and from the reputation of the City of La Quinta as a secure place for quality investment. Very truly yours, I 1 �. DOUG S S. PHILLIPS of BEST; BEST & KRIEGER DSP:RWH:js cc: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney City of La Quinta Client -y RWH40196 e MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California August 24, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER 1'1 ' A. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows. Commissioner Ellson led the flag salute. H. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Commissioners Ellson / Abels moved and seconded. a motion to excuse Commissioner Adolph. Unanimously approved. C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. IV. 'PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Tentative Tract 25953. Extension #2; a request of Mr. & Mrs. Harold Hirsch for approval of a one year extension of time. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Hirsch addressed the Commission regarding his desire to build -his project when the economy improves. They were progressing with the final map and it should be completed soon. 3. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. Commissioners Abels /Mans moved to adopt Planning Commission. Resolution 93 -031 recommending approval of this second PC8 -24 1 Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1993 extension of time for Tentative Tract 25953 to the City Council, subject to conditions. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Ellson, Marrs, Abels & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Adolph. ABSTAINING: None. B. Tentative Tract 27840; a request of TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) for approval of a tentative tract map to create 126 single family residential lots and miscellaneous lots on 55+ acres. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the applicant had requested a continuance of the project to September 14, 1993. The public hearing was opened by Chairwoman Barrows. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ellson / Abels to continue Tentative Tract 27840 to September 14, 1993. Unanimously approved. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None V. BUSINESS SESSION: Commissioners Ellson / Abels moved to reorganize the agenda by placing Business Item #3 as Item #1. Unanimously approved. A. Tentative Tract 23913 (Quinterra) a request of Forecast Homes for approval of architectural plans for single family residences. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of 'which is on file in the Planning' and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Marrs asked staff to clarify where the River Rock would be used. Staff explained the location and stated there had been a minor modification to the plans which added 50 square feet to four of the plans. 3. Chairwoman Barrows asked what the size of the eaves was. Staff stated it depended on the plan but to make the house appear larger an 18 -inch eave is proposed. Chairwoman Barrows stated there needed to be more shading and an 18 -inch overhang was needed. PC8 -24 2 1 1 Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1993. 4. Mr. Bruce Strickland, Vice President of Land Acquisition for Forecast Homes, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated 60 -80% of their buyers were first time buyers and their company offered a total of five plans ranging in size from 1,000 square feet to 1,660 square feet. 5. Commissioner Ellson asked if a patio cover in the tear was offered. Mr. Strickland stated not at present, but it could be. Chairwoman Barrows asked if their homes in Phoenix offered the patio cover. Mr. Strickland stated they did not. 6. Commissioner Ellson stated the La Quina Del, Rey project (Century Homes) offered a small home and only sold three and asked if the applicant had considered this in their marketing. Mr. Strickland stated he was aware and further stated that the larger units were not selling either. Discussion followed regarding the homes built in La Quinta Del Rey. 7. Mr. Doug Phillips, Best, Best & Krieger, spoke on behalf of the Quinterra homeowners. He stated the project would adversely affect the existing homes and submitted a petition with 181 individual signatures. He reminded the Commission that the City Code allows the 'Planning Commission to change or deny the application. The existing homes were at least 1,000 square feet more than those planned by the developer and the existing neighborhood did not consist of first time buyers but established homeowners who had put their entire investment into their homes. He went on to quote what the original homeowners had been promised by the Quinterra developers when they bought their homes. 8. Mr. Dale Thornburgh, La Quinta Del Rey property owner, stated he had searched for a location and tract that would suit his family needs and bought a home in the La Quinta Del Rey tract. Mr. Thornburgh stated he was in the real estate business and he felt there was a market for the larger homes if they were built. 9. Ms. Joan Berndt, Quinterra homeowner, stated the smaller, low price homes would affect her loan. The larger homes have better construction and architectural design, with higher quality appliances. The lower prices will bring a transient type population into the neighborhood because they will not have the finances to maintain the homes. She felt the present homeowners could expect a 10-20% decrease in value in their homes. PC8 -24 3 • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1993 • 10. Mr. Russell Robertson, Quinterra homeowner for three months, stated the planning should stay consistent with Phase I. The Design Review Board when, reviewing the project, did not take into account the needs of the existing homeowners. The applicant was not sensitive to the exiting homeowners. Mr. Robertson stated he felt the difference between the loss in property values due to economic problems versus "cookie cutter" type homes being built reducing their value further was unfair. Chairwoman Barrows asked if Mr. Robertson had any suggestions to offer to the developer to solve the problem, such as a size of home that would be acceptable. Mr. Robertson stated if he had to compromise the minimum would be. 1,800 square feet. He stated the smallest existing plan was 2,100 square feet. 11. Mr. Daniel Bresnahan, Rancho Ocotillo property owner, stated so far the arguments had been over price, size, and quality of the homes. He was concerned about the promise that had been broken to the existing homeowners. He wanted the value and neighborhood to be maintained and asked the Commission not to reduce the standards of the neighborhood. He and his neighbors would rather see the land stay vacant as it is, rather than having anything of less value built. 12. Mr. Kim Lee Job, Quinterra homeowner, stated he was a banker and had seen what happens to a development when lower value homes are built in conjunction with higher valued homes. He stated his opposition to the project. 13. Ms. Allyson Devenney, La Quinta Vistas homeowner, stated her opposition to seeing Century Homes or Forecast Homes develop in any part of her existing tract or any of the neighboring tracts. 14. Mr. Kirk Dimmitt, Rancho Ocotillo property owner, stated his opposition to the development. He understood the economic downturn in property values, but asked that the Commission not impose an artificial downturn on their.area. 15. Ms. Jennie Erwin - Plantz, Topaz homeowner, stated her concern that her development had a similar downsizing plan starting and she was in opposition to it happening in her tract. These were not first time buyer in these developments but retirees and homeowners who put life savings into their homes and they can't afford to lose their property value. PC8 -24 4 t Planning Commission Minutes-,,,' August 24, 1993 16. Ms. Bev Beam, Rancho Ocotillo homeowner, stated she had been a realtor for 21 years and can realistically address the value depreciation based on her experience in the area. She stated that when the smaller homes were built by the Highlands area, the homes were devalued by as much as $100,000. She quoted several instances where property values had decreased to the point people were selling their homes at a loss to maintain their credit ratings. These people were losing everything they had in their homes. The appraisals can't meet the value. Commissioner Marrs asked if Ms. Beam felt this was due to the economy and not because of the smaller homes. Ms. Beam stated she knew the economy was having an affect on the market, but also felt the smaller homes would add to the problem. 17. Ms. Marty Butler, Rancho Ocotillo homeowner,, stated the northern section of the City was developed for the upscale homes. She did not feel the City was in support of the citizens of this area. The. out -of -town builders do not care about the existing homeowners, they just buy the land cheap and take advantage of the City. Property values had already decreased but will decrease even more if the smaller homes are allowed to be built. The City has affordable housing and does not need this. She stated her concern that they had no representation at the City. 18. Mr. Louis Glick, La Quinta Vistas homeowners, stated he had researched the area and settled in La Quinta and was very happy until now. He had heard that Century Homes was about to develop in his tract with 'a lesser quality home and he felt there was no place for the lesser value next to the higher quality homes. He further stated he had received a letter from Forecast Homes offering him a dinner and $40.00 for participating in a Focus Group survey discussion regarding issues most important to choosing a home. Chairwoman Barrows asked if Mr. Glick had the letter and would he submit it to the Commission. Mr. Glick did so. 19. Mr. Bruce Maize, builder, stated his support of the project. He felt the question before the Commission was whether the Commission wanted affordable housing. He felt the quality could be maintained as the same contractors build the higher quality homes. He asked where the first time buyer would fit in. 20. Ms. Diane Schmidt, Building Industry Association Desert Council president, stated her support of the project in that it helped meet the market demand by meeting needs. She also stated that Forecast Homes had an excellent record and built quality homes and they worked hard to mitigate negative perceived ideas. She further felt that size had nothing to do with pride in a neighborhood. PC8 -24 5 • s Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1993 21. Ms. Sally Young, a land broker in Palm Desert, stated her sympathy for the homeowners, but the whole State was experiencing property devaluation. The economy dictates 'what is built and most of the unbuilt lots are now owned by the banks because the builders could not complete their tracts. The land is presently one half the original purchase price. There are no guarantees that prices will not go down. Developers and landowners have the right to build what will sell in todays market. A variety of price range does not have to decrease the value of existing homes. 22. Mr. Tim Bartlett, real estate broker, stated his support of the project. 23. Mr. Joe Dunson, Topaz homeowner, stated he was a lender and the trouble was not affordable housing, but putting them in the same neighborhood as larger homes. The economy was already hurting the homeowners, don't add to the trouble. Make affordable homes available but not next door. 24. Ms. Mary Black, Topaz homeowner, she bought the largest unit available at $240,000 and there is a vacant lot next door. They moved to the desert to have a better lifestyle for their family and her husband commutes to La Mirada to work in order to live here. They experienced the market devaluation in Long Beach due to first time buyers and don't want the same here. 25. Mr. Strickland, applicant, rebutted by saying that first time buyers are not bad citizens. He went on to explain the letters that were sent out were to encourage people to attend their survey 'meetings (focus groups) which were used for market analysis. He further stated that they use the same contractors for both the expensive and low cost houses to maintain the quality in their homes. All buyers have the option to raise the quality of their homes by purchasing added options. He felt the same quality houses would be compatible with the neighborhood even though there was less square footage. 26. Commissioner Ellson stated her empathy for the homeowners and gave a history of how north La Quinta developed and came into La Quinta. She stated her objection to mixed housing and felt a variety of people was good for any community. 27. Commissioner Abels stated he remembered the original master plan for the area. He felt the solution was a special ordinance similar to what was enacted for the Cove to control the type of construction that would be allowed. He stated his concern for the builders as well. PC8 -24 . 6 • a Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1993 , 28. Commissioner Marrs stated he was sympathetic to the problem but did not agree with the thinking of the opponents as he believed things had been exaggerated. He believed varied sizes can be compatible. He felt the homeowners were misguided as to devaluing property values. 'He felt the homeowners were blaming the devaluation of their homes on homes that hadn't even been constructed yet. 29.. `Commissioner Abels asked staff to look into the SR Zoning Ordinance and see if it could help in' this instance. 30. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff what the original applicant and approval was for this tract. Staff stated the original application was a statement just to convey that the new developer proposed the existing units. Chairwoman Barrows addressed the audience and stated the Commission was looking to the homeowners for a solution. All of the Commissioners had been to the area and looked for themselves. There is a need for diversity in housing while representing the existing homeowners interest. 31. Commissioner Ellson questioned the variety of housing at PGA West and its success was due to their CC & R's that enable the environment to be controlled. Staff stated this was, a planned condominium community that allows for these type of controls. Property owners own the home only and the association pays for the maintenance of .the lots. Commissioner .Ellson asked if this was possible for this area. Staff stated the Quinterra project had CC & R's and architectural review and at'present they were in the control of the bank until the residents take over with some exceptions. Commissioner Ellson asked if these CC & R's could control maintenance and parking of cars, etc. Staff stated the CC & R's gave them the ability to bring civil litigation against offenders- and force the property owner to comply. The City, does not have any control. 32.. Commissioner Ellson questioned the applicant as to whether they were building any larger. units anywhere else. Mr. Strickland stated they had built a larger home in Perris and South San Bernardino County. Commissioner Ellson asked if they would be appropriate for the desert. Mr. Strickland pointed out that the range of sizes for these homes was from 1,180 to 1,860 square feet. Mr. Strickland stated he felt he was trying to make the transition as easy as possible. He would be willing to use the 1,800 square foot plan where he was planning on using the Plans 5 and 6. 33. Mr. Doug Phillips, Best, Best & Krieger, representing the Quinterra property owners, stated the units were incompatible and did not fit. He reiterated the Commission could deny the request as the City's Plot Plan . . and Design Review Code stated they had the right if the units were not PC8 -24 7 0. .0 Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1993 compatible. He went on to quote a court case where a larger house in San Francisco was out of place with smaller units and even though the City Code allowed it the City could deny it based on its incompatibility.. The Court of Appeals stated if the Planning Commission finds it not in harmony it can deny the request. Mr.. Phillips stated the project could relocate to another area of the City. 34. Mr. Jim Rice, Rancho Ocotillo, asked the applicant what the size of the lots were. Mr. Strickland stated they were the original minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet and larger. 35. Ms. Marty Butler, Quinterra homeowner, asked the Commission to form a group of homeowners to meet with them and help plan the area for what could be built in this area. Commissioner Marrs reminded the people of the number of meetings that were held asking residents to help the City plan for the area in the General Plan process. Ms. Butler stated she had no objection to the zoning and what was planned for the area, but don't put something in where a value exists and decrease that value. She stated her concern that she felt her rights were being taken away from her as she had no ability to chose, the decision was being forced upon her. 36. Commissioner Ellson stated her agreement with the idea of working with the residents to solve the problem. She felt there needed to be constructive discussion so everyone could live with the decision. 37. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Abels moved to continue Tentative Tract 23913 - Quinterra, Phase II to September 14, 1993, with the stipulation that each development. tract in this area would send two representatives along with the developer, and meet with the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled study session on September 13, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. to work toward a compatible solution. Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. It was suggested that the representatives and developer come to the study session with solutions. Chairwoman Barrows dismissed the Commission for a ten minute break. B. Specific Plan 84 -004 "Rancho La Ouinta "; a request of TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) for approval of preliminary landscaping plans for Washington Street frontage. 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. PCB -24 8 Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1993 2. Commissioner Ellson asked staff to clarify where the meandering sidewalk went. 3. Commissioner Abels asked if the sidewalk matched up with Parc La Quinta. Staff stated it would. 4. Chairwoman Barrows asked if, the applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Chuck Strother gave a presentation to the Commission regarding the proposal. 5. Commissioner Ellson asked if the plant "Apentia" as requested by the Design Review Board would be replaced. Mr. Strother stated he would be revising the plant pallet when he met with Coachella Valley Water District regarding the landscaping. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ellson / Abels to adopt Minute Motion 93 -039 approving Specific Plan 84 -004 "Rancho La Quinta" preliminary landscaping plans for Washington Street frontage subject to conditions. Unanimously approved. C. Specific Plan 84 -004 "Rancho La Quinta"; a request of TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) for approval of residential units. 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. Staff also informed the Commission that the sizes quoted, in the staff report were slightly different than those they were reviewing at this meeting. 2. Commissioner Ellson stated she would like to see 1/4" scale drawings in order to know what she was approving. 3. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff to explain the corrected square. footage. Commissioner Ellson stated she would like to see the changes that the Design Review Board requested on the Estancia Plan. Mr. Chuck Strother, applicant, went over the plans with the Commission and explained the changes. Discussion followed regarding the changes. 4. Chairwoman Barrows asked what the overhang would be. Mr. Strother stated they were three feet and two feet for the detached garages. PC8 -24 9 • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1993 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Chairwoman Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 93 -040 approving Specific Plan - 84 -004 "Rancho U Quinta" architectural elevations for residential units, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved. D. Sign Application 93 -215; a request of Roger Snellenberger for a sign adjustment to allow a permanent monument sign on Washington Street, north of Eisenhower Drive. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Abels asked staff to clarification the location of the sign and power box at the corner. Mr. Jeff Petrus, representing the applicant, showed the location and gave a brief explanation of why the sign was needed. 3. Commissioner Ellson questioned the location as. being the same location as the Building Industry Association signs and in addition if this sign was allowed, the for sale sign (billboard) would be removed. Staff stated the temporary sales sign would expire on its own. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels /Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 93 -041 approving Sign Application 93 -215 to allow a permanent monument sign, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved with the addition of Condition #6 which requires that if the sign is built on Washington Street, no additional permanent signs will be allowed on Eisenhower Drive. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioners Ellson /Marrs moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of July 27, 1993 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VII. OTHER A. Mr. Jeff Petrus stated his concern that the problem with the Quinterra tract needed a solution and the builder could afford to build the larger size homes. PC8 -24 10 • s Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1993 B. Staff informed the members to review the brochure on Transcon 2000 regarding the conference on Future Transportation Technology and let. staff know if they wished to attend. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Marrs /Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the. Planning Commission on September 14, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:38 P.M., August 24, 1993. PC8 -24 11 T4'lvl 44Q�w 1 FRE CDPV- 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) 777 -7101 August 25, 1993 Mr. Bruce Strickland Forecast Homes 10670 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (QUINTERRA /PHASE II) Dear Mr. Strickland: Thank you for attending the August 24, 1993 Planning Commission meeting and explaining your project to the four attending members. The Planning Commission did not reach a decision on your project and they voted to continue your case to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1993, at 7: 00 p.m. This delay will allow your firm and the opposing, tract residents time to explore options or alternatives to your current submittal. The Planning Commission will discuss your project during a Study Session meeting on September 13, 1993, at 7:00 p.m., and it will be held in the City's Session Room abutting the Council Chambers. If you would like to submit any new lay -out solutions for Tract 23913, please submit your materials or ideas to our office on or before September 6, 1993, so they can be added to the Staff Report. A copy of the Staff Report will be mailed to your attention on September 10, 1993. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GREG TROUSDELL ASSOCIATE PLANNER GT : ccs MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 T TR (':T nn.1 08 -20;53 03:4511-11 FROM SYC&R. "°•`POR?' BEACH IO 1,16197777101 41100i/065 FAX COVER SHEET SITRADUNG, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, California 92660 -6441 Date: August 20, 1993 Tclephone: (714) 725 -4000 Fax: (714) 725 -4100 THE FOLL4l%ING DocuNmw INCLI7DL c Tins COVER SHEET IS 5 PAGES. PLEASE DELIVER T0: AT FAX NO. JERRY HERMAN (619) 777 -7101 THIS DOCUMENT IS-FROM: JON E. GOETZ RE: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Pomvsat Romes' Propused Models for the Quinterra Subdivision MESSAGE: Please call if you would like to diccucc this further. CLIENTIMATTER NO.: 2338400 If any of these pages is not legible or you do not receive all of the pages, please call (714) 725.4014. CONFIDENTIALITY IV077CE THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE VSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED. CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT" FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAWS. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE: IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMI INWATIAN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELP- PHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, THANK YOU. A 08 -20'93 03:45PM FROM SYM F-'rORT SRnCH IU M;ii.c1117i?II BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A PAP WORNIP 04CWDING OQWCWONAL WRIMAATION4 • PAOi[YICNAL CORPORATION RWW40196 August 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78- 495,Call.e Tampico P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 I_I lI i U i l j DOTE 312 39700 BOB MOPE DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 1533 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 TEUPHONE (619) $68.2611 TELECOPIER (619) 340.6608 OF COUNSEL JAMES 8. CORISON OFFICES IN RIVCRSIDE 1909) 866.1470 PAI M SPRINGS 4619)326•1264 ONTARIO (909) 989.8554 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes Will be lost. On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract Asap was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- LAWYERS ARTHUR L. 61TTL9WORTH• DOUGLAS S. PNILLIP6• ELISE K. FRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. OERMANO GLLN E. STEPNENS' ANTONIA GRAPH WILLIAM D. OAHLINQ, JR. MARY E. GILBTRAP WILLIAM R. DOWOLfL'- GREGORY K. WILKINSON MATT H. MORRIS GLENN P. SAWNE BARTON C. GAUT- WYNNE S. FURTH JEFFREY v DUNN CHRISTINE L, MCHARDSON PAUL I. SELY[RT DAVID L. BARON STEVEN C. Da8AUN MANE OARCkA- COLSON DALLAS HOLMES- GENE TANAKA ERIC L GARNER PHILIP J. KOE14LCA GMRISIOPHEN L. CARPENTER' BASIL T. CHAPMAN OENNIS M. COTA DIANE C. WIESE MU^IAHU ANULK6CN' 11 OOHY M. CONN9K NACMLI.LT J. NICULLL KtOLCCA MARES GURNEY JOHN D• WA"LIN' • VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HAROREAVES DOROTHY F. ANDERSON MICHAEL D. HARRIS" DANIEL E. OLIVIER JANICE I.. WEIS D, HENRY WELLES W. CURT EALY" DANIEL J. MCHUGH PATRICK M W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK- HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH DINA 0. HARRIS i011N L'' GROWN- STEPHEN P, DEITSCII JASON D. DABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL I . KIDDLLL' MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A: SNOW RICHARD T. EQ4FF1 MEREOI 11, A. JURY' JOHN R. RCTTSCHAEFER MARK A. LASTER PATRICK D. DOLAN MICHAEL GRANT' MAKIIN A..MUCLLER DIANE L. F fNLEY OEM R. DERLETH FRANCIS J. GAUM• J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. GREYER ANNE T. THOMAS' VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR, EMILY P. HEMPHILL D. MARTIN NCTHENY' JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA ULUKUL M. HCTLO ?U011 G. SMIIM r:HK]3 I(JrMt N VOU39H JOHN O. PINKNEY WILLIAM W FLOYD. JR. JACK a, CLARKE, JR. BERNIt L. WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HAROKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E. HILL KENDALL H. MAAVEY BRADLEY E. NEUFELD KEVIN it. RANDOLPH CI ARK n. ALSOP" SHARYL WALKER JAMES U. GILPIN 6. RAYMOND BEST I ISS19571 DAVID J. ERWIN" PETER M. BARMACK MARSHAL I S. RUDOLPH JAMES N. KRIEOER (1913.1975) MtCHALL J. ANIJLLCUN' JLANNLITL A. PETERSON KIM A, NYITLNS EUGENE BEST 41893.1981) • PAOi[YICNAL CORPORATION RWW40196 August 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78- 495,Call.e Tampico P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 I_I lI i U i l j DOTE 312 39700 BOB MOPE DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 1533 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 TEUPHONE (619) $68.2611 TELECOPIER (619) 340.6608 OF COUNSEL JAMES 8. CORISON OFFICES IN RIVCRSIDE 1909) 866.1470 PAI M SPRINGS 4619)326•1264 ONTARIO (909) 989.8554 Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes Will be lost. On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract Asap was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- 08 -20 -03 03: 45Pki F :47 SY,,. &R NTVIFuk'T EEA.CH LAW OFFICES OF • 5'T, aEs-r & KRIEGER Planning commission city of La Quinta August 191 1993 Page 2 TG 10: 0 existing 18 homes in the Quinterra subdivision were built using those plans. These are all quality homes which originally sold for between $200,000 and $250,000. At the time Quinterra homeowners purchased their homes, they were assured by Windsor that the quality of the neighborhood would be maintained throughout subsequent phases. The subdivision's CC &R's call for the establishment of an Architectural Control Committee that will review and approve all homes to be built in the subdivision (other than those built by the developer) to insure that standards within the neighborhood are maintained. Based on these representations, homeowners felt secure in investing a significant part of their life savings in their new homes. Forecast Homes now proposes to build significantly smaller homes (from 1,106 to 1,659 square feet) that will sell for half the price of the existing homes. We all know that the quality of a neighborhood significantly affects the value of each home within that neighborhood. Forecast undoubtedly foresees that the value of its smaller homes will increase due to their close proximity to the larger existing homes. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. The value of existing homes will be reduced if smaller homes are allowed to be built in the same tract. In essence, approval of the smaller homes will allow Forecast to transfer value from existing homes to the new, smaller homes. Forecast will then sell this transferred value at a profit, while existing homeowners will suffer a loss in the value of their investment. We are mindful that, in today's market, requiring Forecast to proceed with the project as originally planned may not provide Forecast with the fastest method of making a profit. But land -use planning is not about maximizing short -term profits for developers. It is about achieving coherent and consistent development of property that will preserve and enhance property values for all concerned - -the developer, the surrounding property owners and the city. Forecast's request comes before this Commission for design review as a plot plan. one of the goals of design review is to "foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of the City and harmonious development . . .d1 (La Quinta Municipal Code s 9.183.020(A).) Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to be RMM40196 08 -20-93 03:45PM FROM NYC &R NF4 {iPORT BEA1,LK • LAW OFFICES OF • e BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Planning Commission city of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 3 10 9/1161677,1111101 M04/ ii 0.5 compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property." (La Quinta Municipal Code S 9.180.040(B).) Forecast's proposed plans do not comply with those requirements. Degregation of the neighborhood through the construction of lower - value housing is not compatible with current development nor does it preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods. For that reason alone, Forecast's request should be denied. As the principal planning agency for the City of La Quinta, this Commission is encharged with implementing a long -range perspective for the development of the City. The Quinterra neighborhood will exist for years to come. By investing a substantial part of their life savings in quality Quinterra homes, existing homeowners have made a long -term investment in, and commitment to, the quality of their neighborhood and the City of La Quinta as well. This Commission should not allow that investment and commitment to be undermined by short -term market forces and Forecast's desire for a quick profit. It is our understanding that there are other subdivisions within La Quinta that face a similar dilemma. Initial phases of those subdivisions were built with larger, quality homes. Now, due to the depressed housing market, developers desire to build smaller, inferior homes within those developments. In an effort to move product, developers are sacrificing the quality of their projects. we believe that fairness and good planning demand that the City of La Quinta carefully examine the situation and craft a comprehensive, City -wide response. We suggest that a "neighborhood preservation ordinance" be implemented. The ordinance would use zoning controls to balance the need to maintain existing neighborhood values with the desire of developers to respond to market conditions. similar ordinances have been enacted in other cities to preserve existing neighborhoods from uncontrolled development that threatened to destroy the character of those neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would give La Quinta city planners, this Commission and the City Council increased ability to respond in a reasonable way to the needs of all segments of the community and to allow for the development in a manner that is fair to all. Until this City has had an opportunity to fully assess and respond to the threats to existing neighborhoods posed by subsequent, inferior development, we respectfully request that Forecast be required to continue to develop the Quinterra subdivision as previously planned by Windsor and approved by the NNW % °.08- 2.0 -93 03'45PM FROM S C.''R P"WPORT BEACH iC} ;!1019 ? ?ii10! PL ?iu5'�'._5 r LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGER' Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 4 City. A hasty decision to .allow lesser- quality development in this neighborhood will unfairly detract from the substantial investments . made in good faith by Quinterra homeowners and from the reputation of the City of La Quinta as a secure place for quality investment. very truly yours, DOUG S S. PHILLIPS of BEST, BEST 1 KRIEGER DSP:RWH:js cc: Dawn Honeywell, city Attorney City of La Quinta Client RWN40196 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS August 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUITE 312 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 1555 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (619) 568 -2611 TELECOPIER (619) 340 -6698 OF COUNSEL JAMES B. CORISON OFFICES IN RIVERSIDE (909) 686 -1450 PALM SPRINGS (619)325 -7264 ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 1 S�,Pe� �`„r - •;��'� ;� uF ��rya #f jpa ��'... �Lj 'a+aL cra AUG 19 1993 ,m dpi fi y (?F x ' @ Al Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes will be lost. On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- RWH40196 LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH• DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS' ELISE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO GLEN E. STEPHEN&' ANTONIA GRAPHOS WILLIAM D. DAHLING, JR. MARY E. GILSTRAP WILLIAM R. DeWOLFE• . GREGORY K. WILKINSON MATT H. MORRIS GLENN P. SABINE BARTON C. GAUT' WYNNE S. FURTH JEFFREY V. DUNN CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON PAUL T. SELZER• DAVID L. BARON STEVEN C. DeBAUN JAANE GARCIA- COLSON DALLAS HOLMES' GENE TANAKA ERIC L. GARNER PHILIP J. KOEHLER CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER- BASIL T. CHAPMAN DENNIS M. COTA DIANE C. WIESE RICHARD T. ANDERSON' TIMOTHY M. CONNOR RACHELLE J. NICOLLE REBECCA MARES DURNEY JOHN D. WAHUN' VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HARGREAVES DOROTHY L ANDERSON MICHAEL D. HARRIS' DANIEL E. OLIVIER JANICE L. WEIS G. HENRY WELLES W. CURT EALY' DANIEL J. McHUGH PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK* HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH DINA 0. HARRIS JOHN E. BROWN' STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON D. DABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL T. RIDDELL' MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A. SNOW RICHARD T. EGGER MEREDITH A. JURY' JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A. EASTER PATRICK D. DOLAN MICHAEL GRANT' MARTIN A. MUELLER DIANE L. FINLEY DEAN R. DERLETH FRANCIS J. BAUM• J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. GREYER ANNE T. THOMAS' VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL D. MARTIN NETHERY• JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH CHRISTOPHER DODSON JOHN O. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. FLOYD, JR. JACK B. CLARKE, JR. BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HARDKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E. HILL KENDALL H. MaCVEY BRADLEY E. NEUFELD KEVIN K. RANDOLPH CLARK H. ALSOP' SHARYL WALKER JAMES B. GILPIN RAYMOND BEST (1868 -1957) DAVID J. ERWIN• PETER M. BARMACK MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913 -1975) MICHAEL J. ANDERSON• JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893 -1981) - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION August 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUITE 312 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 1555 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (619) 568 -2611 TELECOPIER (619) 340 -6698 OF COUNSEL JAMES B. CORISON OFFICES IN RIVERSIDE (909) 686 -1450 PALM SPRINGS (619)325 -7264 ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 1 S�,Pe� �`„r - •;��'� ;� uF ��rya #f jpa ��'... �Lj 'a+aL cra AUG 19 1993 ,m dpi fi y (?F x ' @ Al Re: Plot Plan 93 -505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes will be lost. On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivision (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- RWH40196 LAW OFFICES OF • • BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 2 existing 18 homes, in the Quinterra subdivision were built using those plans. These are all quality homes which originally sold for between $200,000 and $250,000. At the time Quinterra homeowners purchased their homes, they were assured by Windsor that the quality of the neighborhood would be maintained throughout subsequent phases. The subdivision's CC &R's call for the establishment of an Architectural Control Committee that will review. and approve all homes to be built in the subdivision (other than those built by the developer) to insure that standards within the neighborhood are maintained. Based on these representations, homeowners felt secure in investing a significant part of their life savings in their new homes. Forecast Homes now proposes to build significantly smaller homes (from 1,106 to 1,659 square feet) that will sell for half the price of the existing homes. We all know that the quality of a neighborhood significantly affects the value of each home within that neighborhood. Forecast undoubtedly foresees that the value of its smaller homes will increase due to their close proximity to the larger existing homes. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. The value of existing homes will be reduced if smaller homes are allowed to be built in the same tract. In essence, approval of the smaller homes will allow Forecast to transfer value from existing homes to the new, smaller homes. Forecast will then sell this transferred value at a profit, while existing homeowners will suffer a loss in the value of their investment. We are mindful that, in today's market, requiring Forecast to proceed with the project as originally planned may not provide Forecast with the fastest method of making a profit. But land -use planning is not about maximizing short -term profits for developers. It is about achieving coherent and consistent development of property that will preserve and enhance property values for all concerned - -the developer, the surrounding property owners and the City. Forecast's request comes before this Commission for design review as a plot plan. One of the goals of . design review is to "foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of the City and its harmonious development . . . ." (La Quinta Municipal Code § 9.183.020(A).) Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to be RWH40196 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGE• Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 3 compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property." (La Quinta Municipal Code § 9.180.040(B).) Forecast's proposed plans do not comply with those requirements. Degregation of the neighborhood through the construction of lower - value housing is not compatible with current development nor does it preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods. For that reason alone, Forecast's request should be denied. As the principal planning agency for the City of La.Quinta, this Commission is encharged with implementing a long -range perspective for the development of the City. The Quinterra neighborhood will exist for years to come. By investing a substantial part of their life savings in quality Quinterra homes, existing homeowners have made a long -term investment in, and commitment to, the quality of their neighborhood and the City of La Quinta as well. This Commission should not allow that investment and commitment to be undermined by short -term market forces and Forecast's desire for a quick profit. It is our understanding that there are other subdivisions within La Quinta that face a similar dilemma. Initial phases of those subdivisions were built with larger, quality homes. Now, due to the depressed housing market, developers desire to build smaller, inferior homes within those developments. In an effort to move product, developers are sacrificing the quality of their projects. We believe that fairness and good planning demand that the City of La Quinta carefully examine the situation and craft a comprehensive, City -wide response. We suggest that a "neighborhood preservation ordinance" be implemented. The ordinance would use zoning controls to balance the need to maintain existing neighborhood values with the desire of developers to respond to market conditions. Similar ordinances have been enacted in other cities to preserve existing neighborhoods from uncontrolled development that threatened to destroy the character of those neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would give La Quinta city planners, this Commission and the City Council increased ability to respond in a reasonable way to the needs of all segments of the community and to allow for the development in a manner that is fair to all. Until this City has had an opportunity to fully assess and respond to the threats to existing neighborhoods posed by subsequent, inferior development, we respectfully request that Forecast be required to continue to develop the Quinterra subdivision as- previously planned by Windsor and approved by the RWH40196 _ LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGE• Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 4 City. A hasty decision to allow lesser - quality development in this neighborhood will unfairly detract from the substantial investments made in good faith by Quinterra homeowners and from the reputation of the City of La Quinta as a secure place for quality investment. Very truly yours, DOUG S S. PHILLIPS of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER DSP:RWH:js cc: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney City of La Quinta Client RWH40196 MEMORANDUM COPY TO: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER FROM: JERRY HERMAN, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 16, 1993 SUBJECT: QUINTERRA (FORECAST HOMES). The media (Desert Sun & KMIR TV) have contacted me regarding the small house unit sizes proposed by Forecast Homes for Phase 2 of the Quinterra Tract. The project is located in the northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. Apparently the homeowners sent a press release to the media expressing their concern with the 1,106 square foot units being built next to their 2,000+ square foot homes. They are also concerned with market values of their homes being reduced because of the smaller units being built with the tract.. This matter has been scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of August 24th, at 7: 00 p . m. If the Planning Commission decision is appealed it I will then be scheduled for City Council consideration. The homeowners and the media are having a meeting at 7:30 this evening to discuss this matter, however the Planning Department has not been informed as to where the meeting is taking place., nor have we been asked to attend.- More information will follow once it becomes available. 1 o �1.306 MEMOJH . 006 0 i V193 Ull 4 FILE COPY 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA GIUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) 777 -7101 August 11, 1993 SUBJECT: QUINTERRA TRACT (PHASE 2) Dear Property Owner: On August 24, 1993, the Planning Commission will consider a request by Forecast Homes to complete Phase 2 of the.Quinterra project. The Planning Commission will consider the applicant's request to build 1,106 square foot to 1,659 square foot homes on the remaining vacant lots. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 P.M. and the Civic Center is located on the southwest corner of Calle Tampico and Washington Street. The Applicant's plans can be reviewed at our office prior to the meeting between the hours of 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. If you cannot attend the meeting of August 24th, but you wish to express your thoughts on this pending request, please submit your written correspondence to our office by August 19, 1993 if you would like to have the material delivered to the Planning Commissioner's prior to�the meeting. All other correspondence received after August 19th will be given to the Commissioner's on August 23rd or 24th. The Applicant has agreed to build the larger homes (1,415 square feet, 1,538 square feet, and 1,659 square feet) adjacent to Phase 1 and they will use similar materials and textures on these abutting homes to be compatible with your existing residence. This arrangement was discussed with Staff and the City's Design Review Board on August 4, 1993, and the Planning Commission will consider this proposal at their future, meeting. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 777 -7125. Very truly yours, JERRY4 MAN PUAN IN NT& DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GREG TROUSDELL ASSOCIATE PLANNER cc: Todd Schermerhorn, Forecast Project Manager MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 LTRGT .114 V43,5 Ijil i • / I 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) 777 -7101 August 5, 1993 Q Mr. Bruce Stickland Forecast Homes 10670 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (QUINTERRA /PHASE II) Dear Mr. Strickland: Thank you for attending last night's Design Review Board Meeting and explaining your project to the six attending members. As you are aware, your project will be examined by the Planning Commission on August 24, 1993, based on the Board's conditional approval. yesterday. The Design Review Board voted to allow your various model units on Phase I of Tract 23913 provided the larger units (Plans 4, 5, 6) are used adjacent to the existing Phase I units and that.three car garages will be considered for your initial homes at the project entry on Miles Avenue., They also recommended that the exterior colors and textures of the adjacent units include desert tones similar to Phase I. The Board modified the recommendations of staff based on their actions of August 4, 1993, and staff will incorporate their recommendations into the future Planning Commission report. The Planning Commission report will be mailed to your attention on August 20, 1993,.and the meeting will begin at 7:00 P.M. in the City. Hall Council Chambers. If you have any questions concerning the above information, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY NG /& DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GREP —T ZOUSDELL Associate Planner GT:bjs LTRGT.119 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 6h.1- T4tyl 4 4a Qum' 78495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) -777-7101 July 28, 1993 Mr. Todd Schermerhorn, Project Manager Forecast Homes 10670 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -505 (QUINTERRA /PHASE II) Dear Mr. Schermerhorn: Thank you for your application of July 21, 1993. We have placed your request to develop new single family homes within Tract 23913 on the Design Review Board meeting of August 4, 1993. The meeting begins at 5:30 P.M. and it will be held in the Council Chambers at the City Hall. Your preliminary plans are acceptable, however, we need 8 -1.2" by 11" reductions of each unit (elevation and floor plan), and a typical site plan /landscape plan for one of the five models. 'We would like to have the additional material in our office prior to August 3, 1993, so that we will have them available for the August 4, 1993 meeting. The large colored elevation drawings and the material sample board can be brought to the meeting pursuant to your discussion .with Stan Sawa, Principal Planner on July 21, 1993. It would be helpful to the Design Review Board members if each architectural style (Plans 2 -6) are represented. The Design Review Board report will be mailed to your attention on July 30, 1993. If.you have any questions concerning the above information, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, A 0 & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR C 7 JROUSDELL Assoc- to Planner , GT:bjs LTRGT.117 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 • July 21, 1993 Design Review Commission Planning Department City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 TRACT 23913 LOTS 1 -5, 55 -116 s � JUL 2 1 1993 00 LA aI,!Ik- D'£P'ARTUVE W IT CXSE � ' ISO. 3 -: T Dear Commissioner: I have enclosed fifteen sets of floor plans and elevations for our homes and their renderings for your review. We are purchasing the above property and would like to build our homes in the near future. We are presenting our "New Beginnings" series of homes (Plans 2.thru 6) and welcome your comments. Please schedule us for your next upcoming (August 4, 1993) Design Review Commission and should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully, FOREC S CORP RATIO Todd Schermerhorn Project Manager 10670 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (]44)987 -7788 fax 980 -7305 i 07 3.^. 2:22PK �w r�a�casx z FROM 909, 98 7305 Please Deliver the NAME: FIRM: FAX NUMBER: FROM a TO 16197777i0i P001 /003 G D�PA�t1ENt TELECOPIER COVER LETTER DATE; 11Owing Pages to: 7,/ eq / Number of Ptrgol'es Sent: Original /Copies to be Mai ed: O YES IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (909) 987 -7788. MESSAGE. � __ -__--_------•---- �----- �_- _- W_,�_= ______,== �__Y =. = - -� THIS MESSAGE XS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL, OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DFSdLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECYPI $dT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEkEBY NOTXFIED THf3'1: any DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. XF YOU NAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. 1( 70 Civic Cow DPiw Ranct}u Cucamwp. CA 91730 1714)981.7788 fax 980.7305 I 1 i3 i i t' 1 1 t' .N - e a To. construction Dept. Fro: Marianne Broome Date: July 21, . 1993 CV la Ninta - Tract 23913 e >m ro Color "A" Trim cce t A291 2ym Stucco StUggg Yinish C Scheme Elevations C r #1 Plan Two SD622 SD612 2356 L x73 Eggshell Tom. O �' #2 plan Three 414 SD612 2308 L X27 Monterey Texture � Flan rbur smn 546 2386 L x23 Aspen Rare - N 14 Flan Five 414 SV633, 2522 L x73 Eggshell Texture #5 Plan Six .414 401 2522 L x73 Ztjgshell . Texture color Brio& Aqek Tr -a oof T�e � � tucco gln l�h Scene Elevations Un 16 PIAM One Saturn X/A 5022 SD612 4 532 F x27 'Monterey Texture 47 Plain One N/A Grey 415 4511 F x16 Silver Grey Texture %i -ver X414 Rock `n X #S PIan Three Saturn N/A SI622 S 612 4532 F x27 Monterey Texture #9 flan Three Xf A may. 414 415 4511 F X50 Crystal Texture River Rock White - #10 Pled Fcua CQ1ania.l N/A SD621 546 2386 L x23 Aspen Tie P211, Plan F*ur NIA Cray 414 415 4511 F x16 Silver Grey Tie • River bock _ 122 Flan Five CoAcnla; NIA 414 SD612 4532 F x73 Dggshell Texture #13 Plan Five NfA 'Grey 414 415 4512 F 'x5O Crystal Textvre N 21ver Rock mite #34 Plata six Saturn KJA 414 SD612 2308 L x27 Monterey Texture #15 Plan Six NJA Grey 414 415 4511 F x59 Crystal Textwe < River Rock. mite 16'- --- Rlaxa-Sz Colc�r�ia - -N/ .... . Texture �R r� O L- 1 w r., C� s, T 0 !0 l9 IL Page 2. * BRICK - BIGGINS f COLON AL & SATURN ** ROCK m CULTURED STONEIMM R.LVM ROCK By STUCM Sim pMDUCTS * *' `I' ,lDl 6 ACCENT - OLD QUAKER w STUCCO - LA HABRA ** iSMaOR OLD QUAEER 414 * RWY TYPE L = LCM PR€ FTU S _. "5" r - FUT ,lease dote: Plana 4. 5, -6 b Tr.alr aromas Complete garage doori s, eves, frront doors rx facial. Door frazes, vindow :frames, se garage door £ras, vindow got shelves, vindow plant on's. AMDt_ _aieeras 1-1MG1,9ft; Chimey caps, circular plant on's _ =I& areas nclu : #414 Garage door eves, frcmt door & fac$as. AM nt areas include: #SD612 Chimney cap,, aircular plant cn °s, window frazes, garage door -f raw, windov pct shelves, window plant ow s, front doer, entry door frame. Wisslead, - -Jay Jamison, -- ZEF, Design Center, Sales. Representatives, jim Davis, Sales Cxoordimtar A 0 'CiA 0 C O R P O R A T I O N Construction/ Development 10(170 Civic C(-nu•r Dri%v Rancho Cticanurnga• CA 917:30 a.,A ,M4)987-7788 r_ LET OF TRANSMITTAL •: Q WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ the following Items: ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION ❑ Approved as noted 'As requested C3 Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FORBIDS DUE 19 _ lL(' a CITY OF LA. IG!�!,'IT,,k THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted 'As requested C3 Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FORBIDS DUE 19 _ REMARKS ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit - copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNE . If enclosures are not as noted, kindly n . AMERICAN BUSINESS FORMS (714) 7935233 1%, 0 k I AFFORDABLE LUXURY �-J;� /a:r 771- or Plan 1 CapiSTrzano FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR Plan 2 La Palma 1aLM 0:6 4° OARAOH LIIII�I � !) i, .SECOND FLOOR Plan 3 Rincon 1 .s�O i ��i AW 047 FA at Gt ° QI 01r at w at ml S s mi� Sir m10 m Q I JI Z� ml ol 01 J1 IL ol zi 01 UI all of 1� V t� Q 0 J IL 1- Ni ml m rL i G �O ca � r-� . �• AI 7h 71 :. !! 9i 3: 7t :fl :. 1 1 � = I o i 1 �. n • �•• • Q a3tlsvVelo 1� I i sags rnc)q*ouov , I � � W � a el c� a W 1�>2sts va�r�r-ta�rsva I� .i a 1 t m _ lot 101 {:J t a . mu�ZTW= \ '(-7-�`, rce-1 :5 &-0_I.; 2- =rCE- I -.j tv H � a n a 0 V m t W Q W Z A f I� d ;R a m Rom z W vvW ■.n a 1 MOO vanv-iaysvo N � 1 N � N � ^ 1✓ i a tu rio • �•• • Q a3tlsvVelo 1� I i sags rnc)q*ouov , I � � W � a el c� a W 1�>2sts va�r�r-ta�rsva I� .i a 1 t m _ lot 101 {:J t a . mu�ZTW= \ '(-7-�`, rce-1 :5 &-0_I.; 2- =rCE- I -.j tv H � a n a 0 V m t W Q W Z A f I� d ;R a m Rom z W vvW ■.n a 1 MOO vanv-iaysvo N � 1 N � N � ^ 1✓ i a tu rio Mu i I . .� � � \ `� � � } \fig ��~�\ \��\ � /�¥ \� �% � / � } }� r� .,7 � «= \ .�\ �� �\ � � : �; ���\ � ��G� � \� %� � 22 � � �� \ � ° � �� 41* )� >��41j �4. 6» . �4� s • , ra: .� �r gy�pp,;;. =ry• a i �u R a cr. / p e «% � 7 \» � \� i m } a \ » K � /�/ S`si' \ } 7 !® Ad -� 3 \ � >-�--- � tea;' "� ', �"... �i e} '� . � ;, ��� r" �rL 4`J � ��y d�ppR �� �ry `Q"b �Z � t. 1, ;'.� � 1 v„.�;`.:t a _w a � �i �.s � �.. �, �;�` IkL �= a y w i x5 �y A- IkL { ��� \ > ����{ � ~\�� ® 3 �� �` < \ &\ . � \�\ /\ . \5� i \� , : � � /� �, . , /6��� .�� /�\ � � � , ` ~�� \� \ �: * � � i ����� . k' ". ��� f��,/ , �- � �:� \ \ \ � \w � ^ \� ! {�� � \�}) l22� � ?. � 1 � \ &. � � � .7� _ . .d c ay � \�; \ � w �� �� a� 7 \� `�` i n i el 0 ��� }�. \ � >� ) \ �.� � a \ \ �� / � � , pp \ \ / �} }�y! : . \sq. � » «; \ c c! ;my - .� � ! ter/ i7� � � � /I�, \ � � � . � �� }%»! . « & . . »���7 \ .ter. AGO 24-C,4 SI MBA LIVING 1", FA BEDRFA ZA\ 74 5 F E BA. CL °. 'HA v LL DINING BEDRK #2. ENT. DEN/BEDRK, (OPTIONAL) KITCK L a GARAGE d jol-d i L FLOOR PLAN -5?,9AI _?9!1,0"(:? PLAN 2 1106 S/F r 12 v4 x' ATT� vbi1T _ GS�L.If'1's ourunc i NEAR ELEVATION l5cr-. Iia 1 1.4.E a 11 —P 4 FRONT ELEVATION ELEVATION A RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION : 1/40 � 11.o LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 0 z� rn r° z S3 u 0 M, H bd '1 I\ 1 m a m m r m a 0 z r t� r ',l re i RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION �.,►.� : �� i o LEFT..SIDE..ELEVATION . • �� ; ��a' = i' o° n ice.. i c - 191• W i Fat? m o m s - a t4 -�9- - � � -gyp 1�� vj'. •, �- 2. N I OM-0 m ---ice m 3 Z g�R " m • o II C gN z @o I N mo e w, I Z p NA A ° Q -G °� I n cis !� i �L = °iV \I i c - 191• f-� N W v I'+,• 1 e TD �R'�'6{•J W i f-� N W v I'+,• 1 e TD �R'�'6{•J REAR ELEVATION ALB : '4' - 1', 1011 ..FRONT .ELEVATION ELEVATION A C- 9r-K5T \1 G,1. FLAiNINB 4! 12 ATk::,` �- �P4 74- I \. I • I K!o 1.6T • lil I ( Z'h.�G6�INc5 • I ' I RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION..�.� : I.ly'' I'• o° AFPK: p GAP G�L;GI►�T __ 12 -/� I A'fTIG VE'.rIT GEILIN� I ovtLlne I \ /�W3G►' SGFtc�ED LEFT SIDE ELEVATION sc.••l.� : ��° < I' 2 c-- grtrc•� I xG I- ET•IP� 1�� 18" C.A? � B- ttJc'u y 2rib'T�1t'1 -N I Iy,�a� PY�SGU. t0 \ 6L/{iy 611F)fi � 9fUcc� LL Pco LOT. III NEAR. ELEVATION• : ��� °�i�•o� 'o IN Elm�ON�- FRONT ELEVATION.. ■■ I i I 1 `ao 0 IU,MTION B e �J GRICKST\ RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION Fl APF K b TWM . GAP LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 114, a i' PLAN 4 1415 S/F __.REAR.. ELEVATION_ /4' - •} ��r '4'GlGcO PbF+C� 2� da \ R4 f !241M . . p p1A.'�M�I►I�1Ed TRIM �1� Z o �'/a -� ve ►'rT =6 2 MnNG'�+vv lKG''ff irl .}.• IO _ .._FRONT ELEVATION -qc^t e : %4? > �� of ELEVATION A I to • a� ., t RIGHT .SIDE ELEVATION... c \'14',, i.7-rlc -- 6 v=.^iT �:EILIN6 oVT1.�ti� � � s LEFT. SIDE _ELEVATION .►. : 14 �I'.a •.I. F..1,�'NG ..REAR -ELEVATION FRONT FLEVAMN 1W 4-d FLEWTTON 10 ' O d / ^PFF-00 -WRM . 12 1: -1�y - �o -T Pc auTwrtr- G.1. PL- ,oF3rf'� OWT -In G / �. ,l n�blris nRl .00 \ � F-- STcN: N I �. "twp' RIGHT-SIDE-ELEVATION.. .AMpp: /G7 12 ly LFFT SIDE.'Fl- EVATION r-,cP l.9 : li4" n 1 '.d+ 1 5 1538 S/F tp / PP,t7 TEf�f-11P1�'tlgy CAP (orjleF -IPA rlf aPt�i ___prJ«o �✓ 2f8 . I I 1 I�n/pOD P/�GiGlf. TM f2 • IX/o ✓�T''N REAR ELEVATION �N�Ea : %4" ° 1' .40 It �i:2d :�4o 0 I! s � IB OIA.°jIMJ:1�;:D I WWI w/� Tr+� 9T�tOcov°R� 2+�4 Wln�.�✓ ,�� Gz� 1 �JURRaJ•ND �j pnvR TRIM i I ;oa . 0�1�1 [1 C] - ! d • Iwt -rP -,rr a • Ida ? -IM FRONT ELEVATION I/4° -1' r-r 1414 eL4* II TION A i son son in 0 r-r 1414 eL4* II TION A 10.0 7 �-- APPR�G TE'tV' "• j d CAP t�A� vwV l-r \� GRIGKeT . o�rn -I N e \ I - \Mvp Fiopr-IA i �IriG L.V--r - IN E— �j7UGC•0 't / RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 12 �• /ter � 14x� ATfia vB.rt' dr .. oUTLIirB __ � / WooG F7°'9GIA / -� I XAG6R16 \';1 LEFT SIDE ELEVATIONAL6 P JoGo I I / yAWP PISA =Lh i ,. Oar P. I KG LET IN / REAR ELEVATION s� '- 1 ■■- ■ e :Y IMMI ELEVATION B 12. \ I RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION GAP v C-K krKaT -kWvP P,4091--JA �iP C^ L. EF : 1/4„.1 1,011 14 OVTL4NV- yvpr-- �Rl7F v LEFT SIDE ELEVATION : vvo"p In, .0 � Cw"%r4&lsr9 yl ^R'K'o 7PZM. 0.1. EA LIVING DEN/BEDRPA #4 t 'A M BAA Y ENT. rr t 7g- GARAGE 0-d FIRST FLOOR PLAN 9w PLAN 6 TOTAL SIF 1659 04 t'l- WO-09- -fop "'I. P ton!! NOOK 'Lill DINING MW SOX. P lip FAMLY KITCH. i IK: - 4=,,/ - - HALL N�, 55,4'. �41 LIVING DEN/BEDRPA #4 t 'A M BAA Y ENT. rr t 7g- GARAGE 0-d FIRST FLOOR PLAN 9w PLAN 6 TOTAL SIF 1659 v EU use o�ev L SECOND FLOOR PLAN 699 &f. I "o "n �. AP�a✓ED ?c�M. CX 1 h 7 Fm 6i NZP rte}, T1 REAR.ELEVATION M^. ^Try -VWfr 1x4 TFIr1 aG- -r f irl I=RONT..ELEVATION �.,i s : �i4 .� •d c.crc4- Imm r ELEVATION A ANF��G 1,FM, RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION - a i / C 9A W avR Lime — A4 W47P PA49CdA 'pnC ;. \ I I )io L%T.IN I� ��pPk�ll'10 LEFT. SIDE ELEVATION Ia ,a I.PPFIW °�J i3[P�1 � CAP - fl� ' C- iiMH' -Y a►tlaNl. F4�a 1-f 6.I.W -?6N G ^Tr �Yf • ` F / I ><G t • IM �p CD "o 0 REAR ELEVATION. FRONT ELEVATION vin. ArTlc •,' -rr; ELEVATION B r m m --e cn v m m r m z m 0 ch m m r m O z l fj if 4 r m m. -i cn v m m e- m O z r I 0 A� -a v m m r m D-1 O 0 a TH IS MAP /5 FOR POR. SW 114 NW //4 SEC. 20 T. 5S. R. 7E. T .4. �- 049 6O'7�' �2 =SSMENT FVlRR75ES ONLY / 604_07 _ 26 271 — — — "3"3 3182 115.66 69 50 O °936 72 D1 7: ? O •.'' _ cL 0; {\ t \ \' — - LO- O u 7 ° // 0 105 `� I�A i9 w a3 ;se �e.as I atr fi. 74 .G� J :546, rj 0— 114 N 5 : N -- A R B 9'� -A"�— _. 0113 o tor x • ,0 ?-Z o 33.57 [53 _ ° 000 OI 09 75 's., o soZ 0 ^ a ' o u /x715 ` \\ / /03 m "' 12 0 O6 0� o^ 9 1 so m ,� �O° �� O 19 A OZ 7+ ,29 - 7.7/ 77.0 '• /7.0 %703 1 102 Y^i A d d , 8 0 96 55 4 Z 6 s B l� 03 S3 ° 6< ; � B' � ��� ,,� � � , r Home Sizes /4 C �/9.72� ,2p6� sBl A - 2,072 sq. ft. A B C A B Q;p o ( o o'�. ,.1� B - 2,363 s ;1 ft q, O o• o oc o o C� C- 2 593 s ft. o h q• M,� . _. , .. .. L�ADERA -- o DRIVE - .41 BB ` . I •e . - I s9 S3 SO - 50 G 6.0 ls . 0 Q � . S� 9/ 92 95 BO C A Os - LADER,p - -_- DRIVE Parking Lot .a 0 C V 25' I LOT 99.2/ 1.. 9d.6B _ ` <? n8 t.. i0. 6,f e2T4 e9 o v 90 94 9J V / d Y og 0 .•;, ,. o Retention Basin AO ' o A O' �' V A U o O'_ �_ - ccr s o rRa 2 .,o// I -- - - WL ES AVENUE _: -- � {// — [mom bL.2 �0.l,f. G -Td: LL4 9,_ 140 06 ✓ I 11:,./1 I.q I M. 6. 226172-76 Tro c, No. 23 913 Phase 1 1 :ORS MAP BK. 604 Fii. 27 /OE 09UNTY, CALIF DEC 1990 ✓RB 9 .Ole- \ � � ; / �`z'� By DOUGLAS HABERMAN � The Desert Sun LA QUINTA — Homeowners are protesting a developer's plans to h" complete the Quinterra subdivision „ly` with much smaller houses than those already built. They complain that a, change in ' "" the original plans might lower the All value of their homes and affect the overall look of their neighborhood.# # "It was represented as a fairly a nice development," Quinterra homeowner Jim Hanson said. "Now we think that they're trying to come° in here with homes that may be less y 4 than $100,000." He paid $200,000 for his home in December, he said. A vice president with developer MAX ORTIZ /The Desert Sun Forecast Homes of Rancho Cuca- WORRIED: Jim Hanson of La Quinta opposes a developer's plans to monga said the company is planning finish Quinterra subdivision with smaller homes. Hanson and others to build homes in.the low $100,000s, fear the change will reduce values in the entire neighborhood. aimed mainly at young families. "That meets market demand," vice president Bruce Strickland said. The homeowners plan to present petitions to the Planning Commis- sion at 7 p.m. on Aug. 24. Only 18 homes have been built in Quinterra so far. The subdivision con "ains 116 lots. Desert Sun Newspaper August 17, 1993 Those already built have square footages of 2,072, 2,363 or 2,593. Forecast is proposing new units with square footages of 1,106, 1,237, 1,415 or 1,659. "They're attractive homes," Strickland said. Forecast is not the original de- veloper. Strickland said a partner - _ — I ship that was building Quinterra folded and the lender bank took over the property. Forecast became interested in the property about a month ago, he said. If its plans are approved, the val- ue of existing homes will drop, Han- I,. son arguad. Quinterra plans WHAT: La Quinta Planning Com- mission discusses Forecast Homes' proposal for Quinterra subdivision. WHEN: 7 p.m. Aug. 24. WHERE: City Council chambers, the new City Hall, at Washington Street and Calle Tampico. "Their property values have al- ready been diminished," Strickland responded. "The market has done that." Homeowners in the nearby Ran - cho Ocotillo and Topaz develop - ments also are signing the petitions. Some of those signing said that when they bought their homes they were told the rest of the develop- ment and nearby subdivisions 'i would consist of homes of more than 2,000 square feet. Rancho Ocotillo homeowner Diane McMahon said she would like her neighborhood to consist of houses that look more or less the same. "You want it to remain what you thought it would remain from the beginning," she sai. DCRSEY PRICE III/Tne Desert Sun The city's Design Review Board voted Aug. 4 to recommend that the Planning Commission approve Forecast's plans. If homeowners or the developer r are unhappy with the Planning, Commission vote, they can appeal to the City Council, Planning Direc- tor Jerry Herman said. { �- - J - - -- _ - E � � nr .1. ..- h f. . ' t .. j 1 -- ' i _ may. � �� .. � . � .�. _� � _ � -. vu. —At o atat, (ids without it) I legislators' offices. . but add frankly ien their fax )pies of the same tys Duane Peterson, Monica). "Happily, ." ( Peterson's boss :hanged before a 1- growth forests.) Caldera (D -Los they try to reserve n so, had to turn it \nd Sen. Teresa vistfully: "It would 'ornia's GOP teagan), this ay sign on border tells drivers ought to them by over Coarsegold figured it would a $3,000 icy'd do it half the price. The and residents are s, the county's Ig on a clause kpse, and ;es and the men ne o requirement r chief of staff :ramento Bee on tme boss. CALIFORNIA ALBUM Neighbor vs. Neighbor m As the rebuilding from the devastating fire in the Oakland hills takes hold, the new `monster houses' block scenic views and strain relations. By JENIFER WARREN TIMES STAFF WRITER • ' AKLAND —High In the hills overlooking San Francisco flay, victims of the great fire of 1991 are taking roost once again. __..._ I lammers are flying, saws are buzzing and lumber trucks trundle noisily about from daybreak until dusk. What is missing is the giddy spirit of renewal. Once united it) the communal glow of survival, fire victims are a divided bunch, locked in warfare over what some see as a new menace to their scenic hills— "momaer homes." Monster homes arc, in a word, monstrous. Almost two - thirds of the houses lost in the fire are rebuilt or tinder construction, and most are nearly half again as big as their predecessors —with some bulging beyond 6,000 square feet. Shoehorned onto steep. tiny lots, the bulky buildings look stark against the naked, fire- scarred landscape— "like warts on a tennis ball," one resident said. Aside from their aesthetic effect, the monster houses have blocked views• robbed neighbomof I f F a j Xc�, IU Y w i n �sY•y� -, yy s � � 1!k'■§ OPy > °C y C t NANCY STROGOFF / Fbr The Timcs Anne Zlebur has a view of her neighbor's 'monster house' instead of the Golden Gate Bridge. She says all the windows In the house next door have deprived her of privacy. sunlight and privacy and placed the stamp of Tom Lavin, an architect whose house escaped ostentation on once - eclectic neighborhoods. the flames but is now oddly dwarfed by the Y• �i. massive trilevel dwelling erected next door. casualty. Neighbors who shared recipes and "Pick any street, and you'll have Mr. X baby - sitters before the fire have in some screaming about how Mr. Y plopped the cases become sworn enemies, bitterly split house from hell down right outside his over such matters as towering roof lines and window." obtrusive deck railings. . The inferno that torched the wooded East "People are at each other's throats," said i LRL'Cf,. 3 a SyS. }d iY�.:°fA�i�.sL$il>�'S�.R id�S�n f F a j Xc�, IU Y w i n �sY•y� -, yy s � � 1!k'■§ OPy > °C y C t il NANCY STROGOFF / Fbr The Timcs Anne Zlebur has a view of her neighbor's 'monster house' instead of the Golden Gate Bridge. She says all the windows In the house next door have deprived her of privacy. sunlight and privacy and placed the stamp of Tom Lavin, an architect whose house escaped ostentation on once - eclectic neighborhoods. the flames but is now oddly dwarfed by the Community relations are yet another massive trilevel dwelling erected next door. casualty. Neighbors who shared recipes and "Pick any street, and you'll have Mr. X baby - sitters before the fire have in some screaming about how Mr. Y plopped the cases become sworn enemies, bitterly split house from hell down right outside his over such matters as towering roof lines and window." obtrusive deck railings. . The inferno that torched the wooded East "People are at each other's throats," said Please see HOMES, A21 il LOS ANGELES TIMES HOMES: Neighbors at Odds Over'Monster Mouses' Continued from A3 Bay hills Oct. 20, 1991, left little in its wake. Twenty -five people died; another 150 were injured and more than 2,500 homes were incinerated as if they were cheap paper lan- terns. As 5,000 suddenly homeless residents strug- gled with their loss, many found solace in neighbors suffering a similar plight. Support groups and community associations sprang up to help with lost pets; insurance disputes and every other aspect of the fire's toll. But once rebuilding geared up and repopula- tion of the hills began, some of those warm fuzzy feelings began to ebb. In their place has come, for some, a sad resignation that things may never be as they were before the flames. Greg Mize, one of the first to rebuild after the fire, subscribes to this view. Mize, a contractor, built his new house himself and had enough money left from his insurance settlement to pay off his mortgage. Ile moved in a year ago, and once again began enjoying' a panoramic view that stretched from the Golden Gate Bridge north to Mt. Tamalpais. "All in all," he said, "things were great." Then came "the monster," looming up in front of his deck. Unbeknown to Mize, his longtime neighbor —a fellow fire victim —had designed a home four times larger than the modest one that stood there before. Instead of overlooking the Golden Gate, Mize's house now overlooks his neighbor's Jacuzzi. "We used to be friendly, but I won't talk to him anymore," Mize said in a voice that underscored his anger. "He stuck that enormous thing —that fortress —in front of me without a 'thought to how I might feel. How could someone be so presumptuous ?" Up the hill a bit, poet Anne Ziebur is wondering the same thing. A 30 -year Oakland hills homeowner, she carries a snapshot depict- ing the telescopic view she had before the prow of her neighbor's new house got in the way. "I had this wonderful view —this priceless gem —but now every time I look at it, I get punched in the face by THAT," Ziebur said, jabbing a finger toward the offending chunk of beige stucco next door. Just as troubling, she added, are "all those windows he put in. Wherever I go —my living room, my kitchen, my office —he can see right in. I am a private person, and now I have no privacy left." O Oakland's elected leaders knew this would not STARS: Network of Radio Telescopes Continued from A3 and one each in west Texas, Central California and Arizona —but the remainder are as far afield as Washington, Iowa and New Hampshire. . The processors -2,640 of them, built into specially designed integrated circuits —are in.six refrigerator - size boxes that make up the VLBA Correlator in Socorro, a single - purpose supercomputer capable of performing 750 billion simple calculations a second. Jonathan D. Romney, who helped design the correlator and oversaw its construction, said the computer is so blazingly quick that if all 250 million r ' 1' r1 Of .I,.. a ,d n rhorkhook sand be easy. You don't rebuild a sprawling, upscale enclave from the ground up without confronta- tions. The tough question was how much latitude to allow residents in re- creating their homes. Collectively, "residents said they wanted houses of the same scale, and neighborhoods that looked just like they did before the fire," said Tom Doctor, planning czar for the burn zone. "But individually, they came in with plans for houses that were a lot larger— monster houses." Former Councilwoman Marge Gibson -Has- kell, who represented the hills until this year, said the city erred by not adopting her proposed view preservation ordinance, which would'have kept a home builder from occupying a neigh- bor a rightful slice of sky. But Doctor said such a law would have created administrative nightmares because of the difficulty of proving precisely what view a given home commanded before the fire. "With all the trees gone, many people now have magnificent views that they never had before," Doctor said. "Unfortunately, some peo- ple's memories have dimmed since the fire, and they swear they have had that view all along," out bugs in the correlator — astronomers will make observations by aiming all 10 dish antennas at the speck of space they wish to study. Technicians, at • each ground station will digitally record radio signals on dinner -plate -size reels of one - inch -wide magnetic tape. Extremely accurate atomic clocks will time -stamp each data bit recorded. The tapes will be shipped to Socorro for processing. The correlator will then laboriously sift signal from static by comparing every data bit on each tape with the data recorded at the same microsecond by the other ground stations. Refined data is then sent to conventional computers to produce picture -like imag- Hair Transplants "Why pay inflated $20428 per graft prica ?" Compare ✓ Natural I Wines sit ✓ Superior Rewhs ✓ Advanced'lerluriques ✓ Affordable Fees Call For AA Ffte E rn. 242-69m sv. w. wi w u rrn,u . ra,a,ct • Fi�rino • la Jom • s.nu M. Consider 1 • state Bar accredited Oay and evening classes • Full or part-time programs Fkaancial Aid Available UNIVERSITY 1 Sc 1155 West Arbor Nlanw ' Address BUSINESS PE PUBLIi Liquidating entire. in, Hong Kong Factory. largest ORIENTAL F Time: August 20, 21, 22 Preview one hour prior I Location: 570 W. Holt A (From L.A. 1-10E exit, Whi From Riverside: V 10W exit Garage Sale Monday. For All Leftover Merci Auctioneers c..Int Oriental merchandise O c CEI Technophono FUM Handheld WNW pnons. 0C tinpi 81 Ot . t I f e red buyers at p ."ti `4,1 a no" 4� morecst rojects Forecast Homes is offering speciaL financing pro- �,-ma trvttnlifia,� 'ivivara ne ne d A VA.." I w**,.._*.*l ei ASO. N. 1. '­A,v h z R V AT ql!l, Mr 7 SA it 7 '4 64 •Y f .44 Ik :*,. 44� 01* 710i Well o v I Ipotes about 8,000 people will et- tend this year's show. For more Information, call (9001 396 -9993. or write Big Dept., BIA/BC, 1330 S. Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91706. FORECAST ' Continued from Pogo 7 •The two-. three- and four -bed- j room homes have up to 1,069 square feet. The homes have high ceilings and large windows. Amen- ities Include wood - burning fire- places In most plans, kitchens with breakfast nooks and center lelends, master bedrooms with walk -in clos. *is and Interior laundry areas. ;.• The homes also have air condi- tioning and duel -pane windows, and home shoppers can chose from optional appointments that are -available at the Forecast Design Center. The homes at Meadowood fee. 45U! r four bedrooms with �Q up to 1. uare feet of space. ( V ppointments Include ceramic- I/ tiled entries, wall-to-wall carpeting, wood- buming fireplaces. high coll- Ings and air conditioning. Meado- wood homes in Palmdale, Cotton- -wood Ranch In Hesperia and the Las Brims community In Perris cost $09,990. The homes feature either Modl- , ,terranean or traditional archltec- lure accented by brick, stone or stucco. Home buyers may also chose the home's exterior color from a variety of schemes. At New Beginnings and Meado- wood, the homes have front -yard landscaping with automatic sprink- Ism fencing, file roofs and two -car attached garages with metal pull• down door*. Optional three -car ga- mgm are also available at most lo. cations. Forecast Homes recently Intro- .; duced a now neighborhood, New Dawn. It Is located within the moo- ter- planned Moreno Valley Ranch. The homes are priced from $89,990. The three- and four - bedroom r homes have optional done, two or three bathe and up to 1,936 square feet of space. Ql 1 Forecast Homes has been bulld- Ing homes for more than 21 yeare and Is ranked among the nation's top 100 home- bulldln firms by -Builder Magazine. Forecast offers ye nel;rvork of companle or- ganized to offer homeownerin- surance, mortgage en me or de- sign services. The sales offices at New Begin- Ainge, Meadowood and New Down developments are open from 10 a.m. to a p.m, dally, except Wednesday when they are open from 1 to 8 P.M. ' For more Information on any of i The Now Beginnings, Meadowond or New Down developments, call (8)0)229 -4117. `s i� HOMEBUYINGJUNGLE*1 NEW DAWN ■ MORENO VALLEY RANCH (mrn W,9901(909) 924 -7370 W Iw III.+I,r...w., M1•n l..M.r14 �. b.n M1n nn Min l.I..V,. MEADOWOOD • PALMDALE Fnnn S99,") /(805)272 -48% • COTTONWOOD RANCH - HESPERIA Front 59`1,1`)0 / (619) 244.7752 W I M1 b V I V ,.. N,...n M•O+ rV, •w... Nn. • • LAS BRISAS - PERRIS From 599,9% / (909) 947 -0348 'e ­n NEW BEGINNINGS ■ VICTORVILLE From $79,990 / (619) 955 -2787 Ir -5.9. v^ a,d 1.M.r, o (o6a b,l nh n nv/A ■ LANCASTER From $89,990 / W15i 949 -9106 Ir M1p Ni. I,,,,.• Ica N, / A•.v 11x1 ro.,n b. \ M M a IIII� • LAS COLINAS - RIALTO From 5114,990 / 0(19) 355 -7595 WIn.�,.,...., V- N+... -.•�. M... 4r* �.,n lca,lM..n nh ■ MENIFEE VALLEY Fr(xn $09,990 / (909) 672.7451 W, M1 rt.I(_.rr, 4.... art M,ew.n W,IA ■ SAN JACINTO From $89,990 / (909) 654 -2134 W I !n a e.n.N 1 ..f w.,rt e/. I \..1..r* M . CwrN•.d .F I.,b.. Vi• I •„ ■ TEMECULA Frtxn 5111,990 / (909) 676-88ffl Immlnrrti V.w �•,1 .m •VI •nRn.w11'.1.w w,l V+M �-•y. Homebuying can be scary. Forecast makes it easy and friendly. Thais why we're America's Homel" • Fantastic family neighborhoods with good schools • Quality craftsmanship at realistically affordable prices • 2 -, 3- 81 4- bedroom noorplans that fit • cioday, famil lifes to approx. 1,936 sq. ft. plus 2- or 3- ara • Front yard landscaping • Fenced side and rear yards at most communities for outdoor privacy and enjoyment • Easy commutes, convenient shopping and nearby recreation FROM $79J990 "Owwl E YOU CAN SHARE @THE DREAM 1- 800 - 229 -4117 S" offkea open 10 to • dally except Wednesday noon to a (closed Thursday at tloreno Valley Nadu) on. nralr w t.ar Ike... r f a111t Ile•.. w twl.. to m -ft. dew d one." ...ter Marti.l W I..V.r eM.w # NU w PW% 16j"% AM) Ica r 1`e .� I , nrnA .a.�ab M tnr.ba .M.n - _.Me p�w� • I.I.Oe • e "Owwl E YOU CAN SHARE @THE DREAM 1- 800 - 229 -4117 S" offkea open 10 to • dally except Wednesday noon to a (closed Thursday at tloreno Valley Nadu) on. nralr w t.ar Ike... r f a111t Ile•.. w twl.. to m -ft. dew d one." ...ter Marti.l W I..V.r eM.w # NU w PW% 16j"% AM) Ica r 1`e .� I , nrnA .a.�ab M tnr.ba .M.n - _.Me REGIONAL HOUSING ISSUE: A region's economic growth and vitality depend on the presence of a sufficient supply of workers; and a region's ability to attract workers depends in large measure on the availability of affordable housing. When alternatives to expensive single family homes are not available, many households are forced. to move farther away from employment centers to find affordable housing becomes severe, a labor shortage will result. In 1980, the medium price cost of a single family house was $84,500 in California, and in 1990 that figure jumped to $195,500. Currently, two out of five families in the state could not meet the mortgage requirements for such a dwelling. At the present time, the City does not have an inclusionary zoning ordinance which dictates that a certain percentage of the tract housing units have a percentage of the site devoted to affordable units. However, this type of provision is forthcoming if the City can not show or demonstrate that we are meeting our "fair share" housing market needs. The City is presently updating its 1989 Housing Element so that it can be certified by the State (HCD) and the actual hearings on this matter will occur next year. STAFFRPT . 015 APR -17 -1996 10 :48 ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASS O �C. At $ �o 4v 41 lu Area= .877.953 sq. ft P.01 Post -it" Fax Note 7671 Gale �{— i.7• oey s To (:2, 6 b From Go. /Dept. 1Dc,An, &) I An G Ca. A Phone # - Phone 1) -7 —" - -7 7to (b Fax Fax -7-7-7--7-7G% TOTAL. P.'01 I LOT 89'34'24`E 1327.17 (1327.10) I 845.49 481.67' N 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 3130. 29 28 27 26 + 'REET LOTS 'A0 THROUGH N . . — Liu • . . :L A s t42 CANTERRA oRivE CAN RR.o RcGE 25 v 55 n2o U IT 49 53 54 21 22' 23 24 C •i• 56 N N • z 10 47 + w 52 19 ; 18 17 16 15 ca cy m 51 to 43 46 58 riGo 59 G1�L� P 14 44 45 62 61 60 109 It 12 13 0 m oco r/L 1-0 �ME LpR 108 !!o cn . !0 9 8 0 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 107 111 �` •+ 5HT. 4; •• •• ^ SHT.• 3 �' • N 89.34'57 E 106 112 NEE ✓o LET m pFz� ✓E o m 330 .00 73 72 71 70 °�- i 13 + cu 105 LOT •p. 74 LOT A,90 104 6 7 ~ . •K. 114 79 30 30' m 0 60' EASEMENT TO PUBLIC PER N - 75 76 77. 78 80 iO3 115. 5 RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF m SUPERVISORS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DATEp JAM-5,M01 m i 102 116 4 AND RECORDED APRIL 17t 1989 �%: N 87 86 fi85 84 83� 82 81' ^. AS I NST• NQ, 32 fo92j O. fZ• cu m 4AOEAA opt /rte Q 3 p L L,_ ioi loo 99 � < z _ 2 881,11 91 / f 92 95 LAZX,C RA OR/f�E 0 X8.9 OWN 90 93 .N• 94� 96 97 98 �- 330.00' _ _ 862.99 996.86 LDT- A' 1192.9' SECT10N L1 NE ! (:Fe- 1326.85 (1326.80) FD. 10 I.P. IN WELL W /RIV. CO. SURV. TAG. PER RS 54/47• ACCEPTED AS W1/4 COR. N 89.35'300E 26° APR -09 -1995 09:29 ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASS FAX TRANSMITTAL ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASSOCIATES 74 -350 ALESSANDRO, SUITE A -1 PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 PHONE :(619) 777 -7766 FAX: (619) 777 -7768 TO: Planning Dept. COMPANY: City of La.Quinta FAX: 777 -7155 . 01 APR ' �# y P"d vilo6 °� �11t; TA FROM: Brian Peulicke DATE: April 8, 1996 MESSAGE: RE: Quinterra, Tract 23913 This is to request a planning department inspection for tomorrow, Tuesday April 9th, for the homes on Latigo Circle. We have had -difficulty scheduling inspections in the past, so confirmation of this request would be appreciated. Thank nYou . PME ®Ep�,RiME% A��ROVED ®pSE • SASE gyp.. � � � CN� aS .TOTAL P.01 f FD. i' I.P. M /PLUG RIV. CO. SURV., DN.1.2'. PER PM 67/41, SET 2X2 N /TAG 'LS 3018', J ���� I / FLUSH. ACCEPTED AS N/W SEC . COR . MB 49 5/1 -97 C FRED WARING miive N 89 33'27'E 2655.02 1327.48 [1327.41] J SECTION LINE �^) FD. i' I.P. N /PLUG STAMPED 'RCE 28022', ON. 0.1', NO REF., ACCEPTED AS 1/16 COR. rn 0 rr1 PIM. 1\1 J J '!JJ 8 N cn PM (P-7 /41 m cc n m cn IT FD. 3/4' I.P. N /TAG 'LS 3109', o cn N. UP 0.2'. PER MB 149/84 rn cn ACCEPTED AS 1/16 CDR. N IT 5HT" 4 : 15WT.. 5 cn N ' LOT 'O' N 89.34'24'E 1327.17 (1327.10) 845.49 481.67 m 39 38 37 36 1 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 0 .m cu LOT _ CANTEf?RA •� OR /VE CsWT6RAI,4 RCC� 25 14 55 v N 41 �� 48 49 53 54 20 21 22 23 • 24 c cc a JT Z N� 42 Q 47 50 4, S�iB� .7o °'lqa, v N 52 19, 18 ` =�17,- �=16'= m-'ii' N 51 57 tt V t 0 A46 43 58 59 - I E P7F'zo L14 r45 62 61 60 \� � G� ..- -' ; � ti ,��' •..f 14 so 109 �� If 12 oCOT /LLO OR /✓E cu LOT •o• 108 i!0 �� f Y�� cn 10 9 8 m 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 107 1.11 c rn °JNT. 4, m .. ��. 112 .... NUEvo LOT .N CO 5HT.• 3 9 N 89' 34'57'E 'Po 106 �Q1✓E '0' ~ Q1 T 330.00 73 72 71 70 -L < m 105 113 6 7 cu LOT 'R- 74 LOT ARBO/ -0` (,1 104 114 'K' 79 30, 3O• � `"• 103 5 3LUC PER � 75 76 77 78 80 115 W to ITY OF cc N►7 959 (n N" = 67 86 85 84 83 82 61 102 116 h 4 h m caoEtza o.Q/✓E 3 to • � LOT 'L' 101 100 99 � LOT 'F'— Z 88 2 91 92 R Q 95 Ca oE"RA oRNE N 1 89 _ _ 90 93 __ 94 96 97 98 per, :��-,0 996.86 LOT 'A' J 330 On N - _ 862.99 _ _ 133.86 1192.°7 SECTION LINE E Cl—, 1326.85 (1326.80) N 89.35'30'E 26E F0. i' I.P. IN WELL W /RIV. CO. SURV. TAG. PER RS 54/47. ACCEPTED AS WI/4 COR. if yt i rg, s T 0 .1 LE o Cc Z Y. Typical Lot Lay-out G —'I p® EXHIBIT 6�4 I wkpz A, �'3 N U MAR 0 4 1991�