Loading...
2016 03 08 PCN Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are now available on the City's web page: www.la-quinta.orq PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta REGULAR MEETING on TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance PUBLIC COMMENT At this time members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of the minutes of Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 2016. 2. Approval of the minutes of January 12, 2016. 3. Approval of the minutes of February 23, 2016. PUBLIC HEARINGS For all Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Assistant prior to consideration of that item. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 1 MARCH 8, 2016 A person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or appear in support or opposition to the approval of a project(s). If you challenge a project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. Beginning Resolution No. 2016-002 1. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 and Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 submitted by Case and Lisa Swenson proposing a 5,929 square -foot single family home on 3.16 acre lot within the Enclave Mountain Estates. Project: Swenson Residence. CEQA: adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program. Location: 77210 Loma Vista. 2. Site Development Permit 2015-0006 submitted by PGA West II Residential Association, Inc. proposing the construction of a permanent parking lot, storage area, walls and landscaping improvements on approximately 0.5 acres. Project: PGA West. CEQA: exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) In -Fill Development Projects. Location: southern terminus of Interlachen at Hermitage, north of Avenue 58. 3. Sign Program Amendment 2015-0004 submitted by 3 Amigos Prop proposing a sign program amendment for the Point Happy Shopping Center. Project: Point Happy. CEQA: exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to provisions of Section 15311 (a) in that this proposal includes on -premise signs. Location: 78-468 Highway 111. 4. Continued from February 23, 2016 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2016-0001 submitted by the City of La Quinta recommending that the City Council amend several chapters of Titles 2, 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, related to streamlining of the development review process. CEQA: Exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), Review for Exemptions - General Rule. Location: city-wide. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Recommend that the City Council amend the Planning Commission meeting start time from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 2 MARCH 8, 2016 COMMISSIONER ITEMS 1. Commissioner Blum is scheduled to attend the March 15, 2016 City Council meeting. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - NONE ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on March 22, 2016, commencing at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Wanda Wise -Latta, Executive Assistant of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting was posted on the inside of the north entry to the La Quinta Civic Center at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at 78-630 Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on March 4, 2016. DATED: March 4, 2016 WANDA WISE-LATTA, Executive Assistant City of La Quinta, California PUBLIC NOTICES The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Assistant for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item(s) on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Community Development Department's counter at City Hall located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 3 MARCH 8, 2016 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016 CALL TO ORDER BY CITY COUNCIL A special joint meeting of the La Quinta City Council and Planning Commission was called to order at 5:03 p.m. by Mayor Evans. PRESENT: Councilmembers Osborne, Pena, Radi, Mayor Evans ABSENT: Councilmember Franklin MOTION - A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Radi/Pena to excuse Councilmember Franklin's absence from the special joint meeting of January 12, 2016. AYES: Councilmembers Osborne, Pena, Radi, and Mayor Evans. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Franklin. Motion passed. CALL TO ORDER BY PLANNING COMMISSION A special joint meeting of the La Quinta City Council and Planning Commission was called to order at 5:04 p.m. by Chairperson Wilkinson. PRESENT: Commissioners Bettencourt, Blum, Fitzpatrick, Wright, Chairperson Wilkinson ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Wilkinson led the City Council and Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed STUDY SESSION 1. Development Code Tune Up. Planning Manager Gabriel Perez presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Office and the Community Development Department. CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES 1 JANUARY 12, 2016 Councilmember Franklin joined the meeting at 5:22 p.m. The Council, Commission, and staff discussed the following items: • Implement Minor Site Development Permit process and related variable threshold parameters; • Eliminate the need for Director's Hearings by allowing Tentative Parcel Map review at staff level; • Site Development Permit streamlining - threshold parameters, cost and time savings; • Add Planned Unit Development application type to allow for more flexible development standards and design guidelines in lieu of a Specific Plan; • Modify the Minor Adjustment process to allow up to 10 percent of multiple numerical deviations from a development standard; • Staff level development review, transparency, and approval guidelines; • Notification method options of any staff actions, such as a weekly report made available on the City's website and Items of Interest; • Appeal process application, allowed timeframe, and required reviews; • The role of the Historic Preservation Commission in the development review process; the Committee's recommendation that it be suspended. Principal Planner Nesbit noted the adoption of State and Assembly Bills (SB 18 requiring tribal notification and consultation and recent adoption of AB 52 requiring Tribal review of projects for impacts to historic tribal resources tied to the California Environmental Quality Act) provide the same level of review; • Planning Applications streamlining; • Revised application submittal requirements; • Review and streamlining of standard conditions of approval; and • Fees and time associated with the preparation of an Initial Study. Councilmembers and Commissioners commended the Development Code Tune Up Ad - hoc Committee for their time and efforts, and expressed their gratitude. ADJOURNMENT BY CITY COUNCIL There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Councilmembers Pena/Osborne to adjourn this meeting at 7:00 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT BY PLANNING COMMISSION There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Fitzpatrick to adjourn this meeting at 7:00 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES 2 JANUARY 12, 2016 Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA, Executive Assistant City of La Quinta, California CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES 3 JANUARY 12, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Chairperson Wilkinson. PRESENT: Commissioners Bettencourt, Blum, Fitzpatrick, Wright, and Chairperson Wilkinson ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Gabriel Perez, Principal Planner Jay Wuu, Principal Planner Wally Nesbit, Principal Engineer Bryan McKinney, Executive Assistant Monika Radeva, Executive Assistant Wanda Wise -Latta and Office Assistant Marilyn Monreal Commissioner Wright led the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Chairperson Wilkinson requested that Public Comment be moved after the Public Hearing. The Commission concurred. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion - A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Fitzpatrick//Wright to approve the Planning Minutes of December 8, 2015 as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 2015-0004 submitted by Laser Oasis, LLC proposing an indoor family entertainment center within an existing 16,000 square -foot commercial building. Project: Laser Oasis. CEQA: exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the California Environmental Quality Act. Location: 46-805 Dune Palms Road. Principal Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 JANUARY 12, 2016 Staff addressed the Commission's questions regarding annual review of executed development agreements and stated that a report will be provided to update the Planning Commission on the City's annual review process. The Commission expressed concern in that it appears many agreements are not being reviewed annually as required by the code. Commissioner Fitzpatrick commended staff and the applicant for completing a parking study and not building additional parking area, but making use of existing facilities through a joint -use parking method. Chairperson Wilkinson declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 7:22 p.m. Public Speaker: Mr. Joseph Donati, Applicant, Marina Del Rey, CA - introduced himself, gave a detailed presentation of the project, and answered the Commission's questions with regards to the proposed suspended ropes course, laser maze, safety requirements, admission costs, the shared parking agreement; and noted the objective was to be operational in three months. Chairperson Wilkinson declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 7:34 p.m. Motion - A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Blum/Fitzpatrick to adopt Planning Resolution 2016-001 approving Conditional Use Permit 2015-004 for Laser Oasis, LLC., as submitted with staffs recommendations; and deem the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT Public Speaker - Mr. Rex McLennan, La Quinta Fairways resident, La Quinta - introduced himself and spoke in opposition of the Washington 50 project submitted by Chandi Group, USA. He said this proposed commercial development should not be located in such close proximity to the adjacent residential developments; and expressed concerns regarding noise levels, traffic, potential safety hazard for kids attending the surrounding schools and the Boys and Girls Club, and unsuitable zoning change proposal. He urged the Commission and the City Council to consider all comments received in opposition of this project and not approve it. Public Speaker - Mr. Gordon Kelly, Rancho La Quinta resident, La Quinta, CA - introduced himself and spoke in opposition of the Washington 50 project submitted by Chandi Group, USA. Mr. Kelly said he concurred with all comments made by Mr. McLennan and would not reiterate them. Public Speaker - Ms. Lynda Farnen, La Quinta, CA - introduced herself and spoke in opposition of the Washington 50 project submitted by Chandi Group, USA. She said she PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 JANUARY 12, 2016 plans on retiring in La Quinta and would like to ensure the quality of life is not disrupted, and the City continues to encourage and cultivate residential communities and not compromise them by building commercial projects in the midst of existing residential developments. Staff encouraged all attendees to reach out to city staff and provide their contact information, so that staff can notify them when this project is scheduled for hearing. BUSINESS SESSION - None COMMISSIONER ITEMS 1. Report on City Council meetings of December 15, 2015. The Commission requested that this standing item be removed from future agendas and staff distributes approved Council minutes to the Commission as soon as they are available. 2. Commissioner Wright is scheduled to attend the January 19, 2016 City Council meeting. DIRECTOR'S ITEMSX N 1. Planning Manager Perez stated that an ordinance will be prepared for water efficient landscape measures in the City consistent with Governor Brown's Drought Executive Order. Bettencourt brought up some good points in June 2015 there was an update with CC regarding potential water reduction measures, there hasn't been a follow up. But there is a potential lead to that discussion with the model water efficient landscape ordinance required by the state. The City has defaulted to that because we have not adopted our own. The CVWD ordinance will be considered shortly. 2. Planning Manager Perez provided an update on the Development Code Tune Up efforts, proposed development review draft changes, and community outreach. 3. The Commission inquired if they would be able to attend the 2016 annual League of California Cities Planning Academy. Staff replied the Commission is scheduled to attend the 2017 annual conference. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Fitzpatrick to adjourn this meeting at 8:08 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 JANUARY 12, 2016 Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA, Executive Assistant City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 JANUARY 12, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23,2016 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Wilkinson. PRESENT: Commissioners Bettencourt, Blum, Fitzpatrick, Wright, and Chairperson Wilkinson ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Gabriel Perez, Principal Planner Jay Wuu, Principal Engineer Bryan McKinney, Executive Assistant Wanda Wise -Latta, and Executive Assistant Monika Radeva Commissioner Wright led the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed ? PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2016-0001 submitted by the City of La Quinta recommending that the City Council amend several chapters of Titles 2, 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, related to streamlining of the development review process. CEQA: Exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), Review for Exemptions - General Rule. Planning Manager Gabriel Perez presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Discussion followed regarding staff level development review, transparency, and approval guidelines; notification method options of any staff actions, such as a weekly report made available on the City's website and Items of Interests; appeal process application, allowed timeframes, and the ability for "call up review" by Council and Planning Commission of staff decisions; options for full cost recovery of permit fees; explore the possibility of conducting a comparison study in six months to identify any realized time and cost PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 FEBRUARY 23, 2016 savings from the development code tune up and if necessary look into additional streamlining alternatives. Staff noted that this item was scheduled to be presented to the Historic Preservation Commission on February 18, 2016; however, the meeting was cancelled due to the lack of quorum and rescheduled to February 25, 2016. Thus, staff suggested this item be continued to the Planning Commission of March 8, 2016. Chairperson Wilkinson declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 8:03 p.m. Motion - A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Bettencourt/Wright to continue this item to the March 8, 2016, Planning Commission meeting to allow review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Motion passed unanimously. BUSINESS SESSION - None COMMISSIONER ITEMS 1. Commissioner Bettencourt said he visited the Beazer Homes development located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. He spoke with Home Counselor Richard Marlow who indicated the developer hoped to begin vertical construction in April 2016. 2. The annual Special Meeting between the City Council and the City's Boards and Commissions is scheduled for Wednesday, February 24, 2016, at 5:30 p.m., at the La Quinta Library. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Staff gave an update on the City's reorganizational changes and the creation of the new Design and Development Department encompassing Planning, Building, Engineering Services, and the Customer Service Center, under the leadership of Design and Development Director Tim Jonasson. 2. Planning Manager Perez noted that the Planning Commission will be attending the League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Academy in 2017. 3. Planning Manager Perez said the Los Angeles Section of the American Planning Association is hosting the 2016 California Planning Conference in Pasadena on October 22-25, 2016. 4. Planning Manager Perez gave an update on the upcoming Planning Commission items for the March 8, 2016, meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 23, 2016 5. Staff asked the Commission to provide feedback on changing of the Commission's meeting start time from 7:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The Commission expressed general support and suggested that the start time be changed to 6:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Bette ncourt/Blum to adjourn this meeting at 8:12 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA, Executive Assistant City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 FEBRUARY 23, 2016 PH 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 8, 2016 CASE NUMBER: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON PROPERTY OWNER: CASE AND LISA SWENSON REQUEST: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN, AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA: THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630 FOR THIS PROJECT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE DIVISION HAS DETERMINED THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT BECAUSE REVISIONS IN THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN MADE BY OR AGREED TO BY THE PROJECT PROPONENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED. LOCATION: 77210 LOMA VISTA, APN 658-200-004 RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt Environmental Assessment 2013-630 and approve Conditional Use Permit 2013-152, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The applicant proposes the construction of a 5,929 square foot single-family home on an existing 3.16 acre lot within the Enclave Mountain Estates. • The lot was subdivided in the 1990s, and has been designated for single family residential since adoption of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan in 2001. • The access driveway and pad have been previously graded, but no construction was undertaken on the site. Page 1 of 7 • The project site is designated Open Space on the City's General Plan and Zoning maps; and Single -Family Residential in the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. The Zoning Ordinance requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a single-family home in the Open Space zoning designation. The project therefore requires approval of a CUP. • The City required, and the applicant provided, extensive study of the site for land use suitability, rockfall hazard, biology, cultural resources and hydrology. BACKGROUND In 1975, the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan was approved, and included all of the Enclave subdivision, and this property, as Single Family Residential. The project site was subdivided into two lots in 1990, and reverted to acreage (the two lots were eliminated) in 1996. The proposed project site is located on a rocky promontory, which currently has an elevation of approximately 91 feet above sea level. The balance of the subdivision occurs at an elevation of about 55 feet above sea level. Much of the Enclave has developed, and only scattered lots remain. The homes constructed within the project are single story. When the applicant first considered constructing the home on the parcel, a Pre - Application Review was conducted. Staff consulted the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. It was determined that the project occurs on lands designated Open Space on the General Plan and Zoning maps, and Low Density Residential on the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan land use map, with requirements for consistency with the City's Zoning Ordinance for development standards. The Zoning Ordinance allows the construction of a single-family home with approval of a CUP. City staff further assessed the Hillside Overlay zone as it relates to the proposed project. The Hillside Overlay zone was adopted in 1989. At that time, and without change since, the Overlay exempted Specific Plans and subdivisions approved prior to the Overlay's adoption. This project is therefore not subject to the Hillside Overlay zone. A CUP application was submitted by the applicant in May of 2013. Since that time, a number of studies have been undertaken, and the applicant undertook community outreach within and surrounding the Enclave project. The City also advised the applicant that approval by the Homeowners' Association would need to be demonstrated to the City, prior to consideration of the CUP. The reason for this was the City had received considerable negative comments from the project's neighbors, and without architectural approval by the Homeowners' Association, the CUP would be of no effect. The applicant presented the plans to the Homeowners' Association, and after considerable negotiations, received architectural approval for the home (Attachment 7, Settlement Agreement). In May 2015, the applicant submitted revised plans to the City that were the plans approved by the Homeowners' Association. City staff reviewed the plans, asked for changes and clarifications, and received amended Page 2 of 7 plans in November 2015. Since that time, the City has prepared and circulated an Initial Study under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and prepared the project for this hearing. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant proposes the construction of a 5,929 square foot single-family home, consisting of a 5,222 square foot home and a 707 square foot garage, on a 3.16 acre lot. The project also includes the construction of a driveway from the northwestern terminus of Loma Vista, along the route of the existing access, which is undersized and in poor condition; and a patio and pool area at the southern third of the building pad. Extensive landscaping, both on the building pad and on the lower slopes of the lot, have been included in the plans (please see Landscaping and Lighting, below). The applicant also proposes a "retreat" on an overlook above the house within the property. An existing concrete drainage ditch occurs at the base of the property, along its southern boundary, and will continue in its current location. A retaining wall is proposed along the north edge of the driveway, against the slope of the hillside, to protect against rockfall. A retaining wall is also proposed on the south side of the driveway, and around the entire south edge of the building pad. This retaining wall will be finished with natural rock excavated from the site. Storm flows will be intercepted on the site, and carried to a sub -surface retention system to be located near the base of the driveway. Site Design The site consists of a rocky promontory at the foot of the Santa Rosa mountains. The building pad, which has been previously graded, and as a result flattened the promontory, occurs at an elevation of approximately 91 feet above sea level. The applicant proposes to reduce the grade of the pad area to 87 feet above sea level. The applicant also proposes to cut into the hillside on the northern end of the building pad to accommodate the garage, a distance of approximately 20 feet. The location of the cut, and the construction of the retaining wall, have been studied by the project's geotechnical engineer, who made recommendations regarding the construction of the wall. The City forwarded the analysis and recommendations to the County Geologist for review (the City does not have a geologist on staff, and has a contract agreement with the County for such review). The County Geologist approved the analysis and recommendations. Both the reduction in pad height and the moving of the home further north have been undertaken in response to neighbor concerns regarding the home overlooking its neighbors. The building pad will be delineated by a retaining wall proposed on the southern and eastern edge of the pad. That retaining wall was proposed to be stucco finished, with areas of rock or faux rock. City staff was concerned that the stucco finished wall would result in too much of a "man made" view for neighboring residents, and requested that the entire length of the retaining wall be finished in a combination of Page 3 of 7 rock and faux rock. The applicant's final plans have identified the use of only natural rock for this wall. The plans have been modified by the applicant to reflect this change. Access to the site will be provided via an expansion of the existing driveway, which has an existing curb cut on Loma Vista. The driveway has been designed based on extensive geotechnical review of the structure of the slope to its immediate north. The project geologist recommended the location and structure of retaining and rockfall protection walls, which will range from approximately 3 feet to approximately 7 feet in height along the driveway. The project geologist's recommendations were forwarded by the City to the County Geologist for review. The County Geologist approved the analysis and recommendations. The project also includes a patio and pool area, to be located south of the residence. This area will include outdoor seating, an outdoor eating and grill, pool and spa. Finally, a "retreat" is proposed in the hillside above the house. The retreat has been conditioned to prohibit lighting of any kind, both to limit the impact to the hillside, and to the neighbors below. Architecture The proposed residence will consist of approximately 5,200 square feet of livable space, and a 700 square foot garage. The home is designed with a low (17 foot) roof, with an equipment screen of 20 feet in height, located at the northern portion of the house, above the garage. The materials proposed include the extensive use of stone veneer, and finishes in browns and tans. A sloped, standing seam roof is proposed over the living area, while a flat roof will occur over the bedroom and garage area. The architecture of the home is compatible with its location adjacent to the hillside, and will blend well with its surroundings. Please see Attachment 3, A3.10, 3.11, 3.20 and 3.21 for building elevations, and A6.10 for roof plan. Landscaping and Lighting The project landscape plan has been designed to fit the desert landscape, and to screen the house from its neighbors (please also see discussion of visual simulations below). The landscape plan includes native and desert plants, with trees proposed to be 60-inchbox, and conditioned to have a 6-inch caliper, which for exceeds the City's minimum standards, in order to assure that they will provide substantial screening. The landscaping plan has also been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, as it relates to properties adjacent to conservation areas. All plants proposed are acceptable under the Plan (Attachment 4). The lighting proposed is consistent with residential lighting, and will be required to be screened. As mentioned above, the project has been conditioned to prohibit lighting at the retreat area, in order to prevent intrusive lighting on the mountainside. Page 4 of 7 Visual Simulations In order to address neighborhood concerns, the applicant prepared extensive visual simulations for the project, both for the Homeowners' Association and for the City submittal. These simulations are provided in Attachment 5. The simulations show the landscaping at planting, and at maturation. As shown in the simulations, views of the house will be effectively screened by landscaping and natural features of the house. With the installation of the trees proposed on the slope, views from the pool area into the back yards of the neighboring residences will be similarly blocked. The City received a request for story poles from Mr. Joe McVeigh, the owner of the home immediately south of the driveway access to the proposed project. Staff considered the request, but did not require story poles in this case because of the extensive visual simulations prepared by the applicant, which depict conditions on the site with the home in place at multiple locations around the property. Conditional Use Permit Findings The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to assure that the proposed use is compatible with its surroundings, both in terms of form and function. In this case, the applicant proposes a single-family home of 17 feet in height, which is physically consistent with the neighborhood in which it occurs. The home will, however, occur at an elevation of 32 feet above its neighbors. The applicant has worked extensively with the City to minimize the potential impacts of the site's elevation, by lowering the pad from 91 feet to 87 feet, by providing a low -slung architecture that does not dominate the site, and by landscaping the site and the slopes in a desert palette, with strategically located trees to effectively screen the site from its surroundings. The activities that can be expected to occur at the residence are no different than those that occur in the neighborhood now, and will be consistent with activities in any single family neighborhood in the City. The residence meets all the development standards in the Low Density Residential zone, and does not propose any setback, height or other standard which would be less than that allowed in the zone. The findings for approval can be made, and are included in the Resolution attached to this staff report. AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW Public Agency Review: This request was sent to all applicable City departments and affected public agencies on November 6, 2015. All written comments received are on file and available for review with the Community Development Department. All applicable comments have been adequately addressed and/or incorporated in the recommended Conditions of Approval. Page 5 of 7 Architectural and Landscaping Review Board (ALRB) Review: The ALRB considered the proposed project at its meeting of January 15, 2014. The home presented was of identical architectural style, but of larger size than the currently proposed project. The ALRB complimented the architectural and landscape design, and moved to recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the project, with the following recommendations: • Replace the proposed swing doors for the utility closet within the garage to facilitate the full use of the parking space. • Use a cast of the existing on -site rocks in the design of the faux rock wall. • Keep overall site disturbance to a minimum including establishment of the overlook area. These recommendations have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. Public Notice: This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 26, 2016, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. Letters received to date are provided in Attachment 8. Any additional written comments received after distribution of the staff report will be handed out at the Planning Commission Hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Division has prepared Environmental Assessment 2013-630 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study was distributed to the City's responsible agencies, and to a number of parties who had requested the document. The Initial Study is attached to this staff report as Exhibit A of the Resolution. Comments on the Initial Study were received during and after the 20-day comment period. Primary concerns expressed by commenters included biological resources, hydrology and aesthetics. Staff has prepared responses to these comments, which are attached to this staff report as Attachment 6. The comment letters are also provided in their entirety. The Division has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Approved by: Gabriel Perez, Planning Manager Page 6 of 7 Attachments: 1. Project Information 2. Project Area Location Map 3. CUP Plan Set (includes grading and site plans and architectural plans) 4. Landscape plans 5. CUP Visual Simulations 6. Comment Letters and Response to Comments on Initial Study 7. Settlement Agreement with Enclave Homeowners' Association 8. CUP Comment letters Page 7 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON A 3.16 ACRE LOT AT 77210 LOMA VISTA CASE NUMBER: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 8th day of March, 2016, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Case and Lisa Swenson, for approval of a single family home on a 3.16 acre lot, more particularly described as: APN: 658-200-004 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 26, 2016 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan & La Quinta Resort Specific Plan The project site is designated Open Space on the General Plan land use map, and Low Density Residential on the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan land use map. The Specific Plan provides the localized land use designation for the site. The project is consistent with that designation. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code. The Conditional Use Permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the zoning standards of the Low Density Residential zoning district and other supplemental standards as established in Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Planning Commission Resolution 2016 - Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Swenson Residence Adopted: March 8, 2016 Page 2 of 3 The Planning Division has prepared Environmental Assessment 2013-630 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 4. Surrounding Uses As conditioned, approval of the application will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. The proposed single family home is consistent in size and scale with the existing homes in the Enclave subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program for Environmental Assessment 2013-630 (Exhibit A). SECTION 3. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2013-152, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B). PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 8th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Resolution 2016 - Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Swenson Residence Adopted: March 8, 2016 Page 3 of 3 ABSTAIN: ROBERT WILKINSON, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: GABRIEL PEREZ, Planning Manager City of La Quinta, California CITY OF LA QUINTA NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT EXHIBIT A A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630 Prciject Title: SWENSON RESIDENCE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 RECCI'P�.�,`ED Project Location: FEB 1 12016 77210 Loma Vista, within the Enclave Mountain Estates Project Description: COMMU✓i[PIN The project proposes the construction of a 5,929± sq. ft. single-family residence on approximately 3.16 acres in The Enclave Mountain Estates within the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan area. Access to the lot is located at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. The lot is currently vacant and includes a previously graded access road and elevated building pad, and 15-foot wide drainage channel/easement along its southern boundary. Plans also include a pool, spa, and outdoor overlook area. As mitigated, no potentially significant effects on the environment are anticipated as a result of this project; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study/Environmental Assessment and all documents referenced therein, are available for review at the City of La Quints Planning Department, located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 on Monday through Thursdays 7:30 am to 5:30 pm, and Fridays 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. The public is invited to comment on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration during the public review period beginning on December 30, 2015 and ending on January 20, 2016. Please provide any comments to Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner, either by mail to the above address, by email at ncriste@la-quinta.org, or by fax at 760-777-1233. The project area is NOT on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 Planning Commission Action: No Planning Commission hearing date has been set at this time. A public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission to consider the Conditional Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Associated Mitigation Monitoring Program. A public notice of the hearing will be published and mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the property when a date has been set. Please call 760-777-7125 for confirmation of the date, or with any other questions or concerns in regard to this notice. PUBLISH ONCE ON 12/30/15 1/8-PAGE DISPLAY AD F I L E D/ P O S T E D County of Riverside Peter Aldana Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder E-201501371 12/30/2015 10:54 AM Fee: $ 0.00 Page 1 0 2016 Removed: By. Deputy Environmental Checklist Form Project title: Environmental Assessment 2013-630 for Conditional Use Permit 2013-152, The Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner 760-777-7125 Project location: 77210 Loma Vista La Quinta, CA 92253 APN 658-200-004 Project sponsor's name and address: Case and Lisa Swenson 62 Ellenwood Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 General Plan: Open Space — Natural (OS) Zoning: Open Space (OS), La Quinta Resort Specific Plan: Low Density Residential Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project proposes the construction of a 5,929± sq. ft. single-family residence, consisting of 5,222 square feet of living space and a 707 square foot garage, on approximately 3.16 acres in The Enclave Mountain Estates within the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan area. Access to the lot is located at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. The lot is currently vacant and includes a previously graded access road and building pad, and 15-foot wide drainage channel/easement along its southern boundary. It is located on a rocky hillside adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. Plans also include a pool, spa, and outdoor overlook area. The site is proposed to be excavated to lower the existing, previously graded pad from its existing 91± foot elevation to 87± feet above sea level. The home is proposed to extend into the existing hillside, and will require scraping of a portion of the slope to accommodate the garage. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: vacant open space South: single-family residential (The Enclave) East: single-family residential (The Enclave) West: vacant open space, single-family residential (The Enclave) Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): None. BE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Agriculture Resources Air Quality Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Quality Noise Population / Housing Recreation Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature 12/23/15 Date IPA EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. -3- I I Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors"; Project aerial & site X photographs; Land Suitability Study, The Altum Group, May 16, 2013; Photo Simulations & Site Sections; Project Site Plan) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X (Project aerial & site photographs; application materials; Land Suitability Study, The Altum Group, May 16, 2013; Photo Simulations & Site Sections; Project Site Plan) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Project aerial & site photographs; application materials; Land X Suitability Study, The Altum Group, May 16, 2013; Photo Simulations & Site Sections; Project Site Plan; Project Planting Plan) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X (application materials; Project Lighting Plan; CVMSHCP) I. a) The subject property is not located within a City or state designated Image Corridor. However, it is located immediately adjacent to and within the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which constitute an important scenic resource for the City and properties in the project vicinity. The site contains rocky slopes, ridges, and boulder outcrops, particularly to the north and west. It occurs at an elevation approximately 40 feet higher than surrounding residential properties. The pad on the current site is to be graded from its current 91± foot above sea level elevation to 87± feet, reducing the perceived height of the home from viewers below the site. The project will be visible from homes in the immediate vicinity, but is designed in a manner that reduces visual impacts to a great extent. The proposed area of disturbance is limited to 1.10± acres, of which 0.80 acres have been previously disturbed by grading of an access road and building pad. The proposed land use and general design of the project are consistent with the character of surrounding residential development. The residence will consist of a single -story structure with a largely flat roofline. The high point of the roofline will be 17' 11" from grade. Proposed colors and materials of the structure complement the desert environment. Landscape materials are proposed across the entire site, including the slopes below the home. These landscape materials include Desert Willow, Creosote bush and succulents. Trees on the slope are proposed to be 6" diameter calipers, to assure that they provide screening. Overall, its limited size (3.16± acres) and scope (one single-family residence) will have a less than significant visual impact on a broader scenic vista. Project design has been approved by the Homeowners Association. The project will be conditioned to meet or exceed the City's drought tolerant landscaping requirements, and the project's landscaping plan is designed to screen the house by heavily landscaping the slopes. The proposed retaining wall on the west and south side of the house will be entirely covered in rock and/or faux -rock treatment, in order to blend into the hillside. The design features and conditions of approval will assure that impacts associated with scenic vistas will be less than significant. b) The subject property is not located near an existing or proposed state scenic highway, nor does it contain important trees or historic buildings. It does include rocky slopes, exposed bedrock, and boulder outcrops of the Santa Rosa Mountains. A previously graded access road and building pad will be utilized, with some expansion required to accommodate adequate emergency vehicle turnaround and the proposed residence. No blasting of rock is anticipated. Some rocks on or near the building pad and access road, including those that constitute a rock fall hazard, will be excavated and removed from the site or moved elsewhere onsite for decorative use on the retaining wall, or use as a barrier in potential rock fall areas. Alteration or damage to rock outcroppings outside the area of disturbance is not anticipated, and overall impacts to rock outcrops are considered less than significant. c) The subject property is located immediately adjacent to the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which constitute an important scenic resource for residences in the immediate vicinity and those at a distance. Undisturbed rocky slopes, exposed bedrock, and outcroppings are located throughout the property, in the form of the slope that surrounds the site on the west, south and east sides, and the slope that occurs to the north of the existing pad. The existing building pad occurs at an elevation of 91 feet, approximately 40 feet higher than surrounding residential properties. The pad elevation of the house is proposed to be reduced to 87 feet, which will lower the overall appearance of the house from surrounding residences. According to the Land Suitability Study prepared for the project, approximately 1.44 acres of the property has already been disturbed by previous grading of the building pad and access road. The remaining 1.72 acres is undisturbed, including the rocky slopes above the access road, an existing ridge, and areas east of the ridge to the flood control channel. The proposed residence will be built in the northeast corner of the existing pad, and the pad will be lowered to an elevation of 87 feet. The building pad will be expanded somewhat to accommodate adequate emergency vehicle turnaround and the proposed residence with garage. Viewshed analyses prepared for the project show that the structure will be largely shielded from view from the east by an existing and preserved ridgeline. The proposed limit of disturbance is 1.10 acres, with the remaining 2.06 -8- acres undisturbed, including the highest elevation slopes on the northern and eastern portions of the property. The structure will be single -story with a roofline that is largely flat and limited in height to 17' 11". Building elevations show that colors and materials will complement the natural environment. The style, scale, materials, colors, and amenities (pool, spa) of the proposed residence are consistent with other residential development in the area. Project design has been approved by the Homeowner's Association. Photo simulations were prepared to illustrate design elements, such as retaining walls consisting of faux rock and the thoughtful placement of natural desert landscape materials that will help shield the structure from surrounding properties and mitigate aesthetic concerns. Existing and proposed views from the south and east of the site are shown in Exhibits 4A and 4B. The Exhibits demonstrate that the proposed design and landscaping elements will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. d) Lighting and glare will be limited to that generated by one single-family residence, automobiles accessing the property, landscape lighting, and lighting placed at outdoor amenities, including a pool and spa. Light and glare can be expected to be similar to that generated by existing single-family development in the vicinity. The property is adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Conservation Area of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The CVMSHCP establishes guidelines for development adjacent to a conservation area in an effort to minimize edge effects on the conservation area, including a policy that lighting be shielded and directed toward the developed area (Policy 4.5.3 Lighting). The project lighting plan will also be required to adhere to the regulations of the City's Municipal Code (Section 9.60.160) to assure proper shielding of light sources and prohibit spillage onto adjacent properties. Lighting plans will be conditioned to prohibit lighting at the overlook area, and landscaping lighting will be required to be shielded and oriented away from the mountain slopes. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with light and glare remain less than significant. -9- m m Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (Riverside Co. Important Farmland Map, 2010, CA Dept. of Conservation) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (La Quinta Zoning Map 2007; X Riverside Co. Williamson Act Lands map, 2006, CA Dept. of Conservation) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Project aerial & site photographs) II. a, b, c) The subject property is located within the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains and consists of sloping rocky terrain, including ridges and outcroppings. There is no agricultural activity currently, nor has there been in many years, in the project vicinity. The parcel is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance by the California Department of Conservation. The project does not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, nor does it involve other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. 9VA Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook; CalEEMod Model) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook; 2003 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley; CalEEMod Model) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X (aerial photographs; CalEEMod Model) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project X Description, Aerial Photo) f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions X either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Project description, CalEEMod Model) g) Conflict with an applicable plan, X policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Project description; CalEEMod Model) III. a) The Coachella Valley is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring criteria air pollutant concentrations and establishing management policies for the SSAB. All development within the SSAB is subject to SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PMIo State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PMIo SIP). SCAQMD recently released the Draft Final 2012 AQMP, which will supersede the 2007 plan once adopted. -13- The project will be developed in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans. The AQMP is based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The property consists of one lot immediately adjacent to existing single-family residential development, consistent with the City's land use designations for the area. The project is limited in scope (one single-family residence), and the proposed area of disturbance is limited to 1.10 acres, 0.80 acres of which have already been graded. Given its location adjacent to an existing neighborhood and limited scope, the project will be consistent with the intent of the AQMP. No impacts associated with compliance with applicable management plans are expected. b, c) Criteria air pollutants will be released during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by the project. Table 1 summarizes short-term construction -related emissions, and Table 2 summarizes ongoing emissions generated at operation. Construction Emissions The construction period includes all aspects of project development, including site preparation, grading, hauling, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that construction will occur over a 6-month period from June 2016 to December 2016. As shown in Table 1, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. The data reflect average daily emissions over the 6-month construction period, including summer and winter weather conditions. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that 700 cubic yards of material would be exported from the site. Due to the presence of bedrock on -site, it is anticipated that the grading process will generate abundant oversized (greater than 6" diameter) rocky materials, including boulders. Although some of this cut material can be screened to remove oversized rocks, then re -used on -site as fill, the model assumes all cut material will be unusable and exported off -site. Emissions account for standard reduction measures during construction, which include, but are not limited to, the implementation of dust control plans in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 403, proper maintenance and limited idling of heavy equipment, and the use of low -polluting architectural paint and coatings. Impacts to air quality for criteria pollutants from construction of the proposed project, therefore, are expected to be less than significant. ME Table 1 Swenson Property Maximum Daily Construction -Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) CO NOx ROG S02 PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions' 16.98 25.82 5.99 0.02 3.60 2.44 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Average of winter and summer emissions, 2016. Source: CaIEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 12.22.15. Operational Emissions Operational emissions are ongoing emissions that will occur over the life of the project. They include area source emissions, emissions from energy demand (electric and natural gas), and mobile source (vehicle) emissions. Table 2 provides a summary of projected emissions at operation of the proposed project. Table 2 Swenson Property Operation -Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) CO NOx ROG S02 PMIo PM2.5 Operational Emissions 0.69 0.12 0.30 0.01 0.07 0.03 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Average of winter and summer emissions, unmitigated, 2016. Source: CaIEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 12.22.15. As shown in Table 2, operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants. The data are conservative and reflect unmitigated operations; implementation of standard reduction measures will further reduce pollutant emissions. These include, but are not limited to, the use of low-VOC architectural paints and coatings and energy -efficient appliances. Non -Attainment Historically, the Coachella Valley, in which the project site is located, has been classified as a "non -attainment" area for PMIo and ozone. The proposed project will contribute to an incremental increase in regional ozone and PMIo emissions. However, given its limited size and scope, cumulative impacts are not expected to be considerable. Project construction and operation emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PMIo or ozone precursors (NOx), and appropriate standard reduction measures will be implemented that will further reduce emissions. The project will not conflict with any attainment plans and will result in less than significant impacts. d) The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences immediately west, south, and east of the project site. Their distance from the building pad ranges from approximately 120 to 200 feet. The nearest residence to the access road (driveway) is located approximately 20 feet southeast of the road. To determine if the proposed project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts, the mass rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Look -Up Table was used. The City of La Quinta and subject property are located -15- within Source Receptor Area 30 (Coachella Valley). Given the project's size and proximity to existing housing, the 1-acre site tables at a distance of 25 meters was used. Table 3 shows on -site emission concentrations for project construction and the associated LST. As shown in the table, LST will not be exceeded for any criteria pollutant. It should be noted that emissions account for reduction measures, which include best management practices and standard dust control measures (SCAQMD Rule 403). Therefore, air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors will be less than significant. Table 3 Swenson Property Localized Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) CO NOx PMI0 PM2.5 Construction 16.98 25.82 3.60 2.44 LST Threshold 878.00 132.00 4.00 3.00 Exceed? No No No No Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 12.22.15. LST Threshold Source: LST Mass Rate Look -up Table, SCAQMD. e) The project will result in the development of one single-family home and is not expected to create objectionable odors. f, g) The project will generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation. Construction -related emissions will be temporary and will end once the project is built. As such, impacts to air quality resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases associated with construction activities will be less than significant. Construction - related emissions will be minimized during construction by limiting idling times of construction equipment, adequate maintenance of heavy machinery, and efficient scheduling of construction activities to minimize combustion emissions. Operation of the project will create ongoing greenhouse gases through the consumption of electricity and natural gas, moving sources, and transport and pumping of water. Table 4 describes annual (unmitigated) operational GHG generation. Table 4 Swenson Property GHG Emissions from Construction and Operation (Metric Tons/Year) CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Construction Activities 103.02 0.02 0.00 103.51 Operational Activities 17.74 0.01 0.00 18.15 CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 12.22.15. Values shown represent the total annual, unmitigated GHG emission projections for construction and operation of the proposed project, 2016. State legislation, including A1332, aims for the reduction of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020; however, there are currently no thresholds for greenhouse gases. Statewide programs and standards, including new fuel -efficient standards for cars and -16- expanding the use of renewable energies, will help reduce GHG emissions over the long-term. GHG emissions generated by the proposed project will not be substantial and will not directly or indirectly result in a significant impact to the environment or conflict with applicable GHG plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, impacts to air quality and climate change from the generation of GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project will be less than significant. -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish X and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013; CVMSHCP) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game X or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct X removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of X native wildlife nursery sites? (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; X Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) -18- f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (CVMSHCP; X Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013; Project Planting Plan) IV. a) Intensive biological surveys were conducted on -site and on adjacent land to the west, north, and northeast in May 2013. No individuals of any special -status plant species were found in the project area. No officially listed invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, or birds were detected. Efforts to locate sensitive species not covered by the CVMSHCP (desert tortoise, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike) were made, and no observations or evidence of the species were found. The property contains suitable habitat for Palm Springs pocket mouse, which is considered a state Species of Special Concern and is a covered species under the MSHCP. Although no species were detected onsite, they could occur within the project area. The subject property is considered suitable habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis nelsoni), which is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Threatened by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. Although no bighorn sheep were observed and no evidence of them was found on the subject property, evidence (scat and possibly a very old bedding site) was found approximately 200 yards north and east of the project site. It is possible that one or more sheep could wander onto the site. This is a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation. Because the subject property is adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP, additional required measures will apply, including the following: 1. A biological monitor familiar with Peninsular bighorn sheep shall be present onsite whenever ground disturbance, such as grading, rock scraping or removal, excavation and digging, occurs or is considered. Should bighorn sheep be observed in the project area, all ground disturbance activity will cease, and the monitor will determine when it can be resumed. 2. CVMSHCP Required Measure 8, Land Use Adjacency Guidelines (included in the appendix of the project Biological Assessment) which pertain to lighting, drainage, noise, and other topics that are addressed elsewhere in this Initial Study. The landscape plan shall incorporate only those plant materials listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-112. No invasive, non-native plant species will be used for landscaping, including those listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-113. 3. CVMSHCP Required Measure 10, which pertains to eliminating disease transmission to the bighorn sheep population shall be implemented. The project proponent will not be permitted to engage in the husbandry of domestic sheep or goats, and therefore no physical barrier shall be required for this purpose, and -19- 4. CVMSHCP Required Measure 11, which requires the construction of an 8-foot fence or functional equivalent separating the development from adjoining habitat if, I. bighorn sheep are documented to begin foraging or watering on the project site, or II. unauthorized trails, paths, routes, or ways are documented to proliferate from the project site into adjoining habitat. (In this case, neither bighorn sheep nor unauthorized trails or paths have been documented onsite as of this writing.) The fencing requirement shall be deferred until such time as bighorn are documented to be feeding or watering on the project site, or unauthorized trails or pathways are documented onsite. Should one or both of those conditions occur, the provisions of Required Measure 11 (pertaining to cost, appropriate location, and responsibility for installation and maintenance of a required fence) shall be implemented. b) The subject property does not contain any blue line streams, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities. The site -specific biological survey found no sensitive plant species or vegetation communities that would be adversely impacted by the project. No additional surveys are required, and impacts are not expected. c) The subject property is located within the rocky foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. No wetlands, marshes, vernal pools, or coastal resources are located onsite or in the project vicinity. The project will have no impact on these features. d) Biological field surveys conducted onsite and on adjacent land to the north and east revealed no evidence of regularly used wildlife corridors on or through the project area. The site is not known to contain any important migratory corridors or wildlife nursery sites. Given that Peninsular bighorn sheep are known to occur in the project vicinity, it is possible that one or more sheep may wander onto the site. However, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the movement of the species, and the imposition of the CVMSHCP Required Measured described above will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There is no significant vegetation on the project site, and the City has no ordinances pertaining to trees or other vegetation. f) Because the project is located within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP, it is subject to payment of the City's Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF). Also, because it is immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP, the project is subject to additional adjacency guidelines that mitigate indirect or edge effects of development. The proposed project will comply with these guidelines, as described in response IV.a, above. The imposition of the mitigation measures and the payment of the required fees will reduce potential impacts associated with the CVMSHCP to less than significant levels. -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? (Historical/Archaeological X Resources Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? �{ (Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Historical/Archaeological X Resources Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Historical/Archaeological Resources X Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) V.a-b) A cultural resources study and site survey prepared for the subject property in April and May 2013 did not identify any historical or archaeological resources within or adjacent to the project area. Twenty-one (21) tribal representatives were contacted to inquire about potentially sacred or significant lands in the project area, but no specific archival information regarding them was identified. No impact to historic or archaeological resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. c) The project area is not known to harbor any unique paleontological resources or geologic features. Some ground disturbance has already occurred during previous grading of an access road and elevated building pad, and project development will require minor expansion of the pad, remedial grading, and removal and/or relocation of rock. The soils on the site consist of rocky soils not generally suitable for the location of paleontological resources. Impacts are not expected to be significant, and no alteration of unique geologic features is proposed. d) The subject property was closely inspected for any evidence of human remains during the site -specific cultural resource field survey in May 2013, and none was found. The proposed project is not expected to disturb any human remains. Further, California law requires that any remains unearthed by excavation or grading activity be reported to the County Coroner, who is required, if he/she identifies historic remains, to contact -21- Tribal representatives. This requirement of law will assure that impacts associated with human remains will be less than significant. RM Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of X a known fault? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the X Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, X Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) iv) Landslides? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth X Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth X Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property X (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the X disposal of waste water? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and -23- Update Letter, May 7, 2015; Project Easements and Utility Plan) VI. a)i. The subject property does not lie within a currently delineated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no active faults are mapped in the immediate vicinity of the site. Development of the project will not expose people or structures to hazards associated with fault rupture. a)ii. The closest active or potentially active faults to the subject property are the San Andreas fault located approximately 7 miles northeast of the site, and the San Jacinto fault located approximately 18 miles to the southwest. Moderate to severe ground shaking from earthquakes originating on these and other local and regional faults could occur on the subject property. Engineered design and earthquake -resistant construction methods will be implemented into the proposed structure. At a minimum, seismic design will be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) in effect at the time that building permits are sought, to provide collapse -resistant design. a)iii. The potential for liquefaction or lateral spreading to occur onsite is considered nil due to the presence of shallow or exposed bedrock and a lack of saturated soils. However, the potential for seismically induced ground subsidence and collapsible soils is considered moderate to high due to the dry, loose (and undocumented) nature of the shallow fill soils onsite, which can settle and densify when subjected to strong ground shaking. The geotechnical analysis prepared for the site will be supplemented with design -specific geotechnical analysis to be required by the City as part of the building permit submittal. The geotechnical analysis and 2015 update letter identified the need for: • removal and recompaction of existing fills with properly compacted engineered fill; • recompaction of a zone beneath building pads, or utilization of deep foundations, as appropriate and in conformance with the geotechnical engineering report; • site clearing and grading shall be observed by a geotechnical engineer in conformance with the CBC; • specific grading recommendations provided in the project -specific geotechnical evaluation shall be followed;. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with ground subsidence are reduced to less than significant levels. a)iv. The proposed project occurs on a lot which was rough -graded some years ago. The geotechnical analysis considered the hazards associated with the steep bedrock outcrops that occur throughout the subject property, and the potential topple hazards, which vary with location. Topographic and geologic conditions generally preclude instability issues for the proposed pad location, although several loose or perched rocks above the pad were identified during the geophysical survey and are recommended for removal and/or relocation. yZAe The existing access road is bounded by a vertical to near vertical cut face exposing bedrock, and precariously perched boulders north of the road pose significant falling rock hazards that represent a safety hazard and could obstruct access to the site. The geotechnical analysis examined the original proposal, and subsequently analyzed the changes to the project plans prepared in 2015. The changes primarily involved moving the house to the northeast on the site, which will result in greater encroachment into the hillside, and the need for a retaining wall behind (to the north) of the garage area. The Update Letter provided by the project geotechnical engineer indicated that the amended site plan and proposed construction were feasible, with the implementation of design recommendations. Both the original analysis and the 2015 update were transmitted to the County Geologist for review. The County Geologist found both analyses adequate, and concurred with the recommendations of the reports. As recommended in the geotechnical engineering report and the 2015 update letter, the proposed project shall be required to include the following design components: • Construction of retention systems to absorb rockfall impacts, decelerate moving boulders, and contain rock debris. • For the lower portion of the access road, a 5 to 7-foot high retention system consisting of a combination of berms, walls, ditches, and boulders is required. • For the higher portion of the access road, a retention system 3 feet high that positions and embeds large boulders (>4 ft. in diameter), or equivalent feature, approximately 5 feet upslope from the top of the cut face is required. • The installation of rock anchors to strengthen the retaining wall to the north of the garage. Project site plans indicate that rock fall protection walls, consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report will be incorporated into the project. Actual designs should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. Further, the geotechnical analysis was reviewed by the Riverside County Geologist, who determined that these design components are sufficient to reduce the risk of rockfall on the property. The County Geologist also will require that the wall designs be prepared by a structural engineer, to ensure that the parameters of the geotechnical report are followed. These requirements are expected to reduce potential hazards associated with rockfall to less than significant levels. b) The project is not expected to result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Remedial grading and limited expansion of the existing building pad is proposed. However, approximately 45% (1.44 acres) of the subject property has already been graded, and the proposed project minimizes site disturbance by utilizing the previously graded building pad and access road to the greatest extent feasible. Approximately 2 acres of the site will remain undisturbed. Nonetheless, the Coachella Valley region is characterized by seasonal flooding, and shallow soils are moderately to highly susceptible to wind and water erosion. A dust mitigation plan shall be required by the City as a standard requirement of development, and implemented by the project contractor to minimize fugitive dust generated during the development process. Water erosion prevention measures will be required through the implementation of Best Practices associated with the City- -25- required SWPPP and WQMP, both of which are designed to assure that water erosion is controlled and disposed of in a manner consistent with NPDES standards. These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with soil erosion will be less than significant. c) Lab testing conducted by the project geotechnical consultant, and the granular nature of onsite soil deposits, indicate that the expansion potential of soils is considered very low. However, as recommended in the geotechnical report, Expansion Index testing shall be performed on the as -graded site soils prior to construction to confirm or modify these findings. Should expansive soils be identified on the site, the grading recommendations of the geotechnical engineer will be modified to address them. These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with expansive soils are less than significant. d) The proposed residence will connect to an existing 8-inch sewer line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. No alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed or required. No impacts are expected. -26- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the roject: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application materials) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter X mile of an existing or proposed school? (General Plan Exhibit 4.1, Public Facilities) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it X create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in X a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas X or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Figure S-11, Wildfire Susceptibility Map, Riverside County RCIP) -27- VII. a-c) The project proposes the construction of one single-family residence in an existing residential neighborhood. The project will not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, other than that associated with typical household cleaning chemicals and those required for maintenance of an onsite pool and spa. There is no foreseeable risk of a release of hazardous chemicals into the environment. No schools are located within 1/4-mile radius of the subject property, and no handling of hazardous materials or waste is anticipated from the proposed project that could pose a risk to an existing or proposed school. The property is adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. In accordance with Policy 4.5.2 (Toxics) of the CVMSHCP's Land Use Adjacency Guidelines for Projects Adjacent to Conservation Areas, the use, generation, or discharge of any chemicals or bioproducts that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife and plant species, habitat, or water quality on the adjacent conservation area will be prohibited. d) The project site is not located on or near a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, therefore, will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. e-f) The project site is located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the Bermuda Dunes Airport and approximately 10 miles northwest of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport. It is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public or private airport, and therefore, will not result in an aviation safety hazard for people working or residing in the area. g) The proposed project will not physically interfere with local or regional roadway networks or implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan. Emergency access to the property is available from the existing street grid. The proposed driveway is designed to provide adequate turn -around space for emergency vehicles. No adverse impacts are anticipated. h) The Santa Rosa Mountains adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property are categorized as a "Low" wildfire zone, due primarily to the sparse vegetation that occurs on these slopes. The proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildfire hazards. -28- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- X existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (CVWD UWMP, December 2010) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- X or off -site? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a X manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of X polluted runoff? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for -29- Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; FEMA FIRM map; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth X Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; FEMA FIRM map; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) VIII. a) The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The residence will be connected to an existing 8-inch sewer line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista, and wastewater will be transported to and processed at Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD) Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant. CVWD implements all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as they relate to wastewater discharge requirements and water quality standards. The project site will be subject to the City's requirements for surface water pollution prevention, as prescribed by NPDES standards. The City will require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to address and prevent pollution during construction and long term operations at the site. The City's requirements include best management practices designed to prevent surface and groundwater pollution. The property is immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. As such, it is required to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the conservation area is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. The southernmost edge of the conservation area, where it meets the subject property, occurs at a higher elevation (±140 feet above mean sea level) than the building pad (91 feet). Runoff from the building pad currently flows downslope to an existing concrete -lined drainage channel and proposed retention basin in the southerly portion of the site (site improvements are described in more detail in response VIII.c-e, below). No runoff is expected to be directed toward the conservation area. b) Long-term water consumption associated with the proposed project will be limited to that required by one single-family residence, pool, and spa. Drought tolerant plant materials are proposed to limit water consumption for landscaping. In the short-term, water may be required during site grading as part of the dust mitigation program. Domestic water will be supplied by CVWD through an existing 12-inch water line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. CVWD has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which is a long-range planning document that helps CVWD plan for current and future water demands. The Plan demonstrates that the District has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve the project. Impacts associated with water supplies are expected to be less than significant. c-e) The subject property does not contain any streams or rivers, and storm water issues associated with the project will be limited to local drainage, including that from higher -30- elevations west and north of the building pad. The geotechnical analysis prepared for the project notes that shallow or perched groundwater and surface runoff within and immediately adjacent to onsite drainage courses and fractures can be expected depending on seasonal precipitation. It also indicates that debris flow potential at the proposed building site are considered low. Existing flood control improvements serving the subject property and those in the immediate vicinity include a flood control channel that intercepts flow from the site as well as regional storm flow generated from the north and east of the project site. The channel conveys stormwater westerly to two, sixty -inch (60") diameter reinforced concrete pipe culverts, then southerly under Loma Vista to the La Quinta Resort Mountain Golf Course. Easement access to the concrete channel will continue to be provided on the property's access road/driveway near Loma Vista. The City has required the preparation of a hydrology study for the project site. The City's standard requirements will be imposed on the proposed project, to retain the 100 year storm on site, and to design flood control facilities that do not increase currently occurring volumes or velocities as they discharge to downstream properties. Proposed drainage patterns are generally consistent with existing drainage patterns. Storm flow from areas above the existing access drive, which currently flow down the access drive, will be conveyed to a depressed landscape area near the driveway entrance, where they will be be infiltrated. Additional terrace drains, storm drain inlets and pipe will intercept storm flow and convey it to an underground retention system or to the existing flood control channel. The underground retention system will consist of a pre-treatment chamber to capture debris and an infiltration facility such as a perforated pipe. These facilities are shown in the hydrology study to be sufficient to convey storm flows across the site, and not impact surrounding facilities or properties in a 100 year storm, as required by the City. The hydrology study will continue to be reviewed by the City Engineer, to assure compliance of the proposed project with all the City's standards relating to flood control. The building pad and access road have been graded for many years. Proposed expansion and remedial grading of the pad and road are not expected to significantly alter existing onsite drainage patterns or result in significant erosion. With the imposition of the City's standard requirements and conditions of approval, impacts associated with flooding will be less than significant. f-g) The building pad does not lie within a designated flood zone. Project development will not place housing within a flood zone or place a structure in a flood zone such that it would impede or redirect flood flows. -31- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established Community? (aerial photographs; project site X plan) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, X or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit 2.1; La Quinta Zoning Map, 2007; Project's CUP application) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (CVMSHCP; Biological X Assessment & Impact Analysis for Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013) IX. a) The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. The site is located at the edge of an existing residential community (The Enclave) and is immediately surrounded on the southwest, south, and east by single-family residences. To the north and northwest are the vacant slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which are part of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. b) The property is currently designated as Open Space — Natural (OS) in the General Plan and Open Space with Hillside Conservation Overlay (HQ in the Zoning Ordinance. It is also within Planning Area III of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, which allows a residence on the lot. A conditional use permit is being sought by the project applicant to facilitate the project, based on the City's requirements for development within hillside areas. The processing of the Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's standards, in both its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, relating to development in the hillsides. With approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. c) The City of La Quinta has adopted the CVMSHCP, and the subject property is located within the boundaries of the Plan. As such, the project proponent will be required to pay the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) as mitigation for any potential impacts to sensitive biological species covered by the plan. The property is also located immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP and is therefore subject to additional required measures set forth in the MSHCP's Land Use Adjacency Guidelines. These -32- requirements are described in detail in section IV (Biological Resources) of this Initial Study. With imposition of the mitigation measures included in Section IV, the project's impacts on the Plan will be less than significant. -33- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of X the state? (Special Report 159, CA Dept. of Conservation, Division of Mines & Geology, 1998) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land X use plan? (Special Report 159, CA Dept. of Conservation, Division of Mines & Geology, 1998) X. a-b) The California Division of Mines and Geology has studied much of the Coachella Valley to determine the location of local mineral resources. The subject property and its immediate surroundings are designated as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, which indicates areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The property is not known to contain important mineral resources, and is not used for mineral recovery. The City's General Plan designates the property and surrounding lands for open space and residential uses. No existing or proposed mineral extraction occurs in the vicinity of the project site, which is located within the City's core. The project will have no impact on mineral resources. -34- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards X of other agencies? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Geotechnical X Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose X people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XI. a, b, d) The project will result in the development of one single-family residential structure and onsite amenities, including a pool, spa, and overlook area. Temporary noise impacts will be generated during the grading and construction process by typical construction equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks. The building pad and access drive have already been rough -graded, which will limit the extent to which excavation and mass grading are needed. Construction noise will generally be typical of that experienced for any single family home, and will be temporary and short term. However, expansion of the pad and -35- remedial grading are proposed, and removal of oversized rocks and installation of rockfall mitigation features will be required. Loose fill soils and very weathered rock should be easily excavated without ripping or with minor light ripping. Although no blasting is proposed, ripping of very hard bedrock may be required depending upon rock hardness and spacing, and the presence of joints and fractures. This will require the use of special tools and equipment, such as rams, hammers, and tractor -dozers. The use of heavy equipment on the site for these purposes could generate noise levels of 95 to 110 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels will decrease by 8 to 12 dB with the doubling of distance. Homes closest to the project site are located 75 to 110 feet away from the building pad area, and 140 to 180 feet from the area of slope that will require removal. The driveway from Loma Vista to the building pad is immediately west of an existing home, approximately 25 feet separating the driveway from the home. Noise levels of heavy equipment will vary based on where the equipment is located on the site. Equipment working on the excavation and ripping of the base of the slope in the northeastern portion of the site will generate the highest noise levels. If this equipment generates noise levels of 75 to 110 dBA at 50 feet, the noise levels at the closest house, 140 feet away, can be expected to range between 60 and 90 dBA while the equipment is active. These noise levels will be temporary and periodic, based on the limited area to be excavated, and the activity of the heavy equipment on any given day. The Municipal Code exempts construction activities from noise standards, if these activities occur during prescribed time periods. The time periods occur during the less sensitive daytime hours, when ambient noise levels are higher due to activity in any neighborhood. However, grading, ripping, and construction activity will create temporary groundborne vibration and noise, that can be mitigated to the greatest extent possible, as follows: 1. Construction activity, including days and times of operation, will be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance. 2. The contractor will provide notice, 24 hours prior to any rock ripping activity, to the residents within 200 feet of the subject property. The notice shall be in writing, delivered to each residence or residence mailbox, and posted at the guard -gate for the project. The notice shall include the dates and times during which ripping is to occur. 3. Blasting on the site is prohibited. With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, noise and vibration impacts during construction are expected to be less than significant. c) Permanent increases in ambient noise levels will be less than significant. The project is limited to the construction of one single-family residence, and permanent noise sources can be expected to be limited to typical household appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, and vehicles accessing the property. Noise levels will be consistent with those of adjacent single-family residential development. The subject property is immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. The CVMSHCP sets forth land use guidelines to mitigate indirect or edge effects of development adjacent to conservation areas. The following guideline pertains to noise levels on adjacent properties: "activities that generate noise levels greater than 75 dBA Leq hourly should incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls, as appropriate, to minimize the effects on adjacent conservation -36- areas." Long-term operation of the proposed project is not expected to exceed this threshold. e, f) The subject property is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The project will not expose people working or residing on the property to airport -related noise impacts. -37- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through X extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (application materials; 2010 Census) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? (application materials) XII. a) The project proposes the construction of one single-family residence. Given the City's average household size of 2.52 persons per household (2010 Census), the project's contribution to population growth will be insignificant. The project will not require the extension of any roads, utilities, or other infrastructure. b-c) The subject property is currently vacant. The project will not result in the displacement of any existing housing or people, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. -38- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57; X application materials) Police protection (application materials)? X Schools? (General Plan; application materials) X Parks? (General Plan; application materials) X Other public facilities? (application X materials) XIII. a) The proposed project will result in the construction of one single-family dwelling unit within an existing residential neighborhood. Based on the City's average household size of 2.52 persons per household (2010 Census), the project's demand for additional public facilities and/or services will be less than significant. The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection for the City. The nearest fire station to the project. Station #32, is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the project at 78111 Avenue 52. The Fire Department will impose conditions of approval on the project to assure access to the site in the case of an emergency, including driveway slope and turn -around space. Police protection is provided to the city through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The nearest police station is located at the Civic Center at 78495 Calle Tampico. Emergency access to the project will be provided by the existing roadway network, and the site plan provides adequate turnaround space at the top of the driveway for fire vehicles. Increased use of schools, parks, and other public facilities is expected to be insignificant. The project will not require the construction of any new public roads or enhanced public transportation services. The project proponent will be required to pay development impact fees that mitigate potential impacts to public facilities, including transportation, parks and recreation, Civic Center, fire, library, community center, and school facilities. -39- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (application materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (application materials) XIV. a, b) The project will result in the construction of one single-family residence. Based on the City's average household size of 2.52 persons per household (2010 Census), impacts to existing parks and recreational facilities will be less than significant. The project includes several onsite private recreational facilities, including a swimming pool, spa, sports court and outdoor overlook that will further minimize the demand for public facilities. The project proponent will be required to pay development impact fees that mitigate potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities. -40- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial X increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (application materials) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? (application materials) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? (application materials) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (application materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (application materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (application materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (application materials; La Quinta Bike X Map; Sunline Transit Bus Route Map; Final CVAG Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Update, September 2010) XV. a-b) Development of the proposed project will result in short-term traffic increases generated by construction vehicles and equipment typical of a single family home construction project. Construction traffic is not expected to significantly impact area roadways, traffic volumes, or levels of service. Over the long-term, the proposed project will generate minimal traffic from one single-family residential unit. It is not expected to result in significant increases in 51E vehicle trips, volume -to -capacity ratios, or congestion at intersections, and will not exceed established levels of service. c) The project does not propose any facilities or activities that will affect air traffic patterns or levels. d) No sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or vehicle incompatibilities are anticipated with the project. Access to the residence will be provided by a driveway at a cul-de- sac at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Construction vehicles and equipment will travel to and from the site during the construction phase, and long-term vehicle usage is expected to be consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Construction vehicles will park either on site or along the cul-de-sac, as would construction vehicles at any single family home development site. e) Access to the property will be provided by an 18-foot wide driveway which located at the cul-de-sac at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Emergency vehicles will use Loma Vista and the existing roadway network to access the site. Fire truck turnaround space is provided at the top of the driveway. f) The proposed project consists of a private residence with a 3-car garage and large parking pad at the top of the driveway. The parking exceeds the Zoning Ordinance requirements for single family homes. No additional parking is required. g) Loma Vista, from which the project is accessed, is not designated as an existing or proposed City bike route or Sunline Transit bus route. The project will result in the construction of one single-family residence within an existing gated neighborhood. It will not conflict with plans or policies pertaining to alternative transportation. SyA Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional X Water Quality Control Board? (application materials) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (application materials; CVWD 2010 UWMP) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (application materials) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or X are new or expanded entitlements needed? (CVWD UWMP, 2010) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste? XVI. a) Wastewater discharge requirements for the Coachella Valley, including the subject property, are administered by the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will be connected to an existing sewer line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Household wastewater will be transported to and processed at CVWD's Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) in Thermal. CVWD implements all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as they relate to wastewater discharge and water quality. Although the proposed project will -43- increase wastewater flows to the treatment plant marginally, it will not adversely impact water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b-e) The subject property falls under the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for domestic water and wastewater treatment services. CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Update, a long-range planning document, demonstrates that the District has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve additional development in its boundaries. Additionally, WRP-4 has a capacity of just under 10 million gallons per day (mgd) and processes approximately 5 mgd. Therefore, the plant has more than sufficient capacity to serve additional development, including the proposed project. The project will connect to existing 12-inch water and 8-inch sewer lines at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Given its limited scope (one single-family residence) and size (6,093± square feet), the project is not expected to require the expansion or construction of water or wastewater facilities. CVWD is also responsible for regional stormwater management in the Coachella Valley. The subject property includes an existing flood control easement with a 15- foot wide concrete stormwater channel along its southerly boundary, and an existing storm drain is located at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. These facilities protect adjacent properties from runoff from the subject property and higher elevation slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the north and west. The project proposes a conveyance system and dry well, and a retention basin and emergency overflow basin south of the building pad to collect and manage onsite flows. The City will impose its standard requirements for the retention of the 100 year storm on site for the proposed project. Please also see Section VIII, Hydrology. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. f,-g) Given its limited size (6,093± square feet) and scope (one single-family residence), the project is expected to generate less than significant levels of solid waste. The subject property will be served by Burrtec, the City's solid waste contractor. Trash generated by the project will be hauled to one of two transfer stations in the Coachella Valley, then to regional landfills, all of which have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Burrtec is required to meet all local, regional, state, and federal standards for solid waste disposal. SEE Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a X plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage X of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when X viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Biological Resources The subject property is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the Plan. It is considered suitable habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis nelson), which is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Threatened by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. An intensive biological field survey was conducted on the subject property. Although no sensitive plant or animal species were observed onsite, evidence of bighorn sheep was identified within 200 yards (north and east) of the property, and the potential exists for sheep to wander onto the site. The proposed project is not expected to eliminate or significantly reduce the quality of the habitat or range of the species; however, it will bring the edge effects of development closer to the species, -45- particularly through construction noise and the installation of new landscape planting materials. Potential impacts to sensitive biological species will be mitigated through the payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF). Because of its adjacency to a CVMSHCP Conservation Area, the project is also subject to the CVMSHCP's Required Measures 8, 10, and 11, which address landscaping, lighting, drainage, noise, fencing, and other issues as they pertain to development of the property. Implementation of mitigation measures, as identified in this Initial Study, will reduce project -related impacts to sensitive species to less than significant levels. Cultural Resources A cultural resources survey and site investigation were prepared in April and May 2013. No historical or archaeological resources were identified within or adjacent to the project area. No impact to historic or archaeological resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. b) The proposed project is consistent with existing residential development in the vicinity and with the City's long-range plan for development within the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan area. Public utilities and roadway infrastructure are already in place and capable of serving the project. Given the limited size and scope of the project, potential environmental impacts are expected to remain at, or be mitigated to, less than significant levels. Long-term environmental goals are not expected to be adversely impacted by the project. c) The project will result in incremental environmental impacts typical of new residential development, such as increased emission of criteria pollutants during grading and increased demand for public utilities. However, the project is limited to construction of one single-family residence, and impacts are expected to be less than significant when considered in connection with other projects. d) As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the project will not cause substantial adverse impacts, either directly or indirectly, on human beings. The mitigation measures included herein, such as the installation of rock fall protection walls and limitations on construction activity, will reduce potential hazards to less than significant levels. -46- XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -47- CITY OF LA QUINTA MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE DATE: February 22, 2016 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 1 658-200-004 CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 PROJECT LOCATION: 77210 Loma Vista EA/EIR NO: 2013-630 APPROVAL DATE: In Process APPLICANT: Case and Lisa Swenson THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A biological monitor familiar with Planning Division During ground disturbing Report by monitor. Peninsular bighorn sheep shall be activities present onsite whenever ground disturbance, such as grading, rock scraping or removal, excavation and digging, occurs or is considered. Should bighorn sheep be observed in the project area, all ground disturbance activity will cease, and the monitor will determine when it can be resumed. CVMSHCP Required Measure 8, Land Use Adjacency Guidelines (included in Planning Division Approval of Final Approved Final the appendix of the project Biological Landscaping Plan Landscaping Plan Assessment) which pertain to lighting, drainage, noise, and other topics that are addressed elsewhere in this Initial Study. The landscape plan shall incorporate only those plant materials listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-112. No invasive, non-native plant species will be used for landscaping, including those listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-113. CVMSHCP Required Measure 10, which pertains to eliminating disease Code Compliance Evidence of animal Photographic transmission to the bighorn sheep husbandry on project site. evidence of animal population shall be implemented. The husbandry project proponent will not be permitted to engage in the husbandry of domestic sheep or goats, and therefore no physical barrier shall be required for this purpose. CVMSHCP Required Measure 11, which Planning Division Approval of fence or Construction of requires the construction of an 8-foot functional equivalent with fence fence or functional equivalent CDFW approval. separating the development from adjoining habitat if, A .bighorn sheep are documented to begin foraging or watering on the project site, or B. unauthorized trails, paths, routes, or ways are documented to proliferate from the project site into adjoining habitat. (In this case, neither bighorn sheep nor unauthorized trails or paths have been documented onsite as of this writing.) The fencing requirement shall be deferred until such time as bighorn are documented to be feeding or watering on the project site, or unauthorized trails or pathways are documented onsite. Should one or both of those conditions occur, the provisions of Required Measure 11 (pertaining to cost, appropriate location, and responsibility for installation and maintenance of a required fence) shall be implemented. SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE XI. NOISE Construction activity, including days Building Department During construction Compliance with and times of operation, will be hours of construction required to comply with the City's noise ordinance. The contractor will provide notice, Receipt of proof of 24 hours prior to any rock ripping Building Department, Project During rock moving activity distribution. Notice activity, to the residents within 200 Contractor posted at guard feet of the subject property. The gate. notice shall be in writing, delivered to each residence or residence mailbox, and posted at the guard - gate for the project. The notice shall include the dates and times during which ripping is to occur. Blasting on the site is prohibited. Building Department During construction Inspection. LQ DEIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 6.22.12 Verizon Engineering Dept. C/o Chris Brown Time Warner State of California 295 N. Sunrise Way 41-725 Cook Street Water Quality Control Board Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Desert, CA 92211 73720 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Southern California Gas Co. Sunline Transit AgencyLovi, Planning Director Riverside County Eunice Attn: Deborah McGarrey Eunice Harry Oliverail Fire Protection Planning, 32-505 er 211 North Sunrise Way Thousand Palms92276 77-933 Las Montanas Road, Ste 201 , er Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Pete Sorenson Peggy Davis, Facilities Planner MountainsConservancy US Dept of Fish & Wildlife 47-950 Dune Palms Road 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Suite 205 6010 Hidden Valley Road La Quinta, CA 92253 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Ms. Mary G. Urguhart Mr. Seam McVeigh Mariann Nolan 1210 Chelten Way 270F N. El Camino Real, # 324 1212 Wellinton Avenue South Pasadena, CA 91030 Encinitas, CA 92024 Pasadena, CA 91103 Ca, Dept of Fish & Game South Coast Air Quality Torres -Martinez Eastern Sierra Inland Desert Reg. Management District Desert Cahuilla Indians 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., C-220 21865 Copley Drive Mary Resvaloso, Chairperson Ontario, CA 91764 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA 92274 Ms. Katie Barrows, Dir. Of Env. Serv. City of Indian Wells Coachella Valley Assoc. of Govts. Planning Division 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Ste 200 44-950 Eldorado Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Burrtec Waste Disposal Joe Cook Imperial Irrigation District Operations Manager Operat Electric Street Coachella Valley Water District Alfonso Rodriguez, Asst. Eng. 5-995 Avenue 52 Palm Desert, CA 92260 C81-600 Avenue 58 Coachella, CA 92236 La Quinta, CA 92253 The Altum Group Mr. Joe McVeigh Vice President Doug Franklin, P.E. Emily Perri Hemphill P. O. Box 1008 1325 Howard Avenue 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Ste. 219 PMB 602 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Burlingame, CA 94010 Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP Attn: Amy Minteer Ms. Mary G. Urquhart Mr. Sean McVeigh 2200 Pacific Coast Highway 1210 Chelten Way 270 F N. El Camino Real, #324 Suite 318 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Encinitas, CA 92024 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Mariann Nolan 1212 Wellington Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 1 of 10 C;FNFRAI 1 . The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Conditional use Permit shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Exemption Form — Whitewater River Region, Improvement Permit) • La Quinta Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sand Unified School District (DSUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) • State Water Resources Control Board • SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When these requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 4. Coverage under the State of California Construction General Permit must be obtained by the applicant, who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("11\101") and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 2 of 10 Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number to the City prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. 137-2013-001 1 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ and Order No. 2010- 0014-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permittee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP") to the State Water Resources Control Board. The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. C. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. D. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 3 of 10 E. The SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City Council. F. The applicant shall execute and record an agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of all post -construction BMPs as required. 6. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee programs in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 7. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 9. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 10. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer or the HOA over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. 1 1 . The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, and common areas. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 4 of 10 12. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-of- way, or access easement, the approval of this conditional use permit is subject to the applicant providing an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to those properties. 13. Written approval from IID and CVWD is required for the proposed rockfall protection wall which is within the CVWD and IID easement. SITE IMPROVEMENTS 14. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Sections 13.24.100 (Access for Individual Properties and Development) for public streets. 15. The rockfall protection wall and retaining wall shall be designed in accordance with the Earth Systems Southwest recommendations. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 16. As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 18. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal (20 scale optional) B. PM 10 Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal (if disturbed area is greater than 1 acre) C. WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently. Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 5 of 10 All plans shall show existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. Grading plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 17. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and Design Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la- quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 18. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer (currently mylars). 19. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. C;RAnir\jn 20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 21. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 22. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by an engineer registered in the State of California, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 6 of 10 C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control) if disturbed area is greater than 1 acre, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls). E. A WQMP prepared by an authorized professional registered in the State of California. All grading shall conform with the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by soils engineer, or engineering geologist registered in the State of California. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. Additionally, the applicant shall replenish said security if expended by the City of La Quinta to comply with PM 10 requirements as required by the City Engineer. 23. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures. 24. Building pad elevations on the grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the CUP exhibits, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval, or as approved by the City Engineer. 25. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus half of a foot (0.5') from the elevations shown on the approved CUP exhibits, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Engineer for a substantial conformance review. 26. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. nRAINAC;F PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 7 of 10 27. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for the Swenson Residence CUP 2013-1 52, or as approved by the City Engineer 28. Nuisance water shall be retained onsite and disposed of via an underground percolation improvement approved by the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be either the 1 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 30. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. 31. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise and as approved by the City Engineer. 32. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 33. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 34. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 35. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-201 3-0011 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ and Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ. A. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopment Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs for PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 8 of 10 the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. 137-2013- 0011. B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB- CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-201 3-0011 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. C. The developer shall execute and record a Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of stormwater BMPs. 11TH ITIFS 36. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 37. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 38. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. MAINTENANCE 39. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 40. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of landscaping, access driveway, and stormwater BMPs. FEES AND DEPOSITS 41. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 9 of 10 checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING 42. No lighting shall be permitted on the path to, or within and surrounding the retreat, to the west of the residence. 43. Replace the proposed swing doors for the utility closet within the garage to facilitate the full use of the parking space. 44. Use a cast of the existing on -site rocks in the design of the faux rock wall. 45. Keep overall site disturbance to a minimum including establishment of the overlook area. 46. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans) 47. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 48. All trees shall have a minimum caliper of 6 inches. 49. All plants shall conform to the approved plant list of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan for lands adjacent to conservation areas. 50. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and permanent irrigation improvements in compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape) 51. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Community Development Department as a minor final landscape plan, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan application process. Community Development Director approval of the final landscape plans is required prior to issuance of the first building permit unless the Community Development Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Community Development Director and/or City Engineer. 52. Prior to final approval of the installation of landscaping, the Landscape Architect of record shall provide the Community Development Department a letter stating he/she PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 10 of 10 has personally inspected the installation and that it conforms with the final landscaping plans as approved by the City. 53. If staff determines during final landscaping inspection that adjustments are required in order to meet the intent of the Planning Commission's approval, the Community Development Director shall review and approve any such revisions to the landscape plan. MISCELLANEOUS 54. The mitigation measures included in Environmental Assessment 2013-630 shall be implemented for this project. 55. Should any excavation, grading, trenching or other ground disturbing activity result in the unearthing of a potentially historic or archaeological resource, the contractor shall cease all activity until a qualified archaeologist and Tribal member can determine the significance of the find. The City shall be notified immediately. If monitoring or resource recovery occurs, a final report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project. ATTACHMENT 1 Proiect Information CASE NUMBER: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON PROPERTY OWNER: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ARCHITECT: PREST-V U KSIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HERMAN & ASSOCIATES ENGINEER: THE ALTUM GROUP REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE ENCLAVE AT MOUNTAIN ESTATES LOCATION: 77210 LOMA VISTA, WITHIN THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: OPEN SPACE NATURAL ZONING DESIGNATION: OPEN SPACE SPECIFIC PLAN: LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, AMENDMENT NO. 5, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: OPEN SPACE/MOUNTAIN SLOPES SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/SINGLE FAMILY HOMES EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WEST: OPEN SPACE/MOUNTAIN SLOPES SUBDIVISION INFORMATION: N/A. The lot was created at the time that the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan (SP 121-E, Amendment No. 5) was developed. N ATTACHMENT 2 CUP 2013-152 LOCATION MAP W E S m o �Ow Q Srq V 'Q c? o � AV-ENIM ERNANDO C�u C W�a q m� 2 O�� z �C OLI W LOS A-RBO L�ES� - - LE-MAZA-T-L-AN CAL SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES HERMANN St ASSOCIATES 1Yw_NPMBa3i ttt tit]- F-n 9iss.. Fngmrering - Rvm'vig The A]— Gmap 73710 Fred Waring Drive, S-219, Palm Dm CA 92260 1.46A750 TheM—Gmup.cmi f. 760340.0099 R • VUKSI A ARCC SHITECT ' - - 6lM OEffiiT.G ATTACH M ENT 3 NOV 16 2015 La gUINTA EVE LOPMENT W SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-21 O LOMA VISTA LA OUINTA, CA 92253 SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS P-RE-SUBMITTAL 09,152DIS SDPICUP-USMITTAL H. SHEET INDEX Sheet No. Sheet Name A0.00 COVER SHEET A0.01 SHEET INDEX PROJECT DATA C1.0 TECHNICAL SITE PLAN C2.0 OVERALL PRELIMINARY PRECISE GRADING PLAN C2.1 ENLARGED PRELIMINARY PRECISE GRADING PLAN C3.0 EASEMENTS AND UTILITY PLAN A1.10 OVERALL SITE PLAN & VIEW KEY PLAN 1-1.0 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN L3,0 LIGHTING PLAN A3.10 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.11 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.20 COLORED ELEVATIONS A3.21 COLORED ELEVATIONS A6,10 ROOF PLAN A2.10 IFLOOR PLAN PROJECT INFORMATION OWNER IRE AND MIRS. STIMI ON 62 ELLENWOOD AVENUE -- — LOS GATOS, CA 95030 APPLICANT PRESTVUKSN: ARCHITECTS 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE, STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1 OF TRACT MAP NO. 28335-R, IN THE CITY OF LA OUINTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 259, PAGES 42 AND 43 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTRY RECORDER PROJECT DESCRIPTIOWLOCATION CUSTOM HOME LOCATED IN THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 2XWNG ZONING: OPEN SPACE (OS), WITH HILLSIDE CONSERVATION (HC) OVERLAY SPECIFlC PLAN LA OUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN, SP 121-E, AMENDMENT 05; PLANNING AREA III, RESIDENTIAL LAND USE - LDR AREA DATA GROSS BITE AREA: 316 ACRES, 137,650 sf NET SITE AREA: 316 ACRES, 137,650 sf BUILOING AREA: MAIN LIVING - 5,222 sf GARAGE - 706 5f BIALMNG DATA OCCUPANCY R-3 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION V-B SPRINKLED Y N0. OF STORIES 1 GREATEST HEIGHT 1T-11" VICINITY MAP �`�llll,Uy'- HERMANN DESIGN GROUP Engineering • Planning 7��PMB 332 HIGHWAY 111 is •Survey •Environmental P R EST • V U KS I C LA OUINTA, CA 92253 The Altum Group A R C H I T E C T S LICA 2754 EXP 4130f14 T: 760.777.9131 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA F: 760777. 9132 L 760.346-4750 TheAltumGroup.com F, 760.340,0089 T: 760 779 5393 F: 760 779 5395 Scale: Sheet SHEETINDEX PROJECT DATA A0.01 - I sf r j '. - E:S LDS OO4 I � � % � � ,. mac.}=.—���.,, � ` i i) �'J�'•Y— �.- � --� � APN ;� ��£/ __ �---� _:. .;:-. - ".- •���\ gar(- 1�(' +•. 15 J f -:J, { - sxs FALL r'rr'7. - I \ r _ I Ell xtom'... 1 y 2ao-o1e { r� t V % t� j f I : MmrrNa WANE NOT 16 t ON WALL wOPM -�l � ' � '1�`z�\�'.._ r\': �- ,, ss•Ne�rays rc-�slc,r-1 I �{ � 40PY,Oq,w •.!' - ITme CONTROL ACCESS / �yt ,. PLAFRRY 5APN f''', eso-soo-m, 1 ic; f Fqo M CLEW 'r J _. w: �_.. �CT h :[GIINO LWk ' `.. .. �, A �F r+ � `�'r�-' � uMuwW. mI,wLR 1ERIPnd esa-mPo-oPs r . �w MTV! i a e waF+e' !, "� "t � 11 ,, Gse-s""GG-ma117, 20 tald {1 J eso-2�oo-D14. ,...a" '"W. on LW + q a � XV, 18 -- -'- — — — * .I .�... EXISTING r. TRACT MAP NO. 25237NO 228/95-99 esaoTa �> x y iRWyOFy✓OL �„ / La so IN �.: 84EIRfAJ 81fEY�10l� HERMACA DESIGN GROUP S P R EST n V U KS I C SWENSON RESIDENCEARC'RE s/7/20,5 SDP/CUP RE-RBATTAL PST MAJ C� 9/15/2015 SDP/CUP RE-SBBIRTAL n-,,, FLORA ROAD _`:I A R C H I T E C T S at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES SUErEA p 77410LOMAVWA LAaN►A.CAMM PALM DESERT. GV.=11ILO 7&710 prod WFuing Sate 219, mL Desert, G 7ft?OmAN m AVE. EJTE 2ET0 iiV.p U 0# zFes ow. QSOMa T.M.TTF.6131 iehl t 7603" 4750 lkEeAldamfYDnp.meaL f.76030 .0089 o 0089 e0A 'r F. M.TrYM32 LEOEnn CENTERLINE --------------- FASCWENI/SURACIE LINE DAM diwiE'WINE —.--� RIGIR-OF-MY — -- PROPERTY BDIWe1VTY STERN DRAIN PPE MNl/RETAe�TG WALL FF FWA FLOOR ELEVATION PE PAD ELEVATION )DLX PROPOSED DEVATDN (AIM) DOM ELEVATION smPE PI[ P!R[IC MR E1SO" sm SEWER CLENW BIT BLONDR, SLN SEYWB NVNME WW WATER NETER WY WATER VALVE F-I TIRE NIdNNr PA PUNIER AM FS FINER SBRFACE TO FINISH GRADE TIT TOP OF WALL TRW TOP OF RETAI WALE F. FLOW Irr ON NNvn ROW RERR OF WAY CO CLEAN OUT TO TOP OF GRATE ^^{{ jE'� ET'--! WADSFAPE (TYPE PER PLAN) QcF� N17DRAL BOULDD6 I� � 1FdYM RN'ARCAAq N ORO= WATd SITE PLAN soft r. w show C1A ,i 3 f _ _ I � .�`-- - - a. yam/ /:�_•..—Ir f � ,ram_ ` APLJ rm �, GSB 1J0 W �% as 2u ry , _ . `.`•' l' /���[�,-� i(-. r �"- � B•..n,.TA.'x,n+a. l - �� -�� .` \ti ,\�`i ._ . _. ..,jJ � ��,/: �� ` L �T r MEmHwwk -STEPS r or TiR lknslfR - -ALL va - y - i.E9 � AT.mCI R! W fi TeF. CF '%0K • _ l f { } Jy + - : . ' - - ♦d" f2. '♦W"`' T... '. s'., - ,, ` H,7 TFS� tT �'` A� Ff., y j �I%;/ `r Ij C•: 'T/MiAFFp�,y, ' •'waE+ean 'Y �-- �.,,F-�}Sy�p{'y } ' - l�.%// r �Wq l _- _ FAQ /fI i b4EiO}GHF v _ f ✓ / : ` us sTaNE - l rr f x0 E Hvi�` - }} f 1. 1 APH 15 j/FfJ"f ,�'''/// (IT•JIRa f "' f x TasYHr.:;' Wa,YR -T5i" . - - • +, �" N I �;�Rk s �� ' '. ` % �� y'(fi� �� k» / I �x iGi �L . r •' P111OPOSED FF.BPESD@iCE PROFYBED FLOOD1�.�v ~ i •R {+s aIa_} E,iY- 5 �;i»�{L� CONTROL ACCESS +?�- \ +:, ^ ) 4' I Y T 111 FpaPnLV LaE f �.. .-� ,..:' .; .yj IFYn :.• �U ' .j/7:. �•44. IVf . � � �� 11. % � 1 `rV ((r rr: R-i k• BBB-zoo-01, E.FA,xs r� ` f''. - S •'~\M.,�.`ti.`•�tiai ?r>7, jfP..PF PAN��11L1 Will � { ' :', f'f.._./ .//" •�� ` `Y I�r', , ..,9WILWR F,lAIXW(D �l ti 1 `1 T �6•^aT9j. 1 ExSiNG SLOPE " � P �. � �\ t ,. �,.''' FSTAs>ac MDi Yn •I , � y ., . i 1 .S I iry.S) wTeH I. r 6" 3LWFE j}��� rf' � � � iN ♦'x � �.: V. 11� 4111 J.%c- �. 6 n nr;7sn�..II 1, H Bsa-zoo-ai Qfr 20 (FF=57.1 •ti�+�:��� ;/.•,y_ .f �Y `. ,- k`S?. Gry RISER LAW '1 JA _ l r'4 " w�G"•_ ,�AA ETp 1 Hr' AN -a ! �•' MM 1PLHTAOC WWRa 1 _1,4 T 4 '` �, '. y - - { '• r� 659-200-014 �`' \ �' WpWUYM �0\• �;�» y�.�y O/�.-r., -'s r/ :> (fF1s8i.43) E.d fJ%47r1 '�\.T"-`; t �r '�. `- dL - �....is1a�FY fp''"''r n,.fa,•,. CAN TRACT MAP NO. 25237 BSB-YW-ODJ NB 228/95-99 i� _ ••�• (FFv157,Jf) LEGEND fE CFNIERUNE -- ---- EASEMENT/SETBACK LINE »�^ RIGHT DF-WAY PROPEWY BOUNDARY STORM DRAW PIPE WALL/RETANIG WALL FF FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION PE PAD ELEVATION ax PROPOSED ELEVATION (aA OUSTING ELEVATION PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT SW SEWER CLFMOUr W BLOEDFF SUIT SEWER MANDIE NM WATER METER NV WATER VALVE FH FIRE HYDRANT PA PLANTER AREA FS FlMSH SURFACE TO FINSN GRADE TW TOP OF WALL TRW TOP OF RETAJNO WILL FL FLOW LINE ITN ROEFI ROW RIGHT OF TLAY CO CLEAN DUr TG TOP OF GRATE m HARDSCAPE (ME PER PLAN) Q{R� v FFF���� UANRAL BOULDERS � TLLR WF.WMWI NOTE SEE ENL RGED PREUWWMY PRECISE GRADING PIRA. SHEET C2.1, ION FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL, ELEVATS ND STORM DRAIN ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES 1. PAVED ACCESS WILL NOT EXCEED ,SE 2. A0.'EFS TA. Ta DE300 TO W,IHFOAD OE 00" Of Boo) K-Aft 01DT 2 A11(4.. DRAINAGE NOTE THE UNDERGROUND RETENTION SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO MEET WATER GUNNY (0-4) RED MOMENTS THIS INFILTRATION BURP ELL CONSIST OF A PRE TREATMENT CR41W TO CAPTURE DEBRIS ND N INFILTRATION FACLTIY SUCH AS A PERFORATED PIPE F CAPACUY S EXCEEDED, EMERGENCY OVERFLOW IS CONYEV'ED OUT OF THE CRATED INLET VA A ROM UIED SWALE AND NOD THE ADMCENI FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL ROCKFALL HAZARDS NOTE THE ACTUAL RDC FALL HAZARD WDCATDN HAS NOT BEEN FDRLALLY DESIGNED PREUMNVO DESIGNS INCLUDE A STRUCTRAL BARRER WALL OR A STANDARD RETAINING WALL WITH SLOPING BAI TOWARDS THE ASCENDING SLOPE, ISSUES WITH A BARMER WALL ARE IMPACT LEADS MO ASSOCIATED STRUCTURAL DESIGN. THE D(PEWE TO CONSTRICT. AND NEED FOR REPAIR AFTER A ROCIIFNL EVENT. ISSUES WITH A STANDARD RUNNING WALL WITH SLOPING BNBOWL 5 THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE HIDER OFFSITE OR WTTHN THE CURRENT EASEMENT. THE SLOPING B»CIOEL S INTENDED TO CUSHION THE WALL ND ABSORB TIE IMPACT BHOG(. THE ROCKALL HAZARD WDBITION NEED TO BE EVALUATED FROM COSTS SPACE AND ESTHETICS STANDPOINTS. THIS WORN WILL BE PERFORMED DU RD FDA. DESIGN. GLASS R BASE DRNEWAY SECTION A -A NOT TO SCALE SUSIfTTALBNiE1f1SK7NQ HERMANN DESIGN GROUP LANIMAM ARCNTTECTURE i • �+.1T&iJTOt'.'F),TTg • P1s7mhLg P R EST ° V U KS I C SWENSON RESIDENCE 5/7/2015 SCI RE -emu E11 •f�T rinTnmcx l�I E/,s/zms sDP/a P RE -SUB (UAL 1 n-mSUM ARCHITECT S at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES ARaLo The AhEmmGxwp TT,410LONAVIfTA LAQUNTA,GIIIIIII!IIIIIII PA.A1. OESFE T,CAW211 79-710 FEcd Wu1ng Drive, STil1e 219, PaL2L DeeQt; CA 92160 44-MEIAHPABLOAVESTE.200 PALMOf�Ri,GG LION ZF04 ow. 41Ba14 t760-W 4750 T'heAll,zznGEovp.c f. 760340.0069 T: 700.7NbBW F. Tso.TN.aw6 T: 700.1 T7.B1B1 F: 700.777.0132 W- PCC u WALL WWAOAE CLAWING 1�L rOMMQ SL a W ■ Y b b OVERALL PREUMINARY PRECISE GRADING PLAN soft 1•-27 Ogre C2.0 \ ll ry• ` 4 }} L I } 1 RAW �.v-fir} 'I''TOP'�F� . E PI NM�� i •'� 1 � "�L/ , ! M N J I9GMNf.• - L�'•�. `1 f ��\ t •l ��� -r1�Yj �I SITE �1�1( I/! /�, ✓rf / � - � 1 1 i PROPOSED ESIIDEENCCE .. rCDG,!LRNF y - FF=67.50 LUZ PV PA , y I . � \ ' �.._ _ �y •�� Cj �rF.�..� u+oEWumuNOPooI 1 l ,� •�. �_.,� ''M .s: WQN eDupeEtl '�� �aLWrypn ++Mar 'lk. 1 ei wf0°�o4'�Mc `rl M IT4WDRW iEE' Awl r `\ l 1 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-MO LOML VLSTA , LA OI KK AMA SUB! i IIiT� HERMANN DESIGN GROUP P R EST V U KS C LANDSCAPEARCHRECfURE •R�a1T&e&% .naming s/7/2oTs mP/CUP-sraMrTULL PLANPnL77C6 NAYLFI i7 • Survey . lInvir.otna,M,M.a W/YS/IOIS SWICLP K-USWTrk 77an�ROAD F A R C H I T E C T S 11Ee Nhm, Gmu PALM DESERT, CA 92211 44 O SAN PABLO AVE. WE 200 PALMDSNW,CA 73710 Fred WNuing Drive, Susie 219, Paln1 Desist CA 92760 L" 2754 EXP. 4IBOM4 L760" M TEe/UtconGODpA'®L f. 76030.E T.T&D,TP0f4IX{ P:MT?OAM T: 7e0.m.B1S1 F. 780.m.9132 LEGEND Q CENfERINE EASEMENT/SETBACK LINE _....-�-• _.— DINNER aAAFYii SWEL RIGHT-OF-WAY STOW DRAW PPE WALL/IETAE WALL FF FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION PE PA) ELEVATION OX PROPOSED ELEVATION ("A D=NG ELEVATION PILE PL$C UnLTY Edo" SCO SEWER CLFINDUF 80 BLCIOFF SUN SEWER MA14OLE WM WATER METER LN WATER VALVE PH FIRE NARNNT PA PUNIER AREA FS FISH SURFACE FG FINISH GRADE TW TOP OF WML TRW TOP OF RUNNING WALL R FLOW LINE INY INVERT ROW RIGHT OF WAY CO CLEAN OUT y �TG TOP OF CRATE i`i. l HARDSCAPE (TYPE PER KA SID AIURA ODU ➢ERS FINE ,WwE T11RAIrNpIrliD � OVERALL PRELMWJO PRECISE GRADING PLAN, SHEET C20. FOR ADDI ORAL MAT. EIEVATNIS FOR WALL AND DRNEWAY. FIRE DEPARTAFN7 NOTES T ACCESS WILL NEFF WYE AN LIP OR DOWN GRADE OF MORE THAN IS( 2 ACCESS WALL BE DESIGNED TO WNI6TAND THE WDGHT OF 60,ODO POUNDS OVER 2 ACES DRAINAGE NOTE THE U DFFACCROUIIO MENTION SYSTEM IS DOM TO MEET WATER OUA TY (0-4) REOHIREENTS THIS INFILTRATION BMP WILL CONSIST OF A PRE-TREATMENT CHAMBER TO CMRAK DEBRIS AND AN WILTRATION FACILITY SON AS A PERFORATED PPE F CAPACITY 6 EXCEEDED, EMERGENCY OVERFLOW 6 CTNEYM OUT OF THE GRATED INLET YM A ROC( LINED SINE AND INTO THE ABMDDN ROOD COMM CHANNEL R=FALL HAZARDS NOTE THE XIM ROCIVNL RVARD MOIGNON MS NOT BEEN FORMALLY DESIGNED PRELLMIM DESIGNS INCLUDE A STRUCTURAL BARRIER WALL OR A STANDARD RETNNING WALL WON SIDPNG RACKFU TOWARDS THE ASCENDING SLOPE SWES WITH A BARRIER WNL ARE IMPACT LAAK AD ASfOCMWD yKol . DM BC DMIRE TO Co16TRUCT° AD NEED Tyr AU NI, DEMEAN A G(dIALi. IMELET. IBM NIH A 3F'M RE"WNG RAU Mk "0"" B"na IS NE REED FOR ADCIDINL SPACE ETHER DFFSITE OR WITHIN THE CURRENT FASEMEN THE SLOPING BOO 6 IN TO CUSHION THE WNL AND ABSORB THE IMPACT 9DCK THE ROCKFALL HVARD MOMATION NEED TO BE EVALUATED FROM COSTS. SPACE, AND ESTHETICS STANDPOINTS. THIS WORN WILL BE PERFORMED DURING FNLLL DESIGN N OREPDO BONA ENLARGED PRELIMINARY PRECISE GRADING PLAN earn r - e Bank C2.1 kZP 1r rI 'J;-cl /0, PUIRFR AREA •� J , � � P I, /, f • f / �'�f •:i' � yam. '•' r� �` __��//..JJ E.IR,O h ' ` .V• T'd � I wVtw rFM �HEhE rF �. EIECIRGI+ jM, vnuD TRANSFORMEfl I SWENSON RESIDENCE OnEsl$ wra-u at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES ylspsnW/rr RE emSu�WRAc 77-21O LOMA VISTA LA OUINTA. CA 92253 E145TNC ACCESS, MUIY ANO IIO EASEMENTS TO BE OUTCINMED EXIS7NG AND PPA)FOSM EASEMIRM SCALE: 1"= 20' DfhEWAY/UTUTY SECTION A -A -. NOT TO SCALE HERMANN DESIGN GROUP j LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Engineering PIeRflIT� P R EST V U KS I C PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT 77-772 FLORA ROAD. 'Survey • Eitirf757ttmcntal A R C H I T E C T S SUITE A The Altum Group PALM DESERT, CA 92211 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE. STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA LICIF 2754 EXP, 4130114 T: 760,777.9131 L76tL346.4750 The AltumGroup_com C760.340.0089 T: 760779,5393 F: 760.77%5395 F: 760-777_9132 1EGEIND E CENTERLINE •••'•-••-••-• - EASEMEM/SETBACK UNE _ — -- -- STORM BRAIN PIPE RIGHT-CF-WAY PROPERTY SOUNOAAY WAU.1 DARING WALL FT FIRM BOOR EIEVADON PE PAD ORATOR ROW PoGHT OF WAY PUE PUBUC UTUIY DSEMENT SOD SEWER CLEAN UT 00 &EACH SMH SEWER "HOLE WM WATER METER WV WATER VALVE FIR RRE H1'BRAM PA PLANTER AREA CAN CA91E TELEVISION HARBSCAPE (TYPE PER PLAN) STREET VACATION NOTE A SEPARATE STREET VACATION APPUGTON HAS BEEN SUBIRDD FOR AGENCY APPROVAL TO OUTCL4M THE PORTION OF EXISTING EASEMENTS AS SHOWN HEREON N GRAPHIC SCALE EASEMENTS AND UTILITY PLAN scale: 1" = 10' Sheel: C3•0 SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP 'Engineering 'Planning P R EST V U KS C 76365 HIGHWAY 111 Survey - Environmental PMB 332 SWENSON RESIDENCE LAOINTA,CA92253 Group Y A R C H I T E C T S � The Altum scale: LIC#2754 EXP. 4/30/14 73-710 Fred Warin Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES T: 760-777-9131 g 49-530 sAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA sneer. 77-21CLOMAVISTA LAUUINTA,CA92253 F: 760777. 9132 t, 760346,4750 TheAltumGroup.com f. 760,340,0089 T: 760,779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 F --:::+4 OVERALL SITE PLAN u16•=r0^ A1.10 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LOMA VISTA • LA 0UINTA, CA 92253 f OBS. i I j I E � I � I I I I JES - J — J rti 7 r `* t r x:. f Vie'• '+" ��"'� 1 w,v+,r � � `v'.. v* • ids, 4 4 y �'y r� + � �►�; '��#,��.�'�' 1. 1 4♦ •w {4•�.�r ` 1 BE. o l 77 _ l � I OBS, ;��`' (2/5 /, BUBMRTALSIREVISIONS . HERMANN DESIGN GROUP ` RE-SUBP R EST V U KS C ILLUSTRATIVE _ • Engineering • Plannin SITE PLAN D9/22/2015 S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE L�. � � g g g DP/CUP BIOAL PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT _ Survey •Environmental 77A SUITOELF CAD The A]tum Group A R C H I T E C T S Scale: .,,; -, -0. PALM DESERT, CA 92211 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 91,eel: L 1.0 LICE 2754 EXP 4130116 t 760 346 4750 TheAltumGroup cam f. 760.340.0089 T: 760.779.5393 F: 760 779. 5395 T: 760 777 9131 F: 760, 777.913 12 SPOT L16HT V15TA 12 VOLT 6R-2550-15SN-MR 20 W MAX O 22 DRIVE WAY VISTA 12 VOLT 6W-5265-Z-LED 90 W MAX O I S50 LIGHT VISTA 12 VOLT PL-40I6-N-LED 20 W MAX { 9 PATH LI61R VISTA 12 VOLT PR-2152-155N-LED 20 W MAX i• r SUBMfTTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP LANDSCAPEARCMITECTURE Engineering •Planning P R EST • V U KS I CgMI LIGHTING SWENSON RESIDENCE ���i1k PLANNING Survey Is • Environmen[al PLAN _ PROJECT MANAGEMENT 77� CAD A R C H I T E C T S at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES SUITE 102 The Altum Group 77-210 LOMA VISTA • LA OUINTA, CA 92253 _ PALM DESERT, CA 92211 LICK 2754 EXP 4/30116 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 TheAltumGroupcom f. 760,340,0089 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA Sheel: T: 760,7796393 F: 760.779.5395 L3.0 T: 760 777 9131 F: 760.777.9132 L760.346,4750 Wt rwo awnac rn o1w: SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LOMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA92253 SU BM ITTALSIR EV I SIO NS 0 2015a MUPRES MITTAL ag152015aDFIC PRB BWn.AA HERMANN DESIGN GROUP 70365 HIGHWAY 111 PM B 332 LA QU INTA, CA 92253 LIC* 2754 E%P V30114 T: 760 7T7 9131 F: 760 777 9132 BIB- Engineering Planning • Survey •Environmental The Altura Group 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 t, 760.346 4750 TheAltumGroup com f 760. 340. 0099 PREST • VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA T: 760 779 5393 F: 760 779 5395 �R ME- t r. uc�it16aa u1ro.L-4f�'. NATW.Ia WA. 'M3R n 91MFN1 �iIYY� s tGZTK tfi n w.r.ww e•i'FRlOg6•D7yW7fn(ry,r3�[ �•qYk' l� 61lIiMIRlC WIlF.. fAlWl POLQR 1p YAFrJ1 dNM6cWRDp tEFMIAGFP 11RpA11 A] 9fEFL ie'12E'RSiCn PR rup [p p'ff nMe ffriY,wRd CBel+� 1NC+!!k too I�fF.aa - 1 'P! e,cR Wear' ad6uR f8i V.OL�r GOIOR YfFi a/9' YY�� F_F 5757 f & WEST ELEVATION x4• = 1••Q- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Scale: 114" It 1' 0" Sheet: A3.10 x iN' IT - - wef -vj RESIDENCE SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS I"IERMANN DESIGN GROUP 7 5PMB332�711 En meering Plannin • g g Survey Environmental I II P R EST - Y V KS I C SWENSON ei102015e� �cuP R-UBMrrAL OB,15201a aDP/cUP gESUFIMITiAL LA pUINTA, CA 92253 The Altum Group I ARCHITECT S at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES -- _ LICn 2754 EXP. 4/30114 T: 7607779131 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE. STE PALM DESERT, CA 77-21OLOMAVISTA LAOUINTA,CA92253 _-_ F: 76G7779132 n L760.346.4750 TlleAltumGr011p.00M E760..3400089 T: 76G 7795393 IF 760 779 5395 K—TE LEGEND Q —P® 'Pp�'R� 44. PiA Y+Fh4q �" rinF"�da, n7olE n.c [ —a — �r+ussxa e e At+gnu AI![D iD iM1[Jluggp!/t iFAMES it 3a6h RA::J e.M TTlIYED NID A1mED, WLGA' E fiRI aG•Qp1[ 11 arrF'ar £1gRISrWM9giD RH119f£9. WLOit1Mi15 pE Ui! QHH 6AU=Il — �. IValfrllrWA Ir 1 RlAIiAWPD4. m:w da ]Y,�166}i Rr ar ru w mrw as! wom M� d EAST ELEVATION 2. I H' • 1'l,P EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Scale: Ib1 1 i= Sheet'. A3.11 SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS Engineering • P HERMANN DESIGN GROUP Survey g P R EST • V U KS C h S W E N S O N RESIDENCE 7� PMB 332 111 Survey Environmental in> ran wannrec LA OUINTA, CA 92253 1 u,.r. cu•. w.rn ------ P ARCHITECTS p �nasu RnA sueumAL The Altum Group 11A4ROI�NMS119MITTAL_ _ Scale: at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES LICN2700779130n4 73710Fred WaringDrive,Suite 219,PBhnDesert,CA92260 W 152o155DPICUP RESUBMITfAL T: 7607779131 44�530 SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA Sheet' 77-210 LOMA VISTA LA OUINTA, CA 92253 F: 760 777 9132 t. 760.346.47T TheAltumGmup.mm f. 760.340.0089 T 70D 779 6393 F760 1 5395 WEST ELEVATION COLORED ELEVATIONS A3.20 1/4" =1'-0" NOTE: MOUNTAIN OMITTED TO SHOW ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION N4" • T,S EAST ELEVATION SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP 111 78PN •Engineering • Plazuting Survey Environmental El Is P R E S T V U KS C S W E N S O N RESIDENCE mmol p �w, ao suOMlTrgl SAY LA QUINTA,A, CA 92253 sm02014ROAs— _ The Altura Group A R C H I T E C T S at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES I L04201411-MITTAL 09152015—CUP RE-MITTAL UCR 2754 EXP 4"0114 T760 777 913 : 1 73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Pali Desert, CA 92260 q¢53p SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA 77-210 LOMA VISTA LA pUINTA, CA 92253 F. 7807779132 [. 760.346.4750 TheAllumGroup.com E760.310.0089 T: 760 779 5393 F 7607795395 COLORED ELEVATIONS St.1, ill; - I I: Sheet A3.21 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210LOMAVISTA LAOUINTA,CA92253 SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP ' Engineering •planning 111 78365 PMB •Survey Environmental BIB P R EST V U KS C anezmssov�cwaesusmnrn= 332y LA OUINTA, CA 92253 The Altum Group p A R C H I T E C T S OB_11]011 S9FL9P aC.'uM1t11Rk ----- LICK 2754 EXP 4130114 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 T: 760 777.91 gq_530 SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA _ F: 7607779131 32 t. 760.,346.4750 TheAltumGroup.com f. 760. 340,0089 T: 760 779 5393 F7607795395 0' 2' 4' a 15 ROOF PLAN Scale: A6.10 GTDRAGE / ECTRKAL METER AND WIN PANEL P� GAS METER I f ff f I !1 ABOVE SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-21O LOMA VISTA LA OUINTA, CA 92253 ILL 59'BILL a•mAx11LXM K SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP 78365 HIGHWAY 111 PMB 332 021e 2015 SOPIGIP RE-sUBMITTAL LA OUINTA, CA 92253 011152015 SDP/CUPRE-MITTAL LICf12754 EXP. 4/30114 T: 760 777 9131 F: 760 777 9132 r r HIGHL GUSS _ 4/ RODF LINE Engineering • Planning • Survey •Environmental The Altum Group 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 L. 760.346.4750 TheAltumGroup.Com F. 760340,0089 I11 11 YI 11 l II 11 ROOFLINE I I I I ABOVE I I lfj IN I III II I II IV I II 11 I — r1 IN I II I II 11 1 II IN I II II I II II I IL II I 11 II I II Ir I II II I • 711 Ir ll , III II I pv_ l III II / r / / / / / / / r / HIGH GU155 10U SILL / / __------_.-- PREST • VUKSIC A R C H I T E C T S 4.53E SA11 PAOW AV6 $1B PALM DESERT, CA T: 760 779 5393 F: 760 779 5395 0 FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN Scale: ........... Shee.i A2.10 4 ~ i PLANT LIST SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON AME SIZE WATER USE PLANT LIST SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL NAME SIZE KA1% TREES. PALMS Q SPECIMENS COMMON NAME USE SHR e5, 4 r.AG-, i •ARKIN6pNIA PRAGLO% bo. BO% O? LOW -AL ' ALO B A' 4'-b' LALI'GI! T M,wf.OVIL W'A Rgtp,e %ApJiiLl' '. bAL 05 MOD ]] ApAvy •wRe{Y� R6+RD cIwKB' 16AL O� LOW I] A6AVG AMMILANA 'LlNTVRY RAM' IB 6AL 03 LOW LOW s I6 6AL O� LOW LLLL PALO VlRDB' 4'-0' LALI�GR TAL141t6 AOA�• ] NAIIDINA DOIQ6TILA -mAVGNLY BAMBOO" B bAL OD MOD i 2 — w D?+24r:GA wNA" B bAL 03 MOD AGALIA bRE5611 00" •OX O- LOW IT CGMINO — 6RUBONII 20' VIA 03 LOW 'LATLLAW ALALIA' 4'E' LALIRR —LDBN BARRGL LAGM' B ALNYLlRGU5 MARBINAM 'TSXILAN IB bAL MOD t i RNLG ] EOIIkA�MI1LLBA Rd40+�f." 05 6 bAL 03 MOD GHILOFl6 Llid'ARI6 60° BO% 09 MOO ' RMtT WILLOW' 4'{r' LALIRR LAG6ALIINIA NLLNGRRIMA B bAL OZ LOW 3 TGD BIRD Or IARADI6G" IB ONNrIA •A6ILARIO B 6AL 03 LOW •j ! �ILI'BRA WA6N 11B IA LALI�OIWIA ' BAN IALM' Nr ]4' LALI�GR 2 03 MOD '/ Cam. 0 (_ Ri I] BOInAINVILLG. HARBARA IGARST' ■RAL. •TK O'j MOG L 'IblNIX ROGBGLBNII ]d' BOX OD MOD W NOWLV6 bLONlMM AIIAN BLVG M6' bAL OE MOO U' TYbMY DATG OALM' �wtw ✓wGDO.y4LII I�'-]D" LALIRIG 4B' BOX B LANE6 MIN 03 LOW (((��� fjtr •4' bd DALZALCA I" 'TRAILINb B bA, O5 y ! AbAVG 616ALANA '616A ' ]d' BOX 03 LOW IIIDI60 INVI1 9 G\II•BM bRCtk (tyzT' s bx. es � JJJ..ggq'''���. tl DA6YLIRION LONbIBbIMA T4!%ILIUA.'N bRA85 TRBB" 03 LO IPOLIA ] JMMIR!IR6'4 IX 36 b6AALLNOLOS -MCN T NOLINA 24' BX o SHRUBS :t CACTI (� W IB LANTANA MOULVE;M OCK Oi MOD {SAPS M BBNNA 'DBYRTIS—ILA a O-. 03 LOW Bd1LpBR5 TO MATLH NATURAL •V',���'Y� GA661A' ® MINVb NATURAL DGLOMIOBGD bRAN11G 49 LtULO.•rvLLVM LAtiBA•AKM 5 bAL 03 LOW ALL ALL LIlr I SILL BLORB TO BC OTAINBD W/ NATINA' LOLOR TO BG LOMPLIMBNTARY TO GXI6TIN6 ROLK 44 LGULO'NYLLLM Al11NO6UM SIMIV. ­T' B bAL O� LOW � 4T LAGRRGA TRIDBNTATA RlOBOIG BURN' S 6AL 03 LOW A} d! GNGGLIA 1ARINO6A S 6AL 03 LOW ]B 3 TN.lDUbN' TAbGTGS 12MONII "C9'RR MgMTAIN DAI6Y" B 6AL OS MOD IB BO.asIN.•ILLlw iw Tom' 66AL OJ MOD a RL50lLIA Bd116BTI1ORM16 'LORAL 5 OAL OS MOD �,��yy s •OIMfAIN' LALLI6TBMON VIMINALI9 'LITTLl JOMN' B6AL 03 MOD TGGOMA 9TAN9 6 6AL OS MOD ] G+SR:OOA 9 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LOMA VISTA • LA OUINTA, CA 92253 IWO S11B11191TAL6/FIEV5101,16 7 HERMANN DESIGNGROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITTECTURE (: • Engineering Planning • P R EST V U KS I C 09/22/2015 SUP/CUP RE-SUBNInAL PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT 77A �,LQ -survey •Environmental ARCHITECT S SUITEL1020AD The Altum Group PALM DESERT, CA 92211 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE. STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA LICA 2754 EXP. 4/30116 T:760.777.9131 L 760,346.4750 TheAltumGroup.coln f 760.340,0089 T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779.5395 F: 760.777.9132 ATTACHMENT 4 ILLUSTRATIVE PLANTING PLAN swlG: YC = V-0• 'Sh661: L2.0 `` `�.,� Imo^ z--•,s,�x.1� � �'� --._ �� '�_--�__._— ��—,y � �'� I p -�sj � -. �....__��� j't- y�..• 1E ��r �Sy�t� �'a _ J�f --_.� � A A derI 1S� ram... I• 4�t a4 � ,,it.,,..�- � ! w _ -_-�+- (!,J :7i l• ]n g'I• `-y,�'• �� j'i �•�'�i`"„}-jY�„ ,. M.sc - ri u_^r. = ar+,��;�°`+"s 1 � �_ _ /' � � v� :: � �� fir® ���'�'��' � �; , ��► :�,� "��-r,�,,, _ ' � .��= h+r F41 $0I - VC' ram+ iy 471 r � -cr + ; - •t..- '. �!;'� *�/ II^' 'tv '.' � � \ f �>f rA� Tom' ji�'- _Tj�r�15• ' � ��� � ': � I - �t..,T� A �t� Jy ,�,° ^�Ay7 ^•an5 � � � �r+` 1�[M��'�'+ �- !Zi �,"� l�' lit\ •/f` `f,.� t bilk .I� �„ "w , ,; A y N A r .•f �I `fir •"-.�«J"r •^�' ,�. \'rP: pf �Lr- \ � '�F ,w. w k 4T 'GR �1ATA 5 eK O] LOW �� \ # ^■�� � � --- -_ , PLANT LIST ]5 TACH:ICD 12MONII 5 eK 03 MOD SYMBOL OTY. BOO .'I(,,A� NAME SIZE WATER - -- f. !'LANT i 5 50ubAINVI 2A LA tlL A' S eK oa MOD GOMON AME USE O SYMBOL QTY. SIZE WAT F4yf]�TA'I`.'{I AI�1 .NA E ER a —IA eaulxrlronr+le 5eK oa MOD VINES 0 6ROUNPGOVCIt [r4IMM�N IW'iM USE !.ORAL PO�MfAIN• „ ,PALMS ! 5f�EG!I NS O ; .—IBTG40N VIMIWLLI6 'CITIES JOIM' a eK 03 MOD 3 .NVITUB rAMMRI001MLIA 5 OK OS MOD - �B TSLOMA BTAN6 5 bK OD MOD ® `d MAW S A.L OS MOD ; 1 � �, 1r�Ty, ��UfJJJ a.DLD eTAR• 30J�!iEl�]�LC?GK L1 �� �y ��.1`i3i} �� 5 r 11 A'I—% 4�6eG'llr'lla O] LOW ® Pa.1.DCV TO MATLM NATLRAL tl -`a 1 �] 1 Q I] Lhp.'SBA G,•1KWTA' Bl•/inY 5 6K OD MOD ® � �'L•� 4J ®w 5/O MINX, W- HILL f ldAyl D!W^rd^f^AW YANtlBATA 5 OK O] lqV ALL GVr SILL eLORO TO BTAIW NATINA' \ , ,\ �LE••AA�+J��j-j COLOR TO tY cO/TLIMSNTARY TO "'I ROGK �`v 5 T MALLSIIDSIIeIA RIOIDA NAeNNLLS' S eK OD MOD. B� .A1LN 'LRSBTA• RIJd[yi ^`• ]3 AbAVS �wRRYi nT.IRO LNO,4' I BK O] LCMN \\ \ � � � • iI IARKINBGNIA RLRIDLN --SOK O] LOW I] A5AV5 AMpIILANA 15 6K O] LOW 'l. TLIT. HALO VC•DS' 4'-0' LKI�SR LSMIIRY •CANT' Y • A}A AL"A- 156K O]LOW , ,� II R ] —IA6RMBI1 b' e0X O] LON Y��y W ] NANDIW DOMSBTIGA '1lAVSNLY 5ME00' 5 eK 05 MOD LATLLAW KKIA' 4'-0' LKIRI• ® ] >LK•i?:W L•c•r.,s.T�Lw. N+NA 5 OK 05 MOD i O 11 GNINOGKI00 ORU50NII eewDeN SARRSL LK9 ]O" DIA O] LOW � *. � ' ] LNILO'IB LINSAIUO BO' BO% 05 MOD O 5 N1L11(LGI0J8 MAbINATUe VVVI✓✓� 9505RT WILLOW' 4'-0' LKI�SR ] —cmRNLS ■OBT CpMAMVILLG 1r05CiKA• 5 bK o5 MOD 1 i M LTT O' 5 eK O] LOW , ` '� t b WA5111NbTONIA FILII 'cKI�OIWIA FAN /KM' 15' NT ]4' —1— 05 MOD 19 1511D S IB! 01�N.L+IIA CABILARIB 5 bK O] lOW ] MIOLNI%ROCo6.[NII ].'BOX OSMOD VINES (yJ T•bMY DAIS ACM' 5 F- JIwSA MKppµyALl, ^NR ID'-]5' LKIf•Gl 45' B LAIS9 MIN /^�\ 11 M B AI—I-LSA DMSAM x T. NONAJIO eL014RATJB B eAt OTIC I OK Be MO0 OD MOD 13A�+7 4 ABAVS BIBALI�NA 'eIBK' 24' wS0x O] LOW © e4 NAI4VIAN GLEE SYSB' DKSA OR55611 BeAL.. O] LOW y'1 .. 5 pYLi>ON LbwO'.BBIMA bRASe TRCS' ]A' DOK +-'OHYT'NL O] LOW B TMILINB INDI60 BUBN' f�ii.Ff�'bRCi OAIIRr• 56K oB MOD S +.. Al , T NOLINA �ARRYI ® 24' SOX O] LOW NOLINA' 5HRUB5 It GAGTI. u eeNNA N5MwN1u 95BSRT LABBIA• 56K .]—SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE •Engineering •Planning • P R EST V U KS I C SWENSON R�SIDENCE N/22/2015 SUP CUP RE-SUMM / PLANNING PROJECTMOLF •Survey • Environmental 77�SUITE A R C H I T E C T S at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES OAENT 102 The Altum Group 77-21D LOMA VISTA • LA OUINTA, CA 92253 PALM DESERT, CA 92211 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE, STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA LICB 2754 E%P. 4/30116 T: 760.777,9131 L760,346.4750 TheAlturnGroup,com L760.340.0089 T: 760.779.5393 F: 760.779,5395 " F: 760.777.9132 5/ WME! PLANTING PLAN A Scale: Y" = r-0• ShBBO L2.1 ................ ....... • Mal or• FREE 0 L P. 0 `' JI NMI �'Mqqmi adElm MA SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES 77-210 LOMA VISTA - LA QUINTA, CA 92253 "I''��l►C-�; �'^ y �. -w . � . • s �" � � / Illy[✓�!f JT�Sl3 J 'ice L WN LW F4 Z� 0'!q or ALM o-'I W m IIi WN X Gil SUBMIRTAIS/FEVOONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP E ARCH] LANDSCAP ANNI 0 TECTURE Engineering Morning PREST - VUKSIC 09/22/2015 SDP/CUP RE-SUNTPL PROJECT MANAGEMENT EIES Survey Enwonra—t.l 77-899 WOLF OAD The A] turn Gmup A R C H I T E C T S SUITE 1 2 PALM DESERT, CA 92211 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44-530 SAN PABLO AVE STE 20D PALM DESERT, CA LICO 2754 EXP. 4/30116 1. 760.346.4750 TheAltumGroup.com E 760 340.0089 T: 760.779-5390 F: 760-779.5395 T: 760,777.9131 F: 760.777.9132 PLANTING PLAN B Sheet: L2.2 1 ATTACHMENT 5 1 QO mod o© LOT 16 48685 I �.-- - .:tit $ n W. VfEW r j f iT 4-i G � y"yid,.• _.5PROPOSE(! { -•� -/ •� i !� '; � ,'� r•+l- ,,r. _.�.. �°`` `' e �aII�ENCE 7 �' ti U�e•� .,.+' � VIE Jf __ . LOT 21 77220 „• /•j `.. `w ` LOT 17 7. 48705 VIE s f LOT 20 77240 '�: `�', �4 - .`�} L ti'Y /'"`� % �..��s11:j`*µ ,• i. . \` rf VIEW LOT 18 48725 r _ mot.❑ ri LOT 19 rJ G 77270 z OVERALL SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUP �—I� ' Engineering • Planning P R EST V U KS C SWENSON RESIDENCE 76365NTACA9225 U PMB 332 Survey • Environmental VIEW KEY PLAN B3,B 7ms SD -UP LA pUNTA, CA 92253 The Altum Group ARCH I T E C T S Pee-sueMmu Scale: tns• = 1'-0" LICN 2754 E%P 4/30114 73-710 Fred WaringDrive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44.530 SAN PABLO AVE STE PALM DESERT, CA at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES T:7607779131 sneer 77-210 LOMA VISTA LA QUINTA, CA 92253 F: 760 777 9132 t 760.346 4750 TheAlt—GmuP.com f 760 340 0089 T: 760 779 5393 F: 760 779 5395 A1.01 n I SUB MITTALS/REVISIONS SWENSON RESIDENCE 77 THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES H ERMANN DESIGN GROUP LA QUINTA CA 92253 NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS Group d Waring Drive, Suite 219, Palm Desert, CA 92260 44 5 PREST • VUKSIC A R CTO AVE STE PALM DESERT H T E C T C PHOTO SIMULATION YOUNG TREES Sheet VIEW Al SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUPk F 760 777 9132 NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS Su ➢e B Ee.oi�o mee.talGroup PREST • VUKSIC so:Ra�TO AVE STET EPALM DESERTCC o:s E PHOTO SIMULATION ��Sheet MATURE TREES VIEW A2 ON Rol yhiw IT gym$. �.i r OIC IT TV 41 y I ITIT Tel. kr .r y IF -^ IT AL kPkPPP h. P/tP1 .5 .1 <� 011ee �NNP411„ ti1�k11 1�1y1�i�IVi,I,��I,Ie ITT' . e �� •. 11y�10+y,1,i e 9 p�44, a nk9PPPIPIPPPI,P,�,�k�,�P,�,li,4Py o 9P .yf<III SOPN{�- e d er r ai. 4PPSf�i_St', � rer1' i rur;b!,,, S+yrnk9nk.. ,�c SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUPk F 760 777 9132 NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS Su ➢e B Ee.oi�o mee.talGroup PREST • VUKSIC so:Ra�TO AVE STET EPALM DESERTCC o:s E PHOTO SIMULATION ��Sheet MATURE TREES VIEW B2 SWENSON RESIDENCE at THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES SUBMITTALS/REVISIONS HERMANN DESIGN GROUPk F 760 777 9132 NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS Su ➢e B Ee.oi�o mee.talGroup PREST • VUKSIC so:Ra�TO AVE STET EPALM DESERTCC o:s E PHOTO SIMULATION ��Sheet YOUNG TREES VIEW C1 f 3: r h 1 on l• :l ^ ,\ 'r a i : , �, Ar •y ffloam% no Oe ; 1•. 'r' a: • fir., i\ • 'i. _ OF on lo' on Lo W S no,' t a1 `•. `, �' 1} r .� Ctt C �tia,r .,•' M t�. } .,. �� ,•. „Lts,:� it y` y on on � F �v, ! - 'non v or n 1 .j'd.w'7at`P3 P a� ♦ tno i - a:+�' t.,re 4 toe ,e V d B z a' VOW oV 3: fI Aji 1 v. _'1 n, _ .Fa.. .., ivYa WBKtt ,.., - `T`, "lVp ... IV IV I i �4f+% r . SUB MITTALS/REVISIONS SWENSON RESIDENCE 77 THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES iOr lar V4 Cc It i h p NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS HERMnNNoESIGN,�ROUP �� s ve g e�a�,OTe,a, PREST VUKSIC CIA AOUTheAltumGroup Scale 54ESP COO 710Frdiv Waring Dr,Suite u 9, m sert,CA92260 Aso:Rs,3C H I T E COTSS �UO Sheet <. PHOTO SIMULATION YOUNG TREES VIEW E1 SUB MITTALS/REVISIONS SWENSON RESIDENCE 77 THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES iOr lar V4 Cc It i h p NOTE: COLOR OF ADDED BOULDERS IS VARIED FROM EXISTING TERRAIN SO IT IS VISIBLE FOR CLARITY. FINAL BOULDER COLOR IS TO BLEND IN WITH ADJACENT EXISTING BOULDER FORMATIONS HERMnNNoESIGN,�ROUP �� s ve g e�a�,OTe,a, PREST VUKSIC CIA AOUTheAltumGroup Scale 54ESP COM4 FredWaring Dr,Suite u 9, m alm sert,CA92260 A R C H I T E C T S �UO Sheet 1.60.3 PHOTO SIMULATION MATURE TREES VIEW E2 Ott Y4l Pet r x 1 111 • m,l, M.A.,bra'. '� ?`.� •�`A;�C2� •fir �`Y^6t�pr �� By�r �5�vr ^kit: Ott Y4l Pet r x 1 111 • m,l, M.A.,bra'. '� ?`.� •�`A;�C2� •fir �`Y^6t�pr �� By�r �5�vr ^kit: F Art — JOE V SWENSON RESIDENCE 77 THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES Pit sir a % r^• F r ; , INC2iIV ap N kPIP r III f.BIR l Is F III III loB, PER It ra mp w fliIt,� r•Y %.. JIM _ Is Ad 'Ito It a al �. ^� �:. Tor AY 4, It �1� MAPPI Path AV tit jt,PG F UP, t i M �i • "• �.PIG I it 'de Fet " JL see N Is sueMirrA�siRevisioNs HeRMnNN DesicN GROUP �� su r e e o me a P R EST n V U KS I C VIEW KEY PLAN aou7NTScale EPA » FredLW 2754W Drive, Suite 219,Pm Desert, ert,CA 2260 A 779 RAC H I T E C T S L� Sheet 607779 <.Pso.f. VIEW H x - re I / - �.. I "�1 IF ma, ,i J_ Y 1.4:� IF*t'.'✓ILA Aide ,� L,. I !. F 1 r.SL �s y t i e IITl II ;PP" T aa III LL pp `e IF IF Fe IF FI ip A� d' �lb F. Alf 14 m �tIF all, j�� FIF iIF all mI IVF IT It :,ta _ -- —OF" a ve adiddr, "Fail. ddd��Fp IF -M r: I -Iall Fla: araraaareve.A.M.A.- 14 IF ram` Rrs:i� :' Ila x - re I / �.. A "�1 Aide A IF I �`J' J_ YJ 1. L `6 4ek ad :� w' '. '.'✓� i.. L,i I !. F 1 a dim ej�tIII eF11% rye ea. r.SL �s y lft.t i e a OF, f ate a- Few iff jddipF ad all, IF t:* aye n� `e r - � Fe IF f p , i � ,gym ip Y �� ,� wed, f FaL jade. 47�4`414 m �tF.4111111t F.IF all, IF j� iNear }}� v fe Oa I Ada a Far a all al Fa .. _If aa OF nx s fa ve adiddr, "Fail. iddIi—P If eFaI -M _,-- . , ail — T�— r: Flat_ ram` Rrs:i� Ila o, 'ip' 'VY low ITT 't Ir -TV TT- . 9 lrr _: .- Y ATTACHMENT 6 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 1 of 36 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Response to Comments This response to comments has been prepared to address correspondence received on the Initial Study distributed for Environmental Assessment 2013-630. Comments germane to the Initial Study have been extracted from the letters. The comments made by each respondent are provided first, followed by the City's response. The complete letters are appended to this report. Coachella Valley Water District January 12, 2016 Comment 1: The project site is subject to potential flooding for offsite Stormwater flows that may include debris flow from the nearby foothills. Flood protection measures for the project shall mitigate the potential for local drainage, which includes offsite flows and on -site drainage in accordance with California Drainage Law. The flood protection measures shall ensure that Stormwater flows are received onto the property and discharges in a manner that is reasonably compatible with predevelopment (pre-existing) conditions. Response 1: Comment noted. The project's hydrology study provides for on -site flow control and retention, and does not increase flows beyond those in the current condition. Comment 2: The project site is currently designated as Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps, which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Response 2: Comment noted. Comment 3: CVWD holds domestic water and sanitation easement rights within this parcel. Said easement was dedicated on Tract No. 26251 as filed in Book 244 of maps, at Pages 90 and 91, records of Riverside County. A copy of said easement is enclosed for your reference. The existing CVWD easement and facilities will be in conflict with the proposed residence. CVWD requests that the landowner coordinate the facilities relocation and quitclaim the easement before proceeding with this construction. Response 3: Comment noted. The City is aware of the easement, and has directed the applicant that compliance with the District's requirements and easement vacation will be required prior to construction of the proposed project. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 2 of 36 Comment 4: The project site is located adjacent to a conservation area within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and therefore must comply with the applicable land use adjacency requirements. Response 4: Please see Initial Study Biological Resources section. The adjacency requirements are listed as mitigation measures. Comment 5: Please include CVWD on all future public notices regarding this project. Response 6: Comment noted. The commenter has been added to the public hearing notification list for the project. Patti and Michael Mergener January 21, 2016 Comment 1: We own a home that sits below the Swenson's building site and we are concerned that the proposed home will impact many of us along the Mountain Estates storm channel. As it is the storm channel that runs behind our properties was unable to withstand a substantial rainfall in both August of 2013 and September of 2014. Adding more hardscape and redirecting the rain water will have an adverse effect on the storm channel and its ability to keep rain water out of our properties in the future. We have had serious flooding and major damage to our home and our neighbor's homes after significant rains caused the storm channel to fail and it has taken many of us much time and money to get back some semblance of normal. Response 1: The applicant has been required to prepare a preliminary hydrology study to meet City standards. Those standards include demonstrating that the proposed project will discharge the same quantity of storm flow or less in the built condition as it did in the pre -construction condition. The project hydrology study proposes to meet this requirement through a system of storm drains and retention areas designed to contain the 100 year storm. The applicant will not be permitted to construct the home until the final hydrology study has been reviewed and approved by the City. The City's requirements are consistent with those of all municipalities, and assure that 100 year storm events do not result in impacts to surrounding downstream properties. Please see Hydrology discussion in the Initial Study. Comment 2: We also very concerned about the movement of the rocks above home and the effect it will have on the surrounding neighbors. The breaking and moving of hundreds of tons of rocks will be quite jarring to the structures and could possibly collapse the natural hillside. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 3 of 36 Response 2: Extensive and thorough geotechnical analysis has been completed for the proposed project, including analysis of rockfall potential. As stated in the Initial Study, the geotechnical analysis to date has been reviewed and approved by the County Geologist, the City's expert reviewer in geotechnical matters, and the final designs will be reviewed and approved by a geologist. These multiple tiers of review are designed to assure that impacts associated with hazards associated with the construction of the project will have less than significant impacts. Comment 3: Also we have seen Bighorn sheep up in the hills near the building site; am concerned that they will be displaced as well as other wildlife we have enjoyed seeing over the years. Response 3: The site is outside the critical habitat for bighorn sheep. There are bighorn sheep in the surrounding mountains, and their habitat occurs at elevation above those of the project site. As described in the Biological Resources section of the Initial Study, and the project specific biological resource report, the project biologist did not find any evidence of sheep on the site, but concluded that sheep in the range above the site could wander onto the site. As a result, recommendations and mitigation measures are included in the Initial Study, in addition to and consistent with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). These include the presence of a biological monitor during construction, and the requirement for fencing of the area above the proposed project and adjacent lands, should sheep be identified in the area on a regular basis. Implementation of these mitigation measures will assure that impacts to bighorn sheep are reduced to less than significant levels. Comment 4: Building in the hills in La Quinta (Riverside County) is against building codes although it is said this lot is grandfathered but by building anything 50 feet above the valley floor will change a beautiful neighborhood vista that will be forever scarred by the proposed construction. The moratorium on building in the hills above the valley floor was instituted for many good reasons. Response 4: The project site is located 32 feet above the surrounding grade. The project site is within a Specific Plan boundary that was approved prior to the enactment of the City's Hillside Overlay regulations. The Hillside Overlay regulations specifically exempt Specific Plans approved prior to the enactment of the Overlay from its provisions. Comment 5: The Swenson have proposed artificial rock and landscaping as a solution to hide some of their hillside lengthy driveway and six thousand Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 4 of 36 square foot home but faux rock is not the same as natural and all planted landscaping is susceptible to insects, disease and drought. Response 5: The rock proposed for the retaining wall on the south and east sides of the pad is not faux rock, but real rock. Faux rock is not only proposed at the base of the rockfall protection wall on the west side of the access driveway. Landscaping for the project is conditioned to be irrigated and maintained. In addition, the Homeowners' Association's rules and regulations are sure to require that landscaping on any lot within the Enclave is maintained. Comment 6: Lighting and sound carries a long way when place on a 50-foot-high podium. I am sure the Swenson are a normally active, young family but moving into a community where 95% of the neighborhood are senior and / or retired may lead to noise issues concerning the whole community. Response 6: Comment noted. As described in the Initial Study, the proposed project will result in a single family home, and will generate noise levels consistent with single family homes throughout the City. These noise levels will not exceed the City's standards, nor are they expected to result in an impact on surrounding properties. Please note that the proposed home will be 32 feet above the surrounding lands. Comment 7: Privacy is another big issue. A home site 50 feet above all your neighbors in the Mountain Estates, The Enclave and Santa Rosa Cove allow easy viewing of formerly private pools, patios and bedroom windows. Landscaping is not the only solution since it can easily die or be blown over in our wind storms. Privacy walls surrounding the immediate housing site (not the property line) would provide personal privacy for the Swenson (or to whom they sell the house) and the surrounding neighbors. Response 7: The home site is located 32 feet above the street grade of Loma Vista. As described in the Initial Study, and shown in the visual simulations prepared for the project, the home has been relocated to the north, and reduced in size to address issues associated with views from the neighbors to the home. The applicant has also provided extensive landscaping on the slopes of the lot which are located to block views, both from the homes below to the project site, and from the project site into the neighboring yards. Please see Response 5 as it relates to the maintenance of landscaping. There is no wall proposed around the project site, nor is one required by the Zoning Ordinance or the Specific Plan. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 5 of 36 Thomas J. Nolan January 21, 2016 Comment 1: The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Notice of Intent") does not comply with our due process rights as it was not properly served in conformance with governing provisions. Response 1: Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides explicit direction on the distribution of a Notice of Intent, as follows: "The lead agency shall mail a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing and shall also give notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration by at least one of the following procedures to allow the public the review period provided under Section 15105: (1) Publication at least one time by the lead agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project... (2) Posting of notice by the lead agency on and off site in the area where the project is to be located. (3) Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of contiguous property shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. In this case, the City sent both the Notice of Intent and the Initial Study to the commenter, who had requested that the Notice and Initial Study be provided to him, and published the Notice in the Desert Sun. Therefore, the distribution and publication of the Notice of Intent complied with applicable law. Comment 2: The Notice of Intent contains falsehoods and does not take into consideration readily available information that would establish the inaccuracies contained in the Notice of Intent. Response 2: The Notice of Intent accurately reflects the proposed project, and complies with the requirements of law. The commenter does not provide any evidence that the Notice contains any falsehoods or inaccuracies. Comment 3: The proposed project is inaccurately described in the Notice of Intent and is inconsistent with the final plans submitted to the Architectural Review Committee and Board of Directors of The Enclave Mountain Estates. Response 3: The commenter provides no evidence as to how the project is inaccurately described, or how it does not comply with the final plans. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 6 of 36 The Notice of Intent and the Initial Study accurately reflect the plans re- submitted to the City in May and November of 2015, and are consistent with the plans shown in the Settlement Agreement with the Enclave Homeowners' Association. Comment 4: The Notice of Intent misrepresents that the referenced project has been approved by the EME HOA, as it makes no reference to the conditions attached to the EME HOA's Board approval. Response 4: Comment noted. Comment 5: The proposed project will be built "into the ridge line adjacent to the San Jacinto Santa Rosa Mountain Conservancy" the objective of which is to preserve the mountains. The proposed project is located in an area designated by the City as an "Open Space District." It is also located in the Hillside Conservation Overlay District. The Swenson Project does not comply with sections 9.110.070 and 9.110.050 of the Municipal Code. Response 5: The proposed project will be built below the ridgeline, on a previously graded pad site. The proposed project is designated Low Density Residential in the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. Please see Mergener Response 4 as it related to the Hillside Overlay. As provided in Municipal Code Section 9.120.020, a single family home is permitted in the Open Space zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Comment 6: In direct contradiction of statements set forth in the Notice of Intent there is recent evidence of the presence of bighorn sheep on the site and immediately adjacent thereto. The proposed site is populated by and frequently visited by the peninsular bighorn sheep, which is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Nolans and other neighbors have personally observed, within the last several months, several bighorn sheep grazing on and around the project site. At a hearing before the Planning Commission, the Nolans and other neighbors will present photographic and testimonial declarations attesting to numerous and recent bighorn sheep sightings on the project site and the immediate hillsides bordering the proposed project. For that reason, we expressly wish to present evidence to impeach the so- called findings of only bighorn sheep "scat" droppings in the vicinity and the representation by Ms. Criste in the Notice of Intent that the "scat" findings were old. Response 6: Please see Mergener Response 3. The commenter does not present any evidence of bighorn sheep sightings. However, as provided in the Initial Study, if bighorn sheep are documented on or around the project site, the provisions of the MSHCP's Required Measure 11 will be Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 7 of 36 implemented, including fencing or functional equivalent along the length of not only the project site, but the Enclave Mountain Estates and lands beyond, as determined appropriate by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. As relates to the findings of the biologist, not Ms. Criste, they are documented in the biological resource study prepared for the project site. Comment 7: The proposed project's drainage design is inadequate. The Applicant has failed to submit to the HOA, as was a precondition of the conditional HOA approval of the project, a sufficient hydrology and geotechnical data, to establish the proposed drainage system would not further burden the EME's storm water channel. At any hearing before the Planning Commission the Nolans will present substantial hydrology studies prepared by Waldorf and La Quinta Resort questioning the integrity, design and capacity of the EME's storm channel. Although requested of their engineers, the Swensons' application does not address the voluminous studies prepared in the litigation styled, Waldorf=Astoria Management LLC v. The Enclave Mountain Estates Homeowners Association, Case No. PSC 1402611, pending before the Honorable David M. Chapman ("Waldorf litigation"), which suit is presently scheduled for trial on March 8, 2016 in Department 2 of the Palm Springs Superior Court. As designed, the proposed drainage system could very well exasperate alleged drainage issues at the site of the EME storm water channel and materially contribute to flooding risks to at least the McVeigh and Nolan residence sites. Response 7: The City is not a party to the Settlement Agreement between the Homeowners' Association and the applicant. If the applicant is in violation of that Agreement, it is the responsibility of the Association to address the issue. As regards the City's review of the project, the applicant has submitted a preliminary hydrology study that has been reviewed by the City, and determined to meet the City's standards for the conveyance of storm flows, including catch basins, storm drains and retention areas. The City will review the final hydrology study when grading plans are submitted for review, and will require that the applicant demonstrate that its standards have been met. As relates to the lawsuit between the Homeowners' Association and Waldorf Astoria, the applicant's hydrology study has been prepared to meet the City's analytic and hydrologic requirements for the control and conveyance of the 100 year storm, as required by law. The lawsuit between third parties is not germane, and has, as we understand it, been settled by the parties. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 8 of 36 Comment 8: In conclusion, and at a minimum, the Planning Commission should order the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report in regards to the Swensons' proposed project. In addition, no action should be taken until after a full evaluation of the proposed drainage system after conclusion of the referenced Waldorf litigation. Response 8: As described in the Initial Study, the proposed project will not result in any impact on the environment that cannot be mitigated. The City has correctly determined that the proposed project is subject to a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please see Nolan Response 7 as it relates to the litigation. Paul Wondries January 11, 2016 Comment 1: On February 27,2014 1 sent a letter to the Planning Division of the City of La Quinta opposing the project. A copy of that letter is enclosed for you review. Since then, I became president of the Enclave Mountain Estates HOA which is the governing body of the Mountain Estates. During my presidency, I became very familiar with the Swenson project and in the spring of 2015 the HOA approved the project with some significant requirements involving the control of groundwater runoff, construction of an adequate storage area for the groundwater runoff, the construction of the driveway and walls to protect the adjacent residents from both light and noise issues. I don't see where there is any reference in your Declaration referring to any of these requirements. Response 1: The City is not a party to the agreement between the applicant and the Homeowners' Association. The Association has the responsibility and ability to enforce its agreement with the applicant, not the City. Comment 2: My initial concerns, as outlined in my February 27, 20141etter to the Planning Division Case# CUP 2013-152 still exist. I still feel that the project interferes with the Aesthetics of the area. Their proposed look- out area located above their proposed home site is on a "Ridge Line" which will have to be modified to accommodate the Look -Out area. Response 2: Comment noted. Comment 3: While the Swenson's have modified the size of their project, there will still be a significant amount of the existing hillside which will have to be removed in order to allow the construction of the home. This will result in significant Scaring of the hillside. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 9 of 36 Response 3: Comment noted. The Initial Study acknowledges and addresses the need for rock to be removed from the property at the northwest corner of the home. This area will be covered by a retaining wall, designed to the specifications and recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer, and approved by the City. Comment 4: Even with their modifications, I believe they will still be in violation of 9.140.040 HC hillside conversion regulation subsection F with specific attention to fill slopes, rock outcropping and the above mentioned hillside scaring. Response 4: Please see Mergener Response 4. Comment 5: 1 don't believe that your Mitigated Negative declaration report adequately addressed these items and in general did not adequately address the impact this project will have on the adjacent home owners. Response 5: The Initial Study addresses all potential impacts associated with the project, and is supported by extensive technical analysis. The Initial Study has determined that the project will have a less then significant impact on the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures provided in the document. Comment 6: 1 am still of the opinion that the owner is entitled to develop his property but that development must take into consideration all of the requirements which were put in place by the HOA. One of the main reasons for the HOA requirements was due to the Sept. 2014 flood which severely damaged numerous Enclave Mountain Estates homes. While I don't know how much responsibility the Swenson property accounted for in the flood damage to our homes,that responsibility might be determined in the current litigation between a group of Enclave Mountain Estates homeowners who were damaged in both the 2013 and 2014 floods and the management of the La Quinta Resort and Golf Course. Response 6: Comment noted. The hydrology study prepared for the proposed project has been reviewed by the City, and complies with the requirements of law. The applicant will be required to retain the 100 year storm event on the site, and has provided facilities that will do so. The City Engineer will again review the final hydrology study prior to the issuance of grading permits, to assure that the storm drainage facilities are adequate and consistent with the construction plans. Please see Nolan Response 7 as it relates to the litigation. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 10 of 36 Paul Wondries February 27, 2014 (attached to letter above) Comment 1: 1 am a home owner at 48-725 Via Sierra, (Enclave Mountain Estates) La Quinta, Calif. and I am totally against the issuance of a CUP for Case# CUP 2013-152. The project as proposed interferes with AESTHETICS of the area, damages ridgeline rock outcropping and directly interferes with the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. If the CUP is approved and the project is completed, the residence will be placed immediately above a minimum of 7 homes with direct line of sight looking down into and thru the windows of those homes. This is wrong to allow. Response 1: Comment noted. Please see Mergener Response 7. Comment 2: The project as proposed is in conflict with Title 9 Zoning, Chapter 9.140 Supplemental Special Purpose Regulations, Specifically 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations, subsection C which states that no development shall be approved for slopes exceeding twenty percent. As I have been told by the owner, it is their intention to enlarge the existing building pad through the use of intensive fill in areas that exceed slopes of twenty percent. Next, in 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations subsection F addresses Grading Plans with specific attention to the avoidance of excessive building, fill slopes, rock outcroping and the scaring effects on the hillsides from grading. Finally in 9.110.070 HC hillside conversation overlay district under A. Purpose and Intent specifically spells out the intent of the hillside conversation regulations for the protection and conservation of the hillside ecosystems of the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. Response 2: Please see Mergener Response 4. William Urquhart, January 15, 2016 Comment 1: Over two years have passed with meetings occurring between the Swenson's, neighbors, the HOA and others. During this time the Swenson's have submitted several designs for a proposed residence at 77-210 Lorna Vista Street, including the latest one currently under review. We were told the redesigns are an effort to address neighbors and adjacent homeowner's comments/concerns about the Swenson project. These redesigns including the current one, under review, have been "minimal efforts" to address these comments/concerns because Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 11 of 36 nothing short of "No Project" will Mitigate the impacts to adjacent homeowners and other surrounding homeowners. Response 1: Comment noted. The applicant has submitted plans for a single family home on a legal lot. Comment 2: At the request of other homeowners on February 24, 2014 "story poles" were erected on the proposed site of the Swenson Project. The story poles were intended to show the location and height of structures that would be built including the home, the three car garage, the swimming pool and the multiple retaining walls intended to be built both on the main area of the project and on both sides of the 18 foot wide, 400 feet long driveway from the valley end of Lorna Vista up to the proposed building site 62 feet above the street. The story poles were installed in order to give the neighbors and interested City officials a better understanding of the size and height of the various structures as well as the location of each structure. Neighbors from both the Mountain Estates and the Enclave participated in the walk through. We feel the story poles were important in showing the impacts of the Proposed Swenson Project as it stood in 2014. It has been represented that the plans currently under review will eliminate some of our concerns. Based on the review of the plans themselves we are somewhat skeptical. In order for us -and the City -to fully assess the changes we think it is critical that any City body responsible for reviewing and making a decision regarding this Proposed Project needs "story poles" in place. We would ask that this occur in sufficient time for the public, adjacent homeowners, staff and most importantly the Planning Commission to study them and react in time to make objections and preserve our rights to appeal. Response 2: The proposed home will be located 32 feet above the grade of Loma Vista, not 62 feet above. The story poles erected in 2014 were for the previous project submitted by the applicant. Since that time, the applicant worked extensively with the Homeowners' Association, including installing story poles for the current, Association approved home prior to its approval by the Association. The applicant has prepared extensive visual simulations to demonstrate the location and extent of the revised project. These simulations are being used by the City to demonstrate the extent of the revised project, as they show actual building envelope, rather than poles in the ground. As regards the commenter's right to appeal, that right is not affected by the presence or absence of story poles. Comment 3: The Swenson's have applied for a Conditional Use Permit to build a dwelling unit and three car garage, of approx. 6,000 square feet plus swimming pool and other amenities including an elevated retreat area at Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 12 of 36 77-210 Lorna Vista. The reason the Swensons need a conditional use permit is because the project will be built "into the ridge line adjacent to the San Jacinto Santa Rosa Mountain Conservancy" the objective of which is to preserve the mountains. The proposed project is located in an area designated by the City as an "Open Space District". It is also located in the Hillside Conservation Overlay District. Therefore, the Swenson Project must comply with sections 9.110.070 and 9.110.050 of the Municipal Code. As discussed below it is irrelevant that the statutory regime was enacted after the lot was approved. In any event he purpose and intent of these sections is -among other things to: "To maximize the City's natural topographical features including mountain sides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines.... "To assure that the development ...will not be obtrusive because of the design and location of the development." "To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and fill slopes...." "To maximize the retention of vistas and natural topographical features including mountain sides, ridge lines.... The building should not be "visible above the ridgeline profile from the valley floor." We also understand the statutes bars the construction of roads that are visible from the valley floor. As will be demonstrated below, the latest iteration of Swenson Project fails to address the concerns of neighbors. In fact it flaunts both the letter and spirit of the hillside conservation and open space ordinances. The planned home will be obtrusive looming over 80 feet above the valley floor -visible from miles away. It will also block the mountain views of numerous residents who live nearby. Response 3: The proposed home will be located 32 feet above the grade of Loma Vista, not 80 feet above. The Conditional Use Permit is required because the project site is designated Open Space on the City's Zoning Map. In that zone, a Condition Use Permit is required for a single family home. The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, and has always, since the Enclave subdivision was included in the Specific Plan, been designated so. The project is not subject to the provisions of the Hillside Overlay. See Mergener Response 4. Comment 4: In order to put what follows in context is important to understand that the Swenson Project is a huge undertaking. The term buildable lot is Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 13 of 36 used loosely when describing this project. Just to be clear what the Swensons own now is not a usable building lot in its present state. It consists of a narrow dirt road leading to a flat surface toward the northern part of the property. The flat surface area is not big enough to build a 1500 square foot house let alone a 6,000 square foot house, dwelling unit and 3 car garage, plus swimming pool and other amenities including an elevated retreat area. To make the existing site "buildable" the Swenson Project will require: ■ Cutting into the side of the mountain to remove at least of 12 feet of the existing mountain face to accommodate the proposed Project (home). ■ The construction of a "driveway" that is over 400 feet long and 18 feet wide (wide enough to accommodate a large fire engine and sturdy enough to bear the weight)/ The proposed road will be on both sides with retaining walls extending up to six feet high. ■ The excavation of 10 feet of existing mountain face to widen the road to 18 feet and the replacement of that mountain face with a six foot high retaining rock fall protection wall. The existing natural rock will be replaced by faux rock. ■ Expansion of the building pad southward over 300 feet toward the property of existing homes. In all the existing building pad will be expanded by 75 per cent or over 18 thousand square feet. ■ The expansion of the pad will require the use of hundreds of tons of land fill and carving into the existing mountain side. ■ The construction of huge retaining walls hundreds of feet long to accommodate the hundreds of tons of landfill. ■ The use of faux rock on the exterior of the retaining walls between gaps in the existing ridgeline to accommodate a retaining wall that is hundreds of feet long. This huge, faux rock retaining wall faces the homes of many neighbors in the Mountain Estates including us, destroying the views of what is now a pristine ridgeline. ■ The roofline of the proposed home will peak at 18 feet. It will be at the southern end of the property and will destroy the views of many residents of both Mountain Estates and the Enclave. When construction is completed: Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 14 of 36 It will be literally the only structure visible from the valley of Santa Rosa Cove. The home's roofline would be about 80 feet above the valley floor where all the other homes in the Enclave and Mountain Estates are located and 60 feet above any other home in either the Mountain Estates or the Enclave. It would be capable of being seen from miles away. It can be seen from downtown La Quinta. It would be the highest man made structure in the entire City of La Quinta. It would be the only home that would be built into the side of the mountains in the entire the Santa Rosa Cove It will have direct views into the back yards, swimming pools and homes (in our case into our master bedroom, kitchen and family room of at least eight homes on Via Sierra and Lorna Vista and other homes in the Enclave. (I have climbed the site and there are direct view lines into the backyards of over 10 homes). I should note that the proposed plans also call for a "lookout" which is at an even higher elevation, creating view lines into the private parts of even more homes. The Swensons will be able to see the vast majority of the homes in the Enclave and the Mountain Estates. The converse is also true. The vast majority of homeowners in the La Quinta Resort and members of the golf club will have views of the Swenson home. Every other home in the Mountain Estates and the Enclave is built on level ground. Because of its elevation, it is out of character compared to all other homes in the Enclave and the Mountain Estates. We have consulted real estate agents. They confirm our view that if the Swenson Project is approved in its present form, it will substantially significantly reduce the value of our home adjacent to the project. Response 4: The commenter generally states his opinion on the construction of the proposed project. Several of the statements are inaccurate. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 15 of 36 The driveway extends from Loma Vista to the building pad a distance of approximately 300 feet, not 400 feet. The building pad will be extended approximately 60 feet from its southerly boundary, not 300 feet. The existing pad will be lowered by approximately 4 feet. Current plans will result in the export of approximately 700 cubic yards of fill. The project proposes the use of natural rock over retaining walls, with the exception of the area at the base of the driveway. The view of the edge of the existing pad is not a ridgeline. The roofline is at its lowest point at the southern edge of the home, and will be 14 feet high. The pad of the home will be 32 feet above the existing grade of Loma Vista. At its highest point, which occurs immediately south of the garage, in the northern half of the home, the peak of the roof will occur at 49 feet above Loma Vista, not 80 feet above the existing grade. Because of intervening rock outcroppings and other topography, the proposed project is not now, nor will it be when constructed, visible from downtown La Quinta. Given the elevation of the cover, the home will certainly not be the "highest" man-made structure in La Quinta. If the commenter refers to the height of the home, at 17 feet, the proposed home has a lower roofline than most of its neighbors. Comment 5: General Objections: • Invasion of Privacy -The Swenson residence will have direct sight lines into the back yards, swimming pools. bedrooms and family rooms of at least ten homes. • Destruction of views -The project will be an eye soar to many in the La Quinta community. • Excessive grading and cutting into the mountains. • Noise pollution -Because there is nothing to block it sound carries from the top of the Swenson Project sound carries. In fact conversations at the building sit could be clearly heard in the Enclave and those adjacent to the Property • Excessive use of land fill. • Excessive use of "faux rock" in the ridgeline. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 16 of 36 • The 400+ foot long and 18 foot wide driveway visible from the valley floor. • The use of faux rock in place of natural rock where the existing mountain face would be excavated for the driveway. • Six foot retaining walls on driveway covered with faux rock are not "in -keeping" with the natural mountainside views. • Out of character with all other homes in the area. It will be the only home not on the valley floor. The CC&Rs for the Mountain Estates go to great length restricting the height of homes (20 feet), walls (six feet), landscaping, etc. -all designed to prevent obstruction with the views of other homeowners. If the valley floor is a base the driveway walls will be 65 feet above the valley floor and the roofline will be 80 feet above the valley floor. Response 5: The commenter's opinions are noted. Comment 6: Page 7, Section I. Aesthetics --all subsections marked "Less Than Significant Impact". We disagree with this Determination. Subsection a) As discussed above the Swenson Project will have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. First, the home will be visible from almost all parts of the Mountain Estates and the Enclave as well as the golf course and from homes on the other side of the golf course. Second, the existing ridgeline will be adversely affected through the use of faux rock to fill in gaps between peaks in the ridgeline, destroying the natural views. Third, large retaining walls will be constructed that will be visible from below. Natural rock will be replaced with faux rock on the 400+ foot six foot high retaining wall. Subsection (b) the project will Substantially damage scenic resources. See response to subsection (a) Response 6: The retaining wall proposed along the southern and eastern edge of the building pad will be covered with natural rock, not faux rock. The edge of the existing building pad is not a ridgeline. As demonstrated in the visual simulations provided in the Initial Study, the home will be screened by landscaping from the homes to the west, south and east. The ridgelines above the proposed project will still be visible from these homes. Please see Initial Study exhibits 4A and 4B. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 17 of 36 Comment 7: (Subsection c) the project will Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The site will have direct view lines into the heretofore totally private backyards, swimming pools, family rooms, kitchens and in some cases even bedrooms of homes near the Project. Additionally, the extensive use of faux rock to fill in gaps in the ridge line will substantially degrade the appearance of the ridge line. The 400 foot long, 18 foot wide driveway with retaining walls on both sides up to six feet high will destroy the views of at least six homes. Moreover, the extensive use of faux rock will detract from the otherwise natural rock. Response 7: See Response 6. The driveway is approximately 300 feet in length. The driveway will include rockfall protection and retaining walls on its west side, and a retaining wall on its east side. The rockfall protection wall and western retaining wall will extend above the driveway. The eastern retaining wall, covered in natural stone, will screen the driveway from the homes below. Faux rock is only proposed at the base of the driveway. Natural stone will cover the vast majority of the retaining walls on the site. Comment 8: Subsection d) will create a new source of substantial light or glare. As it is now all residents of the La Quinta resort have views of the mountains unaffected by human intervention. No matter how hard they try, the Swensons will not be able to shield the artificial lighting at the project. Response 8: The commenter's opinion is noted. The City's lighting standards are specific, and prohibit light spillage off the property. The project will provide lighting consistent with a residential use, which does not generate significant levels of light. Finally, the project is conditioned to prohibit lighting on the path to, or the pad of the "retreat" above the house. Comment 9: Page 23, Section VI. Geology and Soils Subsection a) iv) Landslides? The exiting access road is unpaved and narrow. You need a truck or four wheel drive vehicle to use it. As the report indicates, significant work is required to widen the road from approximately 6 feet to the 18 feet the fire department requires so and make usable by Emergency vehicles can use it. And, it must be made safe for rock falls given the extensive excavation into the existing mountain face. The project will utilize the following design components 1) 3' to 6 'high retention systems Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 18 of 36 2) berms, walls and boulders. As can be imagined this level of work makes the construction of the access road one of the most visible and damaging of components of the proposed project. Response 9: Comment noted. Construction of the driveway will be undertaken on the basis of the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer, and upon approval by the City. Once completed, the driveway will occur behind the retaining wall. Comment 10: Page 35, Section XL Noise Subsection a) & b) Exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards established or ground borne vibrations or noise levels. The type of work required, long series of retaining walls, ripping of rock etc. and length of time required to complete the proposed project will establish conditions that negatively impact adjacent residents to levels that far exceed any standard that was established in the General Plan or noise Ordinance. Once completed there will be nothing to obstruct noise coming from the Project to follow the sight lines into the existing homes. Response 10: The Initial Study acknowledges that noise levels during construction have the potential to be elevated, and provides mitigation measures to lower those noise levels to less than significant levels. The proposed project consists of a single family home. There is no evidence that noise levels from the home after its completion will be any greater or different than any other home in La Quinta, nor that the noise levels will exceed City standards. Comment 11: Subsection c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project The distinction of living next to an area with a General Plan designation of Open Space (OS) with a Hillside conservation overlay district (HC) without development and with level development is enormous. Without development of a single family residence no human noise would originate from the site. With development and particularly one that expands the building site, outdoor living space and pool, substantially closer to existing homes an increase in permanent ambient noise levels will occur. Response 11: See Response 10. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 19 of 36 Comment 12: This proposed project violates many sections of the Municipal Code in regard to protecting the hillsides, and mountain vistas. Those sections are as follows: Section 9.110.050 OS open space district A. Purpose and Intent. To provide for the protection and preservation of sensitive environmental areas, scenic resources and significant topographical constraints. Section 9.110.070 HC hillside conservation overlay district A. Purpose and Intent 2. For those hillside areas which are developable, to ensure the safety of the public, and to ensure that the placement, density and type of all hillside development within the city is suitable to the topography of the existing terrain, that proposed developments will provide for minimal disturbance of the existing terrain and natural habitat, and that the natural hillside characteristics will be retained wherever practicable. 5. To maximize the retention of the city's natural topographic features, including, but not limited to, mountainsides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines, ridge crests, hilltops, hillsides, slopes, arroyos, ravines, canyons, prominent vegetation, rock outcroppings, view corridors, and scenic vistas through the careful limitation and selection of building sites and building pads on said topographic features, thereby enhancing the beauty of the city's landscape. 6. To assure that development use of said topographical features will relate to the surrounding topography and will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of the design and location of the development use. Response 12: See Mergener Response 4. Amy Minteer January 20, 2016 Comment 1: Several residents that own homes within 500 feet of the Project site did not receive notice of the City's intent to adopt a MND for the Swenson Project. We are not aware of any publication of the notice of intent in a newspaper. However, even if the City did publish the notice of intent, it would not have provided adequate notice to residents in a resort community, many of whom are part-time residents. Additionally, the Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 20 of 36 MND was released on December 23, 2015, at a time when many residents are traveling for Christmas and New Year's Day. Publication in a newspaper at this time would not provide adequate notice to the residents that would be impacted by the Swenson Project. We request that the City reissue its notice of intent to adopt a MND and extend the comment period to allow all impacted residents the opportunity to submit comments. Response 1: See Nolan Response 1. The Initial Study was sent to every individual who requested it, and their attorneys. The commenter incorrectly states that the Initial Study was released on December 23, 2015. It was released on December 29, with a comment period from December 30, 2015 to January 20, 2016. The comment period did not conflict with the Christmas holiday, and extended well beyond New Year's day. Comment 2: An EIR must be prepared instead of a MND when there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have significant adverse environmental impacts. (Public Resources Code § 21151.) "The fair argument standard is a `low threshold' test for requiring the preparation of an EIR." (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be `fairly argued' that the project may have a significant impact." (Friends of `B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1001; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15064.)... ...Here, there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Swenson Project may have numerous significant adverse impacts. Response 2: The Initial Study accurately and thoroughly describes the project, its impacts, and the mitigation measures necessary to assure that impacts are less than significant. The Initial Study correctly determines that there will be no significant impacts after the implementation of these mitigation measures, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. Comment 3: The purpose of the initial study, upon which the City's MND relies, is to provide the lead agency with adequate information regarding a project to determine the appropriate environmental review document and "documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment." (Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4'" 1156, 1170, citations omitted.) There must be a basis within the record to support the conclusions reached by the initial study. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1201.) "Where an agency... fails to Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 21 of 36 gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate." (El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1591, 1597, citations omitted.) Failure to adequately analyze all of a project's potentially significant impacts or provide evidence to support conclusions reached in the initial study is a failure to comply with the law. Response 3: See Response 2. Comment 4: The MND fails to give the public a complete picture of the Project, downplaying the extent and impact of the development. The information contained within the MND is to be used as a basis for the decision on what would be the least impactful means for the project to proceed.... Here, the MND fails to disclose and analyze the significant landscaping that will be included as part of the Project. The MND also fails to inform decision makers that this Project would be the first of its kind, allowing development at a greater elevation than any other residential development in the City, which will make it visible from a significant distance. The MND inaccurately claims the Project would be adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills when it will actually be constructed on those foothills. The MND also lacks information regarding the full extent of the building pad. The document discusses only the square footage for the residence, it does not analyze the square footage for the large outdoor entertaining area that is proposed as part of the Project. This outdoor area includes a pool, spa, large overlook viewing area and additional outdoor recreation area. The impacts of all aspects of the Project must accurately disclosed and thoroughly analyzed. Response 4: The landscaping is not only discussed, but also pictured on pages 7 through 9, and Exhibits 4A and 4B. The proposed residence will occur at an elevation of 87 feet above sea level, on an existing pad that was graded years ago. Homes in the cove, and in such developments as the Tradition, occur at elevations of over 350 feet above sea level. The location of the Enclave, on the far west edge of the City in a cover, prohibit views from or to elsewhere in the community. The Initial Study includes, on page 6, a complete site plan of the entire lot, which clearly depicts the extent of the proposed project. The extent of the project is also described in the project description, and throughout the Initial Study. All aspects of the proposed project are disclosed, analyzed, and where necessary, mitigation measures are provided. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 22 of 36 Comment 5: The "physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published... will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125.) The California Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the longstanding requirement that an agency use the existing environmental conditions to determine the significance of impacts, and recognized a narrow exception to this requirement when using the existing conditions analysis would be misleading. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 CalAth 439, 457.) Here, the MND relies on an inaccurate description of the existing conditions at the Project site as the baseline for environmental analysis. The MND repeatedly references an existing building pad on the Project site. (MND p. 1.) There has never been any approved grading of the site. At some point in time, a previous owner (without any plans or permits) made a path traversing the lower slope to an elevation of 90 feet, but did not grade a building pad. The only relatively flat surface on the site is located at a 90 foot elevation. Such surface has never been graded pursuant to an approved plan or permit. The area around this surface has incurred substantial erosion in recent years. The physical condition of the lot requires substantial excavation, grading, ripping of rock and placement of over 800 feet of walls. All of this work will have severe impacts for the hillside, slope and the mountain that must be disclosed in the MND. Response 5: The Initial Study correctly states that the project site is not in its natural condition, and that it has been previously graded. Whether the grading was done with or without permits is irrelevant to the description of the current conditions on the site. The property, as can be seen from the site and its surrounding, or from aerial photography, is not in its native condition, and has been impacted by previous grading activity. All of the components of the project, including the ripping of rock, the construction of retaining walls, and the excavation of the site, are described and analyzed in the Initial Study (pages 13 through 17; 24 through 26; 30 and 31; and 35 through 37) in the appropriate discussions of air quality, geological, hydrologic, and noise impacts. The Initial Study, and its supporting special studies, thoroughly analyze the project's impacts, disclose the level of impact, and identify mitigation measures where necessary. The Initial Study correctly concludes that with the implementation of standard requirements, conditions of approval and mitigation measures, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the environment. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 23 of 36 Comment 6: CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance of an impact where a project "has the potential to ... reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15065 (a).) Peninsular bighorn sheep have been observed on the Swenson Project site recently and on several occasions. (Attachment 1, photo of bighorn sheep on Project site.) On one of those occasions, in April of 2014, five Peninsular bighorn sheep were observed on the Project site by Mr. McVeigh. The construction of this Project would adversely impact this endangered species by allowing development to intrude further into their habitat, thereby restricting their range. This impact requires a mandatory finding of significance and the preparation of an EIR instead of an MND. Response 6: First, attachment 1 clearly shows that the sheep are well above the project site, on public lands. Second, the photograph is neither dated nor geolocated. Third, the site is not located in critical habitat for the Bighorn. Fourth, the Peninsular Bighorn is a covered species under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), as fully disclosed in the Initial Study and the biological resources report. The proposed project is not located in a conservation area, but is next to a conservation area under the MSHCP, and as such is required to implement the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines of the Plan, which are fully described in the Initial Study. Mitigation measures also include the presence of a qualified biologist on the site during construction to assure that impacts to the sheep are less than significant. Finally, if Bighorn have been seen on the Enclave property, it is the responsibility of the homeowners and the Homeowners' Association to report these sightings, and to work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to mitigate potential impacts to the sheep. Comment 7: The biological survey conducted for the Project site identified numerous species that are expected or were observed on the site. The MND claims that no sensitive species were observed, but this claim is inaccurate. There are several species, or evidence of such species that were found during the surveys, but were not identified as special status species in the surveys or in the MND, even though the Department of Fish and Wildlife identify them as such. The following special status species were identified in the biological survey: Rosy Boa, US Forest Service sensitive species Costa's Hummingbird, US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern Pallid Bat, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 24 of 36 Spotted Bat, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern Hoary Bat, Western Bat Working Group Medium Priority Southern Grasshopper Mouse, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (See Attachment 2, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Special Animals List, January 2016.) Even though not currently listed as threatened or endangered, the impacts to these species of special concern must be studied and mitigated as part of the environmental review process. These species of special concern are not listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act, but nonetheless are declining at a rate that could result in listing, and/or historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. The MND fails to disclose the Project's impacts to these special status species. Response 7: The Initial Study and biological resources report clearly list the species identified or presumed to occur on the site, and those that could occur but were not identified. The analysis further shows that these species are not expected to occur, for multiple reasons, including the lack of vegetation, cover, foraging habitat or other physical limitations associated with a disturbed site. The Initial Study addresses the species and concludes that there will be no impact to them. Further, the biological resources report considered both species covered by the MSHCP, and those not, including loggerhead shrike and burrowing owl, and determined that other than Bighorn, sensitive species do not occur on the site. The analysis is thorough and comprehensive. Comment 8: The installation of walls along the length of the driveway would serve as a barrier, inhibiting movement of bighorn sheep and the many other species that use this site, including coyotes, mountain lions, rattlesnakes, chuckwalla, several species of squirrels, salamanders, rabbits, eagles, iguana, lizards and quail. The MND fails to analyze the impacts to wildlife movement that would result from the bifurcation of the Project site by the driveway rockfall walls. Response 8: The project site is isolated and bounded on three sides by development. It is not, as described in the Initial Study and biological resources report, a wildlife corridor. The rockfall walls are linear, and adjacent to the existing drive, which currently provides a barrier for wildlife. Implementation of the proposed project will have no impact on wildlife corridors. Comment 9: The analysis of aesthetic impacts for the Swenson Project is inaccurate and incomplete. First, the photo simulations prepared for the Project are Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 25 of 36 misleading. They are taken from very nearby areas, which fail to disclose the visual impacts of the Project from a distance. Located two stories above existing adjacent homes and other residences in La Quinta, the Swenson Project will be highly visible from the adjacent existing homes and from a distance. Response 9: The location of the visual simulations were prescribed and requested by adjacent homeowners. Homeowners elsewhere in the project did not request simulations, or express a concern. Therefore, the visual simulations were prepared at the locations identified. If the commenter were to visit the site and its vicinity, she would find that the Enclave is located in an isolated cove that has limited views into or out of it. Views of the home have been accurately described, and will be limited to short-range locations, as shown in the Initial Study. Comment 10: The photo simulations also fail to include renderings of the 350 foot long and up to seven foot high driveway walls that would be included in the Project, as well as the extensive outdoor recreation areas. These walls, and the required 18 foot tall retaining walls, will be incompatible with the desert landscape and with the development below. The magnitude of the planned walls disrupts the continuity of views of the Santa Rosa Mountain range and would deprive the community of the scenic benefits they have enjoyed for many years. This would be the only scar on the scenic mountains which are a prime aesthetic "element" in the City. The use of cast stone and faux rock walls does not mitigate this impact. There are no walls within the developed area (completed areas) of the Mountain Estates that are faced with cast stone. Response 10: The driveway is shown in View A and B of Exhibit 4A. As can be seen from this view, the driveway, and the rock walls on its west side, will not be perceptible once constructed. The 17 foot retaining wall on the north boundary of the site, behind the garage, will be hidden from view by the structure of the house. All the walls on the property are proposed to be covered with rock, when visible. As stated above, natural stone is proposed in all locations except at the base of the driveway, where an area of faux stone will be provided. The use of natural stone will fully hide man-made elements of these walls, and result in a natural blending into the slope. Comment 11: The massive amount of development that would occur as part of the Project would require extensive cuts into the steeply sloped hillside. The grading required for the driveway, wall structures and residence will severely and permanently scar the hillside. The MND must evaluate whether this massive reshaping of the landscape will be visible from Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 26 of 36 nearby hiking trails. Additionally, the MND fails to analyze the off -site impacts of constructing the driveway rockfall walls along the western property line for the site. The footings required for the rockfall walls will require jack -hammering and rock removal on the preserved property adjacent to the Project site. Response 11: See Response 9 regarding views of the site being limited to the cove in which it is located. The construction of the proposed project will occur entirely within the lot on which it is proposed. There will be no construction on "preserved property adjacent to the project site." Comment 12: To truly evaluate the visual impacts of the Swenson Project, the City should require the installation of story poles denoting the location and height of the house and walls associated with this Project. This will allow the City to assess the visibility of the Swenson Residence and will enable residents to more accurately comment upon the visual impacts of the project. Response 12: See Urquhart Response 2. Comment 13: Further, not only will the Project result in an adverse aesthetic impact from the construction of a large residence, but it will also bring incompatible landscaped vegetation to the desert backdrop. The City of La Quinta has written frequently in various publications about the scenic aspects and related benefits of the Santa Rosa Mountains surrounding and within the City. The plans for the Swenson Project provide for a large quantity of new trees, shrubs and ground cover. Extensive landscaping may be appropriate in non -mountain locations but for this Project it would have a negative impact related to the benefits of the scenic views of the mountain range. A change to a landscaped hillside for the purpose of screening off structures on the hillside would have a significant negative impact. Response 13: The landscaping palette has been selected to employ native and desert compatible species. The plant palette is consistent with the MSHCP recommendations for plantings. The use of screen trees on the hillside has been provided specifically at the request of adjacent property owners, who wished to have the home screened from their view. The mountain range above the site will continue to be visible, and will not be landscaped. Comment 14: The MND claims that there only would be 700 cubic yards of fill that would be removed from the site as part of the Project, but does not provide any analysis or evidence to substantiate this figure. This appears to be an underestimation of the amount of fill that would be required to be removed to a depth of at least four feet for the construction of a Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 27 of 36 nearly 6,000 square foot home. It appears this calculation may not include the fill removal that would be required for the 350 foot long driveway and extensive outdoor recreation area. Based on the size of the residence and driveway, and depth of excavation required, a more reasonable estimate of the amount of fill that would be removed from the site is over 1,100 cubic yards. Response 14: The commenter is incorrect. The Initial Study describes, correctly, that 700 cubic yards of material would be exported. This does not represent the grading for the site, which is calculated separately in the modeling for an area of 1.1 acres. The CaIEEMod model analysis includes data from the project grading plan, which provides calculations of all the areas to be graded, excavated and filled on the site. The analysis of air quality impacts was completed using the current, recognized model for air quality impact analysis. The Initial Study correctly quantifies the potential emissions associated with both construction and operation of the site. Comment 15: The massive amount of grading required for the project could also result in the release of particulate matter from the fine dirt and sand on the site. The Santa Rosa Cove area of La Quinta is subject to severe windstorms during the year. Significant quantities of dirt and sand will blow on the homes located adjacent to the Project site, including a house within 25 yards of the Project. According to the MND's calculations, the Project is just below the localized significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5. Once the analysis of construction air quality impacts is revised to include all of the grading that would be required for the Project, it is likely the Swenson Project would exceed these thresholds of significance, which were designed to protect the health of residents living adjacent to construction sites. Response 15: The analysis of project grading was correctly completed. Please see pages 15 and 16 of the Initial Study, which include Localized Significance Analysis of both construction and operational emissions associated with the project. The analysis, which is the recognized method approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the analysis of impacts to adjacent sensitive receptors, shows that the project will not exceed thresholds established by the District. Comment 16: The excavation of the Project site could also result in health impacts from release of the fungus that causes valley fever. Valley fever is particularly dangerous for persons over age 55, which many of the residents in this area are. The MND fails to analyze this potentially significant impact. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 28 of 36 Response 16: The commenter provides no evidence that the grading of soil on the site would release fungus. The statement appears to be made for its shock value, rather than based on scientific evidence or published data. Comment 17: As set forth above, the MND underestimates the amount of fill that would need to be removed as part of this Project. Even if 700 cubic yards of fill is accurate, the MND fails to analyze the haul trips that would be required. Assuming a dump truck holds an average of 10 cubic yards of fill, the Project would require at least 70 haul trips. The MND does not include any analysis of the traffic impacts and traffic hazards that would result from this large number of haul trips on narrow residential streets. Additionally, movement of heavy construction equipment and trucks used for export and import of fill will put a burden on the community's streets, which already show numerous cracks in the asphalt and excessive wear and tear. Response 17: The commenter is incorrect. Please see Response 15. The grading quantities are accurately represented, and the haul trips are included in the CaIEEMod modeling analysis. Based on 700 cubic yards of export, 88 trips have been included in the analysis. The data is available in the CaIEEMod model runs, identified in the Initial Study and available at City Hall. The movement of construction equipment on City streets is a daily occurrence, and the inclusion of the proposed project will not result in a substantial increase in such movement. The City also disputes the characterization of the City's streets as showing "excessive wear and tear." The City implements an aggressive pavement management program. Comment 18: The Swenson Project requires substantial excavation and grading, including export of rocks and dirt and import of fill. To flatten the site for the driveway and building pad and to install footings for the hundreds of feet of walls included in the project, large rocks lodged about the site will need to be removed using jackhammers. This work will result in major disturbances to natural rock formations which have never before been disturbed. It will also have major noise and ground vibration impacts and could result in rock slide hazards for nearby residents. The MND fails to set a threshold of significance for the construction noise that will be produced by the Project in violation of CEQA. Noise levels at nearby homes could exceed 100 decibels during construction. That is louder than the sound of an airplane taking off. Exposure to such noise levels for more than 15 minutes could result in serious health impacts. (See http://dangerousdecibels.org/education/information- center/decibel-exposure-time-guidelines/, incorporated by reference.) Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 29 of 36 These significant impacts require the preparation of an EIR. Additionally, these significant noise levels would adversely impact the Peninsular bighorn sheep and other species of special concern found on and adjacent to the Project site. The MND is also inadequate because it does not include any analysis of the ground vibrations that would result from the jack -hammering and rock ripping activities that would be required to construct the Project. The nearest home is only 25 yards from the Project. Vibrations from the construction activities could have severe consequences to the foundations, walls and floors of residences contiguous to the Swenson's property. Response 18: The Initial Study correctly discloses that the noise impacts associated with construction will result in short term and temporary noise levels as high as 110 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. It also discloses that the construction will result in vibration. Finally, it correctly states that the City's Municipal Code exempts construction noise during prescribed construction hours, and that these impacts will be temporary. The Initial Study further requires mitigation measures that include notice to neighbors of any rock ripping activity, at least 24 hours prior to its occurrence, and prohibits blasting on the site. Finally, the neighboring residences are not located on the same plane as the proposed project. Vibration from construction activity, which is lineal, will occur above the existing homes, and will not result in foundation damage. As regards impacts to Bighorn sheep, as previously stated, biological monitoring is required during construction activities, to assure that impacts to Bighorn are less than significant. Comment 19: Further, the geotechnical study prepared for the Project proposed that rocks greater than 6 inches that will be removed from the site could be crushed and used as fill. (Geotechnical report p. 21.) The MND fails to disclose or analyze the impacts that would be associated with rock crushing activities if they are employed as part of the Project. Response 19: No rock crushing is proposed on the project site. Comment 20: The Swenson Project includes a large outdoor entertainment area, including a pool, spa, and recreation area. Project plans submitted to the Enclave Mountain Estates Homeowners Association show that there will be an outdoor television and speakers. The noise from the site would carry because it is located 40 feet above the existing homes. The MND does not include any analysis of whether activities at these outdoor areas would adversely impact adjacent residents. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 30 of 36 Response 20: See Mergener Response 6 and Urkhart Response 10. Comment 21: As set forth in the attached review of the water quality management plan, prepared by hydrologic experts at SWAPE, the Project would have significant adverse flooding and water quality impacts that are not mitigated. The underground retention system proposed for the Project is inadequate to address flows from the Project site. (Attachment 3, SWAPE Review of Water Quality Management Plan.) While the Project applicant has submitted a report to support the proposed retention system, the disagreement between the applicant's expert and experts at SWAPE necessitate the preparation of an EIR to analyze the Project's hydrological and water quality impacts. "If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (g).) Thus, even if the City's consultants disagree with these assessments, an EIR should be prepared to resolve the disputes. (City of Carmel -by -the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 247-249 [expert disagreement about extent of a wetlands required preparation of EIR to resolve dispute]; Friend of Old Trees v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 1383, 1398-1403 [expert dispute regarding project's impacts on water supplies required further environmental review].) Additionally, the MND and the hydrology and water quality reports fail to address the significant impacts that resulted under existing conditions during the storms of 2013 and 2014. Substantial flooding occurred at and adjacent to the Project site, causing significant property damage to the homes located near the site. The reports and MND fail to disclose that the Project would exacerbate existing hazardous conditions. Response 21: The WQMP and hydrology study for the proposed project have been prepared and approved based on the plans presented for review of the CUP for the project. The City will continue to review these documents, and most importantly, will require that final documentation reflect the grading and building plans submitted for actual construction of the project. The hydrology study correctly studied the potential impacts of the 100 year storm on storm flows onto, through and off the property, and designed a system that will convey these flows and retain flows according to the City's, CVWD's and federal NPDES standards for flood control. The fact that an opposing expert finds fault with the studies does not necessitate the preparation of an EIR. The commenter states that the proposed project would exacerbate existing hazardous conditions, but fails to present any evidence of this Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 31 of 36 assertion. On the contrary, storm flows on the project site currently flow uncontrolled through the site. Development of a storm water retention system will help to control flows, not worsen them. As regards the impacts associated with the floods of 2013 and 2014, both these events exceeded the 100 year storm, and were caused, in part, by deficiencies in the regional conveyance system. The proposed project is legally responsible for controlling its flows onto, through and off the property during a 100 year storm event, and will be required to do so through the City's review and approval process. Further, it is the City's understanding that the applicant is required to receive approval from the Homeowners' Association for final hydrology designs, which will add a level of review to the project. All these conditions will assure that impacts associated with hydrology remain less than significant. Comment 22: The Swenson Project could destabilize the hillside, resulting in hazardous conditions for the residents below. The geotechnical report acknowledges the potential for rock fall and other destabilization hazards. The report makes initial recommendations for addressing these impacts after completion of the Project by installing rockfall walls, but does not address mitigation of these hazards during construction when ground shaking from construction material will be greatest. This Project would unnecessarily increase hazards to the residents below the site after construction is completed as well. As proposed, the Project would crush a portion of the excavated bedrock and use that along with imported fill as engineered fill on top of which the project would be built. Development constructed on top of man-made fill such as this is more prone to distress from earthquakes than those built on cut areas since fill materials have more tendencies to settle than natural soil found in cut areas. Earthquakes are common in this area; there was just one felt by residents on January 6, 2016. Response 22: The proposed project has undergone extensive geotechnical review by both a geotechnical engineer, and the County Geologist, with whom the City contracts for expert review of geological issues. The geotechnical analyses are thorough, and include recommendations to assure that construction and operation of the proposed project have less than significant impacts on rockfall hazards. Specifically, the geotechnical analysis resulted in recommendations for walls along the western edge of the driveway, and design of retaining walls throughout the project. The analysis is based not only on the structure of the hillsides above the site, but on the area's seismic conditions. Geotechnical hazards will be less than significant. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 32 of 36 Comment 23: "The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.) A general plan is the "constitution for future development" and controls over other local land use regulations, including zoning. (DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9 CalAth 763, 773.) "[T]he requirement of consistency is the linchpin of California's land use and development laws. It is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law." (Debottari v. City of Norco (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213.) Here, the Swenson Project would be inconsistent with the land use designation for the site established in the City's General Plan. The Project site is designated for Natural Open Space. "This land use designation is applied to areas of natural open space, whether owned by private parties or public entities. With the exception of trail or trailhead development, little development is permitted in this designation." (General Plan Land Use Element II-5.) The preservation of these areas is particularly important in areas such as the Project site, which is located in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains: The Natural Open Space category applies particularly to lands in the foothills of the mountains that the City has always strived to preserve. These lands provide a backdrop to the development on the Valley floor, and are areas important to biological resource preservation. They provide an important social and economic asset to the City that cannot be undervalued. (General Plan Land Use Element II-21 to 22.) The City's Land Use Element preserves these Natural Open Space designated areas "for the long term, and reasserts the City's commitment to their preservation." (General Plan Land Use Element II-22.) The Open Space Element includes Policy 3.1 which requires the City "to the greatest extent possible, prohibit development on lands designated as open space which are elevated and visually prominent from adjacent developed areas or are located within or in close proximity to areas identified as critical wildlife habitat." The Project site meets all of these qualifications for maximum preservation. Development of the Project site with a residence would be inconsistent with the General Plan's requirement to preserve this site as open space. (See also General Plan Open Space Goal 3, Policy OS-1.1, Policy OS- 3.3.) Response 23: See Nolan Response 5 and Urquhart Response 3. Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 33 of 36 Comment 24: We disagree with the City's conclusion that the Project site is located within Planning Area III of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. Based on the map included in this Specific Plan, a designation of Planning Area V is more likely the appropriate designation for the site. The Specific Plan designates Planning Area V as open space and defines it by the areas with slope in excess of 20 percent. The "Project -Specific WQMP Summary Data Form" submitted by the applicant for this Project describes the site as having a slope of at least 25 percent. Thus, based on both the maps and the slope for the site, a designation of Planning Area V should apply to the Swenson Project site. The development of a house on this site designated for open space would be inconsistent with the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. The Project is also inconsistent with the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan's policies and goals encouraging preservation of hillside areas because they "contribute to the City's visual, wildlife and archaeological resources." (Specific Plan p. 2.30.) The Specific Plan also requires that building masses not overwhelm the street scene. The Swenson Project, which would be built 40 feet above the existing street, would overwhelm the street scene in violation of this requirement. (Specific Plan p. 2.44.) The Specific Plan states that development should not be allowed on hillsides nor alluvial fan areas to protect the City's scenic resources and those hillside areas should be maintained as open space. (Specific Plan pp. 4.2, 4.4, 4.5.) The hillsides should also be preserved to protect to prevent impacts to residents and their property from seismic events, flooding and noise. (Specific Plan p. 4.7.) The Specific Plan also requires the City to be protected from the adverse impacts of storm water runoff including property damage as well as water quality. (Specific Plan p. 4.5.) Response 24: The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the Specific Plan, and has been designated as such since the approval of the original Tract Map that subdivided the Enclave. The proposed project is consistent with the Low Density Residential land use designation, standards and guidelines of the Specific Plan. Comment 25: The Project would include massive amounts of grading that will forever change the contours of this highly visible hillside and will develop a large house, with long stretches of retaining and rock walls. All of this is in direct contrast of the intent of the City Hillside Ordinance which provides, among other purposes, the following: • To maximize the retention of the City's natural topographic features, including but not limited to mountainsides, skyline profiles, ridgelines, Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 34 of 36 ridgecrest, hilltops... rock outcroppings, view corridors and scenic vistas... • To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and cut and fill slopes. • To ensure the building "will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of the design or location of the developmental use." Response 25: See Mergener Response 4. Comment 26: Under section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the environmental review document must discuss "the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." A growth inducing impact may come from a project that removes obstacles to population growth. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d).) An EIR, instead of a MND, is required when a project that viewed by itself seems limited, but that could function as a catalyst for foreseeable future development. (City of Antioch v. City of Pittsburg (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325.) Additionally, when the possible effects of a project are "individually limited but cumulatively considerable" a finding that the project may have a significant effect on the environment must be made. (Public Resources Code § 21083.) When an unmitigated cumulatively considerable impact is found, an EIR must be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) Here, the Swenson Project would be the first residence allowed in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. It would open the door to more development in this scenic environment, encouraging other development in the mountain/hillside areas of the City. Response 26: The proposed project represents one of the last existing legal lots not constructed upon on a cul-de-sac, in a gated subdivision. The project will not have any growth inducing impacts. Comment 27: Courts have held it is a violation of CEQA to approve a project based on a negative declaration without first resolving how adverse impacts will be mitigated. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296.) The court in Sundstrom found that the development and implementation of mitigation measures after project approval was a violation of CEQA. (Id, at 306-308; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1396.) Courts have prohibited the deferral of mitigation because "[t]here cannot be meaningful scrutiny of a mitigated negative declaration when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of project approval." (Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 884.) Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 35 of 36 The mitigation measures for numerous potentially significant effects of this Project are mitigated only by statements that future plans would provide mitigation, without specifying the mitigation measures or requiring that the plans be submitted prior to Project approval. Preparation of a project specific geotechnical report, grading plans and drainage plans is improperly deferred until after Project approval. Additionally, no information on the design and engineering for the rockfall walls has been provided and will not be prepared until post - approval. Plans and mitigation measures need to be completed and submitted as part of the CEQA review process, and prior to the approval of any environmental review document, so that the public and decision makers can evaluate their efficacy before the Project is approved. (Public Resources Code § 21080(c)(2).) Response 27: The proposed project has prepared geotechnical, hydrology, grading, and other plans for the proposed project to levels of detail far beyond typical entitlement analysis. The studies have guided the design of the site, and have assisted the City in its review of the project. These studies disclose all that is known about the proposed project, and how its impacts are to be mitigated. Given the inherent changes associated with the preparation of precise grading plans and building plans, it would be irresponsible of the City to rely on the plans and reports prepared for entitlement purposes in its review of the construction plans. It is therefore completely appropriate for the City to require further study, as was found by the Court in California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) (172 Cal.AppAth 603, 621 [""When a public agency has evaluated the potentially significant impacts of a project and has identified measures that will mitigate those impacts, the agency does not have to commit to any particular mitigation measure in the EIR, as long as it commits to mitigate the significant impacts of the project. Moreover, the details of exactly how mitigation will be achieved under the identified measures can be deferred pending completion of further study"]). Comment 28: CEQA requires an EIR whenever a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Public Resources Code ' 21151.) An MND is appropriate only when, due to the mitigation measures, there is not a fair argument that there may be adverse impacts. Because the MND provides an inadequate analysis of impacts, and because of the substantial evidence to support a fair argument that many impacts may be significant, a full EIR must be prepared. Response 28: As described in detail in the responses above, the City has analyzed the potential impacts of the project thoroughly and comprehensively, and Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Response to Comments Page 36 of 36 has identified feasible mitigation measures for all potential significant impacts. The City has correctly determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA determination for this project. ATe Es", Aished in 1918 as a public agency Coachella Valley Water District sT ,c RECEIVED Directors: John P. Powell, Jr., President - Div. 3 JAN 14 2016 Peter Nelson, Vice President - Div. 4 G. Patrick O'Dowd - Div. 1 Ed Pack - Div. 2 CITY OF LA QUINTA Castulo R. Estrada - Div. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT January 12, 2016 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste: Officers: Jim Barrett, General Manager Julia Fernandez, Board Secretary Best Best & Krieger LLP Attorneys Files: 1150.14 0163.1 050636 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration: Swenson Residence, Environmental Assessment 2013-630, Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Thank you for affording the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) the opportunity to review and comment on the subject project. CVWD provides domestic water, wastewater, recycled water, irrigation/drainage, regional stormwater protection and groundwater management services to a population of nearly 300,000 throughout the Coachella Valley. CVWD submits the following comments regarding the proposed project: The project site is subject to potential flooding for offsite Stormwater flows that may include debris flow from the nearby foothills. Flood protection measures for the project shall mitigate the potential for local drainage, which includes offsite flows and on -site drainage in accordance with California Drainage Law. The flood protection measures shall ensure that Stormwater flows are received onto the property and discharges in a manner that is reasonably compatible with predevelopment (pre-existing) conditions. • The project site is currently designated as Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps, which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). CVWD holds domestic water and sanitation easement rights within this parcel. Said easement was dedicated on Tract No. 26251 as filed in Book 244 of maps, at Pages 90 and 91, records of Riverside County. A copy of said easement is enclosed for your reference. The existing CVWD easement and facilities will be in conflict with the proposed residence. CVWD requests that the landowner coordinate the facilities relocation and quitclaim the easement before proceeding with this construction. Nicole Sauviat Criste 2 January 12, 2016 City of La Quinta Planning Department • The project site is located adjacent to a conservation area within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and therefore must comply with the applicable land use adjacency requirements. • Please include CVWD on all future public notices regarding this project. If you have any questions, please call Luke Stowe, Environmental Supervisor, at (760) 398-2651 extension 2545. Sincerely, Se Big Director of Environmental Services Enclosures/ 1 /as EM: ms\Env Srvs\2016\Jan\NOIA MND Swenson.docx OWNER'S STATEMENT WE HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN HEREON; THAT WE ARE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS A CLEAR TITLE TO SAID LAND; THAT WE CONSENT TO THE MAKING AND RECORDING OF THIS SUBDIVISION MAP AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE. WE HEREBY OFFER FOR DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF LA GUINTA, THE EASEMENT FOR RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS OF SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES, THAT AREA DESIGNATED AS LOT A', THIS AREA IS RETAINED AS A PRIVATE STREET FOR OURSELVES, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNEES, AND LOT OWNERS WITHIN THIS TRACT. WE HEREBY OFFER FOR DEDICATION TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, AN EASEMENT OVER LOT A', DESIGNATED AS PRIVATE STREET' ON SAID MAP, FOR DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITATION PURPOSES. THE EASEMENT 50 DEDICATED INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON SAID LANDS TO SURVEY, CONSTRUCT, RECONSTRUCT, LAY, RELAY, MAINTAIN, OPERATE, CONTROL. USE, AND REMOVE PIPELINES, FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES, AND TO REMOVE OBJECTS INTERFERING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE THEREOF. WE HEREBY OFFER FOR DEDICATION TO THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, AN EASEMENT OVER THE PRIVATE STREET SHOWN ON THIS MAP AND AN ADDITIONAL TEN (101 FEET IN WIDTH ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND ADJACENT TO SAID STREET FOR THE EXCAVATION. LAYING, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, INSPECTION, REPAIR. REPLACEMENT: AND REMOVAL OF ELECTRICAL LINES, WIRES, CABLES, DUCTS,. SUPPORTS, FIXTURES„ FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES, WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER AND WITHIN SAME FOR MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES. LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION DREG ANADIE, VICE PRESIDENT NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ^ _) SS COUNTY OF %•Sfl�iO ON THIS �+DAY OF ac ,,'+{Z � 14!*� BEFORE ME, ! A NOTARY PUBLIC AND FOR SAID STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARS EARS Cn�Q4_'(ik7 PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME (OR PROVED TO ME N THE SAS) O SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE) TD BE THE PERSON(SI WHOSE NAME(S) ISIARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNUWLEOGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZ€D CAPACIIYIIES), AND THAT HTS/HFR/THEIR SIGNATUAEIS) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S1. OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSONS) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT, WITNESS A11N�A SIGNATUR L SAY PR PAL PLACE4F BUSINESS NOTARY P C A TATE rS TN ' yy�j i�1A.m-& COUNT . MY COMMISSION EXPIRES IN THE CITY OF LA GUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDER'S STATEMENT SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS TRACT NO . 26251 FAG S THIS -IT" NOBOOKF_ � T EOREOUES OF THE CI7 CLERK OF THE CITY OF LA DUINTA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORITON OF THE NORTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 36 TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN NO. • 10 FEE THE KEITH COMPANIES INLAND EMPIRE, INC. JUNE 1993 MILL��I AyM E. ONE Y, COUNTY RECORDER BY: V *`4J DEPUTY SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE: STEWART TITLE i TAX COLLECTOR'S CERTIFICATE SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ACCOROING TO THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE, AS OF THIS DATE. THERE ARE NO LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THE WITHIN MAP FOR UNPAID STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, OR LOCAL TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES, EXCEPT TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXE$ NOW A LIEN BUT NDT YET PAYABLE, WHICH ARE ESTIMATED TD BE S _&O . DATES: 5ktd&r /AI 19_U BY:AA�*UIJ _ TACDLLECTCR DEPUTY TAX BOND CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A BOND IN THE SUM OF 5`4•0 HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND FILED WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA. CONDITIONED UPON THE PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES, STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, OR LOCAL, AND ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES, WHICH AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THIS MAP WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER ARE A LIEN AGAINST SAID PROPERTY BUT NOT YET PAYABLE AND SAID BOND HAS BEEN DULY APPROVED BY SAID SOARO OF SUPERVISORS. DATED: 19_ CASH TAX BOND GERALD A. MALONEY A. WAYNE WATTS CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR / BY: . BY: 01L�.. w CLr�.GITI DEPUTY DEPUTY CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO ME BY RESOLUTION 70-248, OA7EO SEPTEMBER 1976. I ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT THE DEDICATION OF THE EASEMENT FOR DOMESTIC WATER LINE AND SANITATION PURPOSES AS OFFFBT„p HEREON, B �r NAROIHE BUTTON, SECRETARY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SIGNATURE OMISSIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 56436 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE SIGNATURES OF THE FOLLOWING OWNERS OF EASEMENTS AND/OR OTHER INTEREST HAVE BEEN OMITTED. 1. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE, 2. A RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, IN FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC FOR ALL PUBLIC ROADS AND RIGHTS OF WAY HERETOFORE DEDICATED, ACQUIRED, RESERVED OR ACCEPTED FDA PUBLIC USE. AND ALSO ANY AND ALL PRIVATE EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FDA ROADS, PIPELINES, OI7CHES AND CONDUITS ON, OVER, UNDER OR ACROSS THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY„ EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM OTHER LANDS BY MEANS OF SUCH ROADS AND FDA THE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING IRRIGATING AND DOMESTIC WATER TO SUCH OTHER LANDS BY MEANS OF SUCH PIPELINES, DITCHES AND CONDUITS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE. 4. RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC IN AND TO ANY PORTION OF SAID LAND, LYING WITHIN ANY LAWFUL ESTABLISHED STREETS. ROADS OR HIGHWAYS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE, 3. A RESERVATION IN THE PEOPLE OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO FISH AND RIGHTS OF WAY IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION PURPOSES, AS PROVIDED IN THE PATENT FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED JUNE 20. 1928 IN BOOK 9 PAGE 319, OF PATENTS IS BLANKET IN NATURE. I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OF T14E STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THAT THIS MAP CONSISTING OF TWO (9) SHEETS CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION DURING MAY OF 1993; AND THAT ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON ACTUALLY EXIST AND THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN, OR WILL BE IN Mhyl ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE MONUMENT AGREEMENT FUR THE MAW, t"p41h THE MONUMENTS WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACEO THE SURVEY IB TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN iri$ DATED: JV-/` _/_ f9 9i No. 8570 dr DAVIO L. WEDDLE, L.S. 5a70 * pp, yarl7 EXPIRATION DATE: 9-30.93 �j ♦t CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE WITHIN ANNEXEO MAP OF TRACT NO. 26251 CONSISTING OF TWO (2) SHEETS, THAT THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN HEREON IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP OR APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF. THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH, AND I AM SATISFIED THAT SAID MAP 19 WsFir' TECHNICALLY CORRECT, (wgio FRANK R. REYNOLDS R.C.E. NO. 32740. EXP, 9-30- ,j CITY ENGINEERNu 327A0 CITY OF LA GUINTA DATED: r/ s� /'�: _ j,� E+rl� �'•'� ,c D u'ITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE SAUNDRA JUHOLA, CITY CLERK AND EX-OFFICIO CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA GUINTA, STATE OF CALIFDRNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY TIA SAID CITY COUNCIL, AT ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD ON THE � DAY OF ��� 19-U DULY APPROV@0 THE ANNEXED MAP OF TRACT N0. 25251 AND HEREBY ACCEPTS THE EASEMENT OVER LOT 'A` FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OF SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES AS DEDICATED. THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR SAID TRACT NO. 28251 WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS REGULAA MEETING HELD ON THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1992. ,"SAUNnSA JUHOLA CITY CLERK AND EX"OFFICIO CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL. CITY OF LA GUINTA CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE GOV. CODE SEC 27201 I, HEREBY, CERTIFY THAT UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO ME BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, PER RESOLUTION NO. 15•-90, DATED MARCH 22. 1990. THAT I ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID DISTRICT, ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, THE DEDICATION OF EASEMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES AS OFFERED, HEREIN. DATED: _( 1[ �A 1 Q ct 3 BY: , S1 RINTENDENT, GENERAL COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION m R �44 /9() <18' ANITE % ROCX IM ROGKgMO�U6NA� SEC. CDR. M � -N I./is CDR.. TRACT 26251 uu xca o0 VICINITY MAP NO SCALE SCALE: 1"=80 FEET 0 BO ISO 240 320 IN THE CITY OF LA OUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT NO 26251 a BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORITON OF THE NORTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 36 TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN THE KEITH COMPANIES INLAND EMPIRE, INC. JUNE 1993 <2628.25> <16' X S' X 6" GRANITE SOCK> r II 30 - c1929.49> v CN 1/1B CDR. • �a r LOT 2 t �{!�}•1.. . e I� AREA 1.61 AC. �? xl �/� WI w I c ® ory o' / (PRIVATE STREET) I AREA 0 x/ 0.23 AC. rLA e3Y 4 pBz'S.°SE B i'02.61 .G P5 � ;'° ' "ram• `�. '3 �' � M ID'EASEMENT Sa ,r r d;ah r is GA as, 39.06'N 19�1 [N E9�80'00� 'Y f Qv I \ �, SEARNDT", S y/ol b DEDICATED -II Ij 5EARCNTE Fq L ` \ ,V HEREON F & NOTHING. 1'13gs, a . \ TO I I.D- \ an $Ei NOTH f 3� 64' x ah r� 1c �, o �3 ICY z .10 47-1 law1 f f N f o �) 1 LOT 1 ` "_ ��� .% ' g.'884 viN dal 1� r .f} 1' f/ ` \ AREA +jlrr ` / �' x7'@G'„ 145.25 ti yt� ]4/'� y31 / / (Ar59°AB3d` J le h k r °�_ 1 'SO°34'27"} / r �?8 n �tlPvg • �i SEEDETAIL Ar�J 2oJ J 1 ! D. + 4 �p J/ 2914'za) ./ n (�=23' 10'3� ' Qg,,'P� LOT"A" FD, 3/4' S.P. (W/PLASTIC PLUG ,r (A 04'09'32" q FLUSH O L.S. 3018, MB2BB/96p99 I /J' r it } y *• ?258 v P'` ,-%p EXISTING GOLF COURSE I g`4Rf�g3i / ; �> ,s,'` ,� /%cl DETAIL "A" 60 j NO SCALE T.P., NO TAG AFL.. FLASHER ANO " C. ,IIN LIEW OR W/L.9. 3936 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS SURVEYOR'S NOTES BASIS OF BEARINGS TAKEN FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 25237. MB 220/95-99 BEING: N.59.56'00'W. --*-INDICATES FOUND 3" I.P. WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED L.S. 301B, FLUSH, PER MB 228/95-99 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. INDICATES FOUND CONC. NAIL AND TAG STAMPED L.S. 3019, FLUSH, ON CONCRETE GRAVITY WALL, IN LIEU OF 1' I.P. WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED L.S. 3018 AS SHOWN ON MB 228/95-99 --0- INDICATES SET 1' I.P. WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED L.S. 5570, FLUSH, OR CONC, NAIL AND L.S. 5570 TAG, FLUSH ( ) INDICATES RECORD DATA PER MB 226/95-99 < > INDICATES RECORD DATA PER RS 66/24-27 I.I D. INDICATES IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT TOTAL AREA a 3.16 AC, THIS TRACT CONSISTS OF: 2 LOTS PRIVATE STREET LOT "A" THAT PORTION SHOWN AS "REMAINDER' I5 CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF THIS MAP. DATA DELTA/BEARING RADIUS LEN./GIST. TANGENT 1 N 03°08'52"W 77.97 2 N 41' 10' 1B"E 25.53 3) N 53°05.18"E 37.94 (37.92) 4) 19047'53" 102.00 35.25 17.80 5 70o48'i3" 102.00 _ 126.05 72.49 6 51'00'20" 102.00 90.80 4B.66 7 29°08'34" 13B.00 70.19 35.87 8 N 07005'55"W 26.00 9 29'08'34" 164.00 83.42 42.63 1 70'48'13" 76.00 93.92 54.01 1 N 41010'18"E 13.25 N 89'30'06"W 15,01 (15.00) i ( 87-2439' 65.00 99.17 3 (N 09040'00'W 41.60) s (N 19°58'00'W 89.50 150.50 46 80) 3 70-48-13" 110.60 53.51 i 29"08'34" 76.55 39.12 40OB'33' 5904B'54" 950.00 68.69 34.38 150.00 156.60 86.28 23'09'03' 150.00 60.61 30.72 30'34'30' 150.00 80.05 76.55 41.00 39.13 29014'24° 150.00 47'30'29" 45.50 37.73 20.02 62'03'44' 45.50 49.29 27.37 23°27'51' 45.50 18.64 9.45 19°02'32" 45.50 15.12 7.63 5'00'06" 45.50 3.97 1.99 42'30'23' 45.50 33.76 17.70 f-{mN'R CK TAG ON SB X 3B X 32 ROCK) 'L� {I(- j-I,N• ROCK OUTCROP. 1/4 C09_ 35)31 - c1326.91> CN 1/18 COR. _ -- i `<1326.90> 0.5 ACCEPTED A6 MON. BHOKN ON M8 2xe/$6-99 BET AS LS W'i0 TAG SECf436 -- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT NOTE: EASEMENTS FD. 3/4' I.P. W/PLASTIC PLUG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET AFFECTING /� _ - - INDICATES - -- STAMPEO L.S. 3016, FLU". PER NB 228/95-99 THIS MAP IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE L'\ AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL QINDICATES AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAOE AND CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF LA OUINTA. PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF CHI❑ INCIDENTAL PURPOSES• IN FAVOR OF OHIO AVENI A FERNANDO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, AN OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, AN OHIO CORPORATION, IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEB. S. CORPORATION• IN INSTRUMENT RECOADEU FEB. 5, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 41631, O.R. 1991 AS INStA64ENT N0. 41632. O.R. N R P4419) SUBDIVISION DATA: ACREAGE: 3.16 ACRES (GROSS) NO. OF NUMBERED LOTS-1 LOT NO. OF LETTERED LOTS —NONE PROJECT r� AVENUE 50 VICINTY MAP NTS IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAPHIC SCALE T R AC `tif J" 7A fB 1I {hh REVERSION TO ACREAGE `�T' 1 iaoh - 50 1L OF ALL OF LOTS 1 AND 2, TOGETHER WITH LOT "A", ALL BEING OF TRACT SURVEYOR'S NOTE: NO. 26251 AS SHOWN BY MAP FILED IN BOOK 244, PAGES 90 AND 91 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IN THE NW 1/4 OF 1. FOUND 1" I.P. (FLUSH) WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "L.S. 3018" SEC. 32. T. 5 S., R. 6 E., S.B.M. AT ALL POINTS SHOWN THUS ® PER TRACT NO. 25237, { M.B. 228/95-99, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED HEREON. WM. HURRAY &ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY, 1996 2. FOUND 1" I.P. (FLUSH) WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "LS. 5570" 4ol„L' AT ALL POINTS SHOWN THUS-0— PER TRACT NO. 26251, I 1 M.B. 244/90-91, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED HEREON. 0 3. FOUND CONCRETE NAIL (FLUSH) WITH TAG STAMPED "L.S. 5570" — w AT ALL POINTS SHOWN THUS A— PER TRACT NO. 26251, c M.B. 244/90-91, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED HEREON. o r3 C� �'`: 4. FOUND CONCRETE NAIL (FLUSH) WITH TAG STAMPED•L.S. 3018" m � `< _ AT ALL POINTS SHOWN THUS —A IN LIEU OF 1" I.P. Cp�` W/ PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "LS. 3018" AS SHOWN ON TRACT } 1 • � LOT 2 250 �8f 5. SET 15213P, WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "L.S. 4309" '�Q #ry l5 (FLUSH) AT ALL POINTS SHOWN THUS —o— UNLESS qO 15'g1� j OTHERWISE SHOWN HEREON. G0�0 �� 6. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE RECORD RO 3.i6 ACRES Gj� ° AND MEASURED DATA PER TRACT NO. 26251, M.B. 244/90-91 4� 262 9� / UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN HEREON. z''`� - Q�5 riSIS OF BEARINGS LOT 'A �, i 5 14 THE BEARING N 6e i , 43" W OF THE CENTERLINE OF LOMA VISTA AS SHOWN BY MAP OF TRACT NO, 26251 ON FILE IN BOOK 244, PAGES 90 AND 91 OF MAPS `n IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF .'`h BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. / �53,0 19 E \ V 21 SET CONC. NAIL WITH spA LOT % t ! TAG STAMPED "L.S. 4309" s ✓ ! I AT BACK OF CONC. CURB. FD. NOTHING 1 SET NOTHING, \\\ N27'15'17"E °� (Q 20 X' .. 22 % N86'13'10"E 24 EASEMENT NOTES I a if r i 3 4L AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, {I PER DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 5, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 41631, O.R. I / © AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES 11 II IN FAVOR OF OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, PER DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 5, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT ,�•S �cb ��` J NO, 41632, O.R. 12 1n l g 1111" ® AN EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA FOR INGRESS / AND EGRESS OF SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES, THAT 0.34` Cf AREA DESIGNATED AS LOT "A" HEREON WAS DEDICATED BY MAP OF TRACT NO. 26251, M.B. ACCEPTED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF CCEPT90-91 DA ANCEASSHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT, ® AN EASEMENT TO COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITATION PURPOSES IN AND OVER THA / AREA DESIGNATED AS LOT "A" HEREON WAS DEDICATED BY 19 MAP OF TRACT NO. 26251, M.B. 244/90-91 2 ACCEPTED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE DA ASSHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT. V" AN EASEMENT 70 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT FOR THE EXCAVATION LAYING, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, OPERATION �^ CURVE DATA-0 INSPECTION, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, ETC. OF ELECTRICAL LINES %� !^ J AND APPURTENANCES, WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS IN \ j �j rj AND OVER THAT AREA DESIGNATED HEREON AS LOT "A" AND AN 2S } '1 � \ ADDITIONAL 10 FEET IN WIDTH ON THE SOUTH' SIDE AND ADJACIENT TO CURVE DELTA RADIUS _ LENGTH TANGENT r 9 SAID LOT "A", SAID EASEMENT WAS DEDICATED BY MAP OF TRACT N0, 1 47"30`29 _ 45.5D` 37,73` —f 20Q2 26 \ % 26251. M.B. 244/90-91 AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CERTIFIOATE OF `7 •A 102-00` 35,2535,25' f 17.6U '`•{� ACCEPTANCE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT. M 8 269143 OWNER'S STATEMENT NE HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THE MAP SHOWN HEREON; THAT WE ARE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS A CLEAR TITLE TO SAID LAND; THAT WE CONSENT TO THE MAKING AND RECORDING OF THIS REVERSION TO ACREAGE MAP AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE. WE HEREBY RESERVE TO OURSELVES, SUCCESSORS. ASSIGNEES, HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION AND THE OWNERS OF LOTS i THROUGH 54, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 25237 FILED IN BOOK 228, PAGES 95 THROUGH 99, INCLUSIVE, THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS & AND SHOWN WITHIN THIS TRACT.. THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SO RESERVED INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON SAID LANDS TO SURVEY, CONSTRUCT, RECONSTRUCT, LAY, RELAY, MAINTAIN, OPERATE, CONTROL, USE, AND REMOVE PIPELINES, FIXTURES, AND APPURTENANCES, AND REMOVE OBJECTS INTERFERING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION, OPPERATION AND MAINTENANCE THERECF. ROBERT R, TAYLOR MARY K. TAYLOR OWNER 4 "ROBERR. ( MA Y K. A OR NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT fh PN#J�SG'Tj4 STATE OF M� COUNTY OF=* I`IPoJ) �y ON gyp.. BEFORE ME,-Shl'I?M L+�+�hnll>I,h n► Gh APPEARED o .fhOL► C T0. t, PERSON�NOWN TO M£ ( OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE ) TO BE THE PERSONS) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WIMN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE. PERSON(S) ACTED,. EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL SIGNATURES)"AL) My 4dmmi'ssr"n "riras 3^It^�7. I}(y prrnsPl(frlrte r P I�SiAaLJ �S SIGNATURE OMISSIONS NE�ngw<+� C.�R y-, �ut)nn•se��. PURSUANT TO SECTION 654315 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE SIGNATURES OF THE FOLLOWING OWNERS OF EASEMENTS AND/OR OTHER INTEREST HAVE BEEN OMITTED: 1. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN BY PUBLIC RECORDS, SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE. 2. A RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT IN FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC FOR ALL ALL PUBLIC ROADS AND RIGHTS OF WAY HERETOFORE DEDICATED, ACQUIRED. RESERVED, OR ACCEPTED FOR PUBLIC USE, AND ALSO ANY AND ALL PRIVATE EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR ROADS, PIPELINES, DITCHES AND CONDUITS ON, OVER, UNDER OR ACROSS THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY, EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM OTHER LANDS BY MEANS OF SUCH ROADS AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING, IRRIGATING, AND DOMESTIC WATER TO SUCH OTHER LANDS BY MEANS OF SUCH PIPELINES, DITCHES, AND CONDUITS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE 3, RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC IN AND TO ANY PORTION OF SAID LAND, LYING WITHIN ANY LAWFUL ESTABLISHED STREETS, ROADS, OR HIGHWAYS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE. IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT NO. 28335-R REVERSION TO ACREAGE 4, A RESERVATION IN THE PEOPLE OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO FISH AND RIGHTS OF WAY IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION PURPOSES, AS PROVIDED IN THE PATENT FROM THE STATE OF CALIF OR -MA, RECORDED JUNE 20. 1928 IN BOOK 9, PAGE 319, OF PATENTS IS BLANKET IN NATURE, 5, AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF OHIO CITIZENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, AN OHIO CORPORATION, PER DEEDS RECORDED FEBRUARY 5, 1991 AS INSTRUMENTNOS. 41631, O.R. AND 41632. O.R.. OF ALL OF LOTS 1 AND 2, TOGETHER WITH LOT "A", ALL BEING OF TRACT NO. 26251 AS SHOWN BY MAP FILED IN BOOK 244, PAGES 90 AND 91 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IN THE NW 1/4 OF SEC, 36, T.5 S.. R. 6 E., S.B.M. WM. MURRAY & ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY, 1996 BONA CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTI T A BOND IN THE SUM OF $ —BIAS BEEN EXECUTED AND FIL W7 THE BOARD PERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALLFOR DITI0N UPON THE PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES, STATE, COUNTY, NIClP LOCAL, AND ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES, WHICH A.I dE OF FILING OF THIS MAP WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER ARE A LIEN AGA tAlll PROPERTY BUT NOT YET PAYABLE AND SAID BOND HAS BEEN 0 ROVED GV SAID BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. 9 CASH TM,.B GERALD A. MAL R. NAYNE WATTS CLERK OF THE BOARD O zSORS COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR DEPUTY DEPUTY CITY CLERKS CERTIFICATE I, SAUNDRA JUHOLA, CITY CLERK AND EX-OFFICO CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. HEREBY STATE THAT THIS MAP WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY OF LA QUI TA AT h REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE —6 DAY OF 1996, AND THAT THEREUPON SAID CITY COUNCIL DID BY ORDER ULY PISSED AND ENTERED, APPROVED SAID MAP. DATED: .("q��, 199(4 eE CJJA ki 00 SA DRA JU OLA. Y C RF A D EX-OFFICO CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LA QUINTA ( SAA Lr. ar► TAX COILYGTORS CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY TIi CCORDING TO THE RECO OF THIS OFFICE, AS OF THIS DATE, THERE AR DENS AGAINST PROPERTY SHOWN ON THE WITHIN MAP FOR UNPAID . TE, CO r MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COEEC S TAXES, CXCEPT TAXE"R­SPE6W ASS✓eSSIAFd1Js GOt,L N _14E. OUT 0107-Y&T PAYABLE, tICH AR F�M L :.. T DATED:_ _._�.^rlftE WA �QUNTY TAX COLLECTOR BY: &IVAA aa 1It•4 SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS RECORDER'S STATEMENT FILED THIS - _--. DAY OF 195�. AT 1.M. IN BOOK OF MAPS, AT PAGES AT THE RE EST OF TI+E CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. NO, 3017�e� FEE ±&. FRANK K. JOHN'SON, OUNTY RECORDER BY:��...._., ,DEPUTY SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY DATE: - NO.,. SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THAT THIS MAP CONSISTING OF (2) TWO _SHEETS CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION DURING APR€L OF 19 96 ; THAT ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON ACTUALLY EXIST AND THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN, OR WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE MONUMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE MAP. THE MONUMENTS WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN. ?. DATED: _ MAY 1, 1996 w314-o + � WILLIAM E. MURRAY 'ffiF yya LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 4309 #{ ti ay► EXPIRES 6-30-2000 F sa .nrar _ . CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT THIS MAP CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS MAP HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND FOUND Tr' oc 1:10CTOITIALL THE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE "A' ^ „��I AS 1 •D, AM gED AND APPPr _. HE LITY COUNCIL N �2, IW^► iHL EXPIRATION DATE BEIXG I � AND THAT I ,M SATISFIED THIS MAP IS TECH" ICA QRRECT. DATED:11i�s�r%��p DAVID M. COSPER, ENGINEER RCE NO, 35022, EXP. 3/31/97 CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE WITHIN ANNEXED MAP OF THE TRACT NO. 28335-R, CONSISTING OF TWO (2) SHEETS AND I AM SATISFIED THAT SAID MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT RELATIVE TO THE TRACT MAP BOUNDARIES. DATED; _7 �(O-9y rr L w Wd 1L xJu�T Gi�++yyW'[ 11L 5563 _sr-rx_ � of Chill ERIC A. NELSON ACTING CITY SURVEYOR P.L.S. N0.5583 , EXP._ 9/30/97 M B 259/�!• 2 Thursday, January 21, 2016 To whom it may concern: We are concern La Quinta homeowners writing regarding the Swenson's proposed plans for 77210 Loma Vista La Quinta CA. We own a home that sits below the Swenson's building site and we are concerned that the proposed home will impact many of us along the Mountain Estates storm channel. As it is the storm channel that runs behind our properties was unable to withstand a substantial rainfall in both August of 2013 and September of 2014. Adding more hardscape and redirecting the rain water will have an adverse effect on the storm channel and its ability to keep rain water out of our properties in the future. We have had serious flooding and major damage to our home and our neighbor's homes after significant rains caused the storm channel to fail and it has taken many of us much time and money to get back some semblance of normal. We also very concerned about the movement of the rocks above home and the effect it will have on the surrounding neighbors. The breaking and moving of hundreds of tons of rocks will be quite jarring to the structures and could possibly collapse the natural hillside Also we have seen Bighorn sheep up in the hills near the building site; I am concerned that they will be displaced as well as other wildlife we have enjoyed seeing over the years. Building in the hills in La Quinta (Riverside County) is against building codes although it is said this lot is grandfathered but by building anything 50 feet above the valley floor will change a beautiful neighborhood vista that will be forever scarred by the proposed construction. The moratorium on building in the hills above the valley floor was instituted for many good reasons. The Swenson have proposed artificial rock and landscaping as a solution to hide some of their hillside lengthy driveway and six thousand square foot home but faux rock is not the same as natural and all planted landscaping is susceptible to insects, disease and drought. Lighting and sound carries a long way when place on a 50-foot-high podium. I am sure the Swenson are a normally active, young family but moving into a community where 95% of the neighborhood are senior and / or retired may lead to noise issues concerning the whole community. Privacy is another big issue. A home site 50 feet above all your neighbors in the Mountain Estates, The Enclave and Santa Rosa Cove allow easy viewing of formerly private pools, patios and bedroom windows. Landscaping is not the only solution since it can easily die or be blown over in our wind storms. Privacy walls surrounding the immediate housing site (not the property line) would provide personal privacy for the Swenson (or to whom they sell the house) and the surrounding neighbors. Thank you for your time in this matter. Patti and Michael Mergener Apple Desert Properties 48685 Via Sierra La Quinta, CA 92253 THOMAS J. NOLAN 1212 WELLINGTON AVENUE PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 January 21, 2015 VIA E-MAIL & FACSIMILE Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Re: Objections to Conditional Use Permit Application 2013-152 for Proposed Home at 77-210 Loma Vista and Related Environmental Assessment 2013-630 and Objections to Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Prepared by Nicole Sauviat Criste To: City of La Quinta Planning Commission This letter is submitted on behalf of Thomas J. Nolan and Mariann Nolan, husband and wife, who own in joint tenancy the residence located at 77240 Loma Vista Avenue, La Quinta, California. The Nolan residence is situated within the private gated community commonly known as The Enclave Mountain Estates. The Nolan residence is situated immediately below the proposed Swenson Project. We hereby submit this formal objection to the proposed project. In addition to the issues raised herein, we expressly incorporate by reference the various other objections submitted against this project, including, but not limited to, those objections filed by our neighbors, Joseph McVeigh, A. William and Mary Urquhart, and Paul and Patty Wondries. The following general, but not exhaustive list of Objections are noted: 1. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Notice of Intent") does not comply with our due process rights as it was not properly served in conformance with governing provisions; 2. The Notice of Intent contains falsehoods and does not take into consideration readily available information that would establish the inaccuracies contained in the Notice of Intent; THOMAS J. NOLAN 1212 WELLINGTON AVENUE PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 3. The proposed project is inaccurately described in the Notice of Intent and is inconsistent with the final plans submitted to the Architectural Review Committee and Board of Directors of The Enclave Mountain Estates; 4. The Notice of Intent misrepresents that the referenced project has been approved by the EME HOA, as it makes no reference to the conditions attached to the EME HOA's Board approval; 5. The proposed project will be built "into the ridge line adjacent to the San Jacinto Santa Rosa Mountain Conservancy" the objective of which is to preserve the mountains. The proposed project is located in an area designated by the City as an "Open Space District." It is also located in the Hillside Conservation Overlay District. The Swenson Project does not comply with sections 9.110.070 and 9.110.050 of the Municipal Code; 6. In direct contradiction of statements set forth in the Notice of Intent there is recent evidence of the presence of bighorn sheep on the site and immediately adjacent thereto. The proposed site is populated by and frequently visited by the peninsular bighorn sheep, which is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Nolans and other neighbors have personally observed, within the last several months, several bighorn sheep grazing on and around the project site. At a hearing before the Planning Commission, the Nolans and other neighbors will present photographic and testimonial declarations attesting to numerous and recent bighorn sheep sightings on the project site and the immediate hillsides bordering the proposed project. For that reason, we expressly wish to present evidence to impeach the so- called findings of only bighorn sheep "scat" droppings in the vicinity and the representation by Ms. Criste in the Notice of Intent that the "scat" findings were old. 7. The proposed project's drainage design is inadequate. The Applicant has failed to submit to the HOA, as was a precondition of the conditional HOA approval of the project, a sufficient hydrology and geotechnical data, to establish the proposed drainage system would not further burden the EME's storm water channel. At any hearing before the Planning Commission the Nolans will present substantial hydrology studies prepared by Waldorf and La Quinta Resort questioning the integrity, design and capacity of the EME's storm channel. Although requested of their engineers, the Swensons' 2 THOMAS J. NOLAN 1212 WELLINGTON AVENUE PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 application does not address the voluminous studies prepared in the litigation styled, Waldorf =Astoria Management LLC v. The Enclave Mountain Estates Homeowners Association, Case No. PSC 1402611, pending before the Honorable David M. Chapman ("Waldorf litigation"), which suit is presently scheduled for trial on March 8, 2016 in Department 2 of the Palm Springs Superior Court. As designed, the proposed drainage system could very well exasperate alleged drainage issues at the site of the EME storm water channel and materially contribute to flooding risks to at least the McVeigh and Nolan residence sites. In conclusion, and at a minimum, the Planning Commission should order the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report in regards to the Swensons' proposed project. In addition, no action should be taken until after a full evaluation of the proposed drainage system after conclusion of the referenced Waldorf litigation. Respectfully submitted, Thomas J. N Ian on behalf of himself and Mariann Nolan 3 RECEIVED BAN 14 2016 c."Y C)F LA Qu111r4 COMhF NfTy DEVELOPMENT January 11, 2016 City of La Quinta Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Dear Ms Criste I am in receipt of your Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding a proposed project at 77-210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, Calif. 92253 and as presented, I am very much opposed to the project. I am a home owner at 48-725 Via Sierra, la Quinta Calif. which is located immediately below the proposed project. On February 27, 20141 sent a letter to the Planning Division of the City of La Quinta opposing the project. A copy of that letter is enclosed for you review. Since then, I became president of the Enclave Mountain Estates HOA which is the governing body of the Mountain Estates. During my presidency, I became very familiar with the Swenson project and in the spring of 2015 the HOA approved the project with some significant requirements involving the control of groundwater runoff, construction of an adequate storage area for the groundwater runoff, the construction of the driveway and walls to protect the adjacent residents from both light and noise issues. I don't see where there is any reference in your Declaration referring to any of these requirements. My initial concerns, as outlined in my February 27, 2014 letter to the Planning Division Case# CUP 2013- 152 still exist. I still feel that the project interferes with the Aesthetics of the area. Their proposed look- out area located above their proposed home site is on a "Ridge Line" which will have to be modified to accommodate the Look -Out area. While the Swenson's have modified the size of their project, there will still be a significant amount of the existing hillside which will have to be removed in order to allow the construction of the home. This will result in significant Scaring of the hillside. Even with their modifications, I believe they will still be in violation of 9.140.040 HC hillside conversion regulation subsection F with specific attention to fill slopes, rock outcroping and the above mentioned hillside scaring. I don't believe that your Mitigated Negative declaration report adequately addressed these items and in general did not adequately address the impact this project will have on the adjacent home owners. I am still of the opinion that the owner is entitled to develop his property but that development must take into consideration all of the requirements which were put in place by the HOA. One of the main reasons for the HOA requirements was due to the Sept. 2014 flood which severely damaged numerous Enclave Mountain Estates homes. While I don't know how much responsibility the Swenson property accounted for in the flood damage to our homes, that responsibility might be determined in the current litigation between a group of Enclave Mountain Estates homeowners who were damaged in both the 2013 and 2014 floods and the management of the La Quinta Resort and Golf Course. Please take into these issues into consideration in recommending this project to the Planning Department when that hearing is held. sincerely Paul Wondries 48-725 Via Sierra La Quinta, Cailf. cc: Planning Division City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 February 27, 2014 tOPA Planning Division City of La Quinta 78j-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Re: Case# CUP 2013-152 (77-210 Loma Vista) I am a home owner at 48-725 Via Sierra, (Enclave Mountain Estates) La Quinta, Calif. and I am totally against the issuance of a CUP for Case# CUP 2013-152. The project as proposed interferes with AESTHETICS of the area, damages ridgeline rock outcropping and directly interferes with the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. If the CUP is approved and the project is completed, the residence will be placed immediately above a minimum of 7 homes with direct line of sight looking down into and thru the windows of those homes. This is wrong to allow. The project as proposed is in conflict with Title 9 Zoning, Chapter 9.140 Supplemental Special Purpose Regulations, Specifically 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations, subsection C which states that no development shall be approved for slopes exceeding twenty percent. As I have been told by the owner, it is their intention to enlarge the existing building pad through the use of intensive fill in areas that exceed slopes of twenty percent. Next, in 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations subsection F addresses Grading Plans with specific attention to the avoidance of excessive building, fill slopes, rock outcroping and the scaring effects on the hillsides from grading. Finally in 9.110.070 HC hillside conversation overlay district under A. Purpose and Intent specifically spells out the intent of the hillside conversation regulations for the protection and conservation of the hillside ecosystems of the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. January 11, 2016 Planning Division City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 RE: Case# CUP 2013-152 (77-210 Loma Vista) JAN 14 2016 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Enclosed please find a copy of my 1-11-2016 letter to Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner for the City of La Quinta along with a copy of my February 27, 2014 letter to the City of La Quinta Planning Division. Both of these letters refer to Case#CUP 2013-152. As I have stated in both letters I am very concerned that the above project either be denied or be required to comply with the Enclave Mountain Estates HOA requirements agreed upon by both the HOA and the Swensons in the spring of 2015. This project must also comply with the City of La Quinta requirements as referenced in my February 27, 2014 letter which the HOA had no power to impose on the Swenson's Please ensure that all homeowners are notified any upcoming Planning Commission meeting that will be addressing this project. There is significant concern by the homeowners located immediately below the proposed project and I am sure they will all want to have their input heard by the Planning Commission. Sincerely Paul Wondries 48-725 Via Sierra La Quinta, Calif. February 27, 2014 Planning Division City of La Quinta 78j-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Re: Case# CUP 2013-152 (77-210 Loma Vista) I am a home owner at 48-725 Via Sierra, (Enclave Mountain Estates) La Quinta, Calif. and I am totally against the issuance of a CUP for Case# CUP 2013-152. The project as proposed interferes with AESTHETICS of the area, damages ridgeline rock outcropping and directly interferes with the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. If the CUP is approved and the project is completed, the residence will be placed immediately above a minimum of 7 homes with direct line of sight looking down into and thru the windows of those homes. This is wrong to allow. The project as proposed is in conflict with Title 9 Zoning, Chapter 9.140 Supplemental Special Purpose Regulations, Specifically 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations, subsection C which states that no development shall be approved for slopes exceeding twenty percent. As I have been told by the owner, it is their intention to enlarge the existing building pad through the use of intensive fill in areas that exceed slopes of twenty percent. Next, in 9.140.040 HC hillside conversation regulations subsection F addresses Grading Plans with specific attention to the avoidance of excessive building, fill slopes, rock outcroping and the scaring effects on the hillsides from grading. Finally in 9.110.070 HC hillside conversation overlay district under A. Purpose and Intent specifically spells out the intent of the hillside conversation regulations for the protection and conservation of the hillside ecosystems of the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. quinn eliienum trial lawyers I les angeles 865 South Figueroa Street, loth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 I TEL (2,13) 443-3000 FAX (Z13) 443-3100 Via Federal Ex a ess January 19, 2016 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Conditional Permit Use Application No. 2013-152 Dear Members of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission: WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL No. (202)538-8168 WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS bil lurquhart@quinnem anueLcom RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2016 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I represent my wife Mary Urquhart and myself. We own a home at 48705 Via Sierra in the Mountain Estates development in the La Quinta resort, in connection with Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2013-152 for Proposed Project at 77-720 Loma Vista (City of La Quinta Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Home at 77-210 Loma Vista). I also represent: Sean McVeigh Joe McVeigh, 77-220 Loma Vista Beverly Hovorka, 77-490 Loma Vista Michael & Patti Mergener, 48-685 Via Sierra Mariane & Tom Nolan, 77-245 Avenida Arteaga John and Shannon Quinn, 77-245 Avenida Arteaga Eugene & Shirley Albertini, 77-270 Loma Vista Stuart McKinney and Nick Karapetian, 48-670 Via Sierra John and Diane Mullins, 49-230 Vista Ventura, 77-298 Vista Flora, 77-420 Vista Rosa I have previously written in opposition to the Swensons' Conditional Use Permit Application 2013-152 and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on Environmental Assessment 2013- 630 permits in a letter to Ms. Criste, Consulting Planner for the City of La Quinta, on March 4, 2014. We have been informed that The Planning Department intends to conduct a de novo review of a new set of building plans that have been submitted in support of these permit won emanuel urauhart a sullluan, up LOS ANGELES I NEW YORK I SAN FRANCISCO I SILICON VALLEY I CHICAGO I WASHINGTON, DC I HOUSTON I SEATTLE LONDON ITOKYO I MANNHEIM I MOSCOW I HAMBURG I PARIS I MUNICH I SYDNEY I HONG KONG I BRUSSELS applications. I write in further the opposition to the approval of these permits and to explain more fully how these applications are inconsistent with controlling La Quinta zoning ordinances. Mr. and Mrs. Urquhart have previously explained in detail how the Swensons' proposed six thousand square foot house, three car garage, swimming pool, and sports court at 77-210 Loma Vista on the hillside overlooking their property, the properties of their neighbors, and (indeed) the entire City of La Quinta would conflict with the purpose of existing zoning requirements and the peaceful beauty of the community. The proposed development would also violate the express terms of La Quinta's contemporary zoning rules; in particular, Sections 9.110.050, 9.110.070, and 9.140.040 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Both the City and my clients agree, the proposed development is located in a hillside "open space" area that is governed by Sections 9.110.050 ("OS Open Space District") and 9.110.070 ("HC Hillside Conservation Regulations"). See also "Notice of intent adopt a Mitigated Negative Delartio, Section 1X (b) at p. 32." Those provisions expressly impose certain delineated requirements upon proposed developments in this region. Further, beyond those regulations articulated in Section 9.110.070 itself, Section 9.110.070(B) ("Development Standards") states that applicants must "[r]efer to Section 9.140.040 for additional details regarding development standards ... and other requirements of the HC [Hillside Conservation] District." Section 9.140.040 in turn establishes a plethora of restrictions on proposed hillside developments, and there can be no serious argument that the current permit application for 77-210 Loma Vista satisfies these articulated — and deliberately stringent — limitations on hillside developments. To put it simply, what the Swensons' plans are not a series of minor departures from the regulatory scheme governing hillside developments. Approval of the current permit applications would be radically and demonstrably inconsistent with not only the purpose and intent of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, but also its express terms. The Purpose and Intent of The Restrictions Purpose of the open space restrictions is as follows: • "To maximize the City's natural topographical features including mountain sides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines.... • "To assure that the development ...will not be obtrusive because of the design and location of the development." • "To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and fill slopes...." "To maximize the retention of vistas and natural topographical features including mountain sides, ridge lines.... • The building should not be "visible above the ridgeline profile from the valley floor." We also understand the statutes bars the construction of roads that are visible from the valley floor. As will be demonstrated below, the Swenson Project flaunts both the letter and spirit of the 2 hillside conservation and open space ordinances. The planned home will be obtrusive looming over 80 feet above the valley floor —visible from miles away. It will also block the mountain views of numerous residents who live nearby. As will be demonstrated below, it will include major excavation of the mountainside, the creation of huge retaining walls, the use of thousands of tons of land fill, the building of a road wide enough for a truck, and much more. The Huge Scale of the Swenson Project In order to put what follows in context is important to understand that the Swenson Project is a huge undertaking. The term buildable lot is used loosely when describing this project. It is important to note the Swenson property is not buildable in its current state. The City would have to make major departures from its zoning requirements to allow the Swensons to cut into the side of the mountain, build huge retaining walls that replace the natural ridge lines with concrete walls covered by faux rock and deposit hundreds of tons of fill to make it buildable. The current lot consists of a narrow dirt road leading to a flat surface toward the northern part of the property. It is not big enough to build a 1500 square foot house let alone a 6,000 spare foot house, a swimming pool, three car garage and a sports court. The lot is at a substantially higher elevation than all of the homes in Santa Rosa Cove. In fact, is nearly 60 feet higher than any of the hundreds of other home in the La Quinta resort. Because of the high elevations of the Swenson property, there are direct sight lines into the most private parts of neighbor's homes: their living rooms, their bedrooms, their pools and their backyards. To make the existing site "buildable" the Swenson project will require: • The removal of at least 12 feet of the existing mountain face to accommodate the proposed Project (home). • The construction of a "driveway" that is over 400 feet long and 18 feet wide (wide enough to accommodate a large fire engine and sturdy enough to bear the weight) bordered on both sides with retaining walls extending up to six feet high. • The excavation of 10 feet of existing mountain face to widen the road to 18 feet and the replacement of that mountain face with a six foot high retaining rock fall protection wall. The existing natural rock will be replaced by faux rock. i Expansion of the building pad southward over 300 feet toward the property of existing homes. In all the existing building pad will be expanded by 75 per cent or over 18 thousand square feet. ■ The expansion of the pad will require the use of hundreds of tons of land fill and carving into the existing mountain side. * The roofline of the proposed home will peak at 18 feet. It will be at the southern end of the property and will destroy the views of many residents of both Mountain Estates and the Enclave. The Swenson's Property Is not "grandfathered in" The use of faux rock in gaps of the existing ridgeline to accommodate a retaining wall that is hundreds of feet long and faces the homes of many neighbors in the Mountain Estates and destroys their views of the untouched ancient ridgelines. It could perhaps be argued that the current development application might not have been categorically impermissible prior to the enactment of the existing Hillside Conservation zoning requirements in La Quinta. (Of course, the City could nonetheless still have permissibly refused to approve the CUP even in the "old days" before the City decided to expressly regulate hillside development, and, indeed, would rightly have done so.) But the fact that the lots existed even before the enactment of existing zoning regulations is of absolutely no moment. Zoning regulations are, by their nature, constantly in a state of change, and permissibly so, and rightly adapt both to ongoing developments as well as changing mores. The HC regulations currently articulated in the La Quinta Municipal Code undeniably govern the existing permit applications; indeed, Section 9.140.040(C)(2) expressly exempts from its reach only those "tracts and specific plans already approved," and there is no dispute that the existing application was not previously approved by the City prior to the passage of this statute. Further, even beyond this express textual mandate, zoning regulations inherently look to the future and regulate future use. Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. Los Angeles County (1954) 34 Cal. 2d 121, 127. Even if an existing application had already been approved, the enactment of the La Quinta HC ordinances could still permissibly regulate the future use of this property. Id. And in the present case, there has not even been approval, much less has the proposed home already been built. Accordingly, there is no doubt that the existing provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code, including the contemporary Hillside Conservation zoning requirements, apply. See also Petit v, City of Fresno (1973) 343 Cal.App.3d 813, 815-24 (currently existing zoning requirements apply even when owner previously expended $21,000 on alterations authorized by prior building permit); Consaul v. City of San Diego (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1781, 1785-1801 (development previously permitted by then -existing zoning requirements was properly denied based upon subsequent passage of municipal ordinance). Specific Damage to the Urquharts Invasion of orivacv: The proposed Swenson residence will have direct sight lines into the Urquhart's (a) back yard, (b) pool area, (c) master bedroom, (d) the kitchen and (e) the family room from both the deck of the Swenson's pool and the "lookout" they propose to build. There will also be direct views into the back yards of at least eight other homes. I should note that the Swenson Property also provides direct sight lines into the Urquharts' neighbors to the right and left thus invading their privacy as well. Both have objected to the project. 11 Reduction of the value of their home The Urquhart home is about 100 feet from the border of the Swenson property. One of the primary reasons the Urquharts purchased their home was the completely unobstructed views of the ridge line, the rock formations and the mountain above them. If the Swenson home is built the views from the Urquhart's home will be substantially compromised. Perhaps the most glaring example are the retaining walls that are necessary to support hundreds of tons of rock the Swenson's must construct the Swenson's substantially expanded building pad. Attached as Exhibit B are photos showing the views from the Urquhart property now and an artist rendition of how it will look after the construction. Note the faux rock walls that will be between the natural rock outcropping. The Swensons should be required to erect story poles before the project is approved. Finally, we request that the City order the Swensons install "story poles" so that the city officials can fully appreciate the extent to which the proposed Swenson residence will destroy the views of many of their neighbors. Conclusion The current applications should be denied. The proposed development is simply inconsistent with the purpose of land use in La Quinta and the reasonable expectations of those who have built and own homes in the sightlines of this proposed hillside development. The applications at issue are also governed by, and inconsistent with, the requirements of the La Quinta Municipal Code; in particular, Sections 9.110.050, 9.110.070, and 9.140.040. These ordinances properly and validly constrain the proposed project, and represent the will and wisdom of the representatives of the voters of La Quinta. The applications at issue should thus be denied. Very truly ; otjrs, ,�,� A. William Urquhart AWU:wpc 99998-0005 7/759 8002.2 cc: Frank J. Spevacek, La Quinta City Manager 5 CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS LLP 2200 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, STE. 318 TELEPHONE: (310) 798-2400 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 E-MAIL. FACSIMILE: (310) 798-2402 ACM@CBCEARTHLAW.COM www.cbcearthlaw.com January 20, 2016 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for Swenson Project, 77210 Loma Vista Dear Ms. Criste: On behalf of La Quinta resident Joseph McVeigh, we object to the use of a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") for the proposed residential project at 77210 Loma Vista, within the Enclave Mountain Estates, referred to as the "Swenson Project." This Project includes the construction of an over 6,000 square foot house with a large outdoor pool, spa and patio area on 3.16 acres of steep and rocky hillside land, designated by the City's General Plan for natural open space uses. The Swenson Project would require massive of amounts of excavation and grading of this steep hillside area for the 355 foot long driveway and 13,000 square foot building pad. Additionally, due to the steep location and rocky terrain, the Project would require construction of rockfall and retaining walls along the length of the driveway and several hundred feet of retaining walls adjacent to the building pad. The Swenson Project would result in significant adverse impacts, including: impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep and species of special concern, massive grading of scenic hillside, resulting in highly visible aesthetic impacts; excessive particulate matter and noise levels during constructing; traffic hazards from haul trips; water quality and flooding impacts; destabilizing a hillside; inconsistency with the City's General Plan, the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan and the City's Hillside Ordinance; an ability to cause growth inducing and cumulative impacts; and the inclusion of improperly deferred mitigation measures. Due to these impacts, the City is required to prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project instead of a MND. Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 2 of 15 I. The City Failed to Provide Public Notice of the MND to Surrounding Residents. Several residents that own homes within 500 feet of the Project site did not receive notice of the City's intent to adopt a MND for the Swenson Project. We are not aware of any publication of the notice of intent in a newspaper. However, even if the City did publish the notice of intent, it would not have provided adequate notice to residents in a resort community, many of whom are part-time residents. Additionally, the MND was released on December 23, 2015, at a time when many residents are traveling for Christmas and New Year's Day. Publication in a newspaper at this time would not provide adequate notice to the residents that would be impacted by the Swenson Project. We request that the City reissue its notice of intent to adopt a MND and extend the comment period to allow all impacted residents the opportunity to submit comments. II. An EIR is Required. Because issuing an MND truncates the CEQA process with often minimal environmental review, CEQA's "legal standards reflect a preference for requiring an EIR to be prepared." (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 322, 332.) An agency proposing to rely upon an MND must make the analysis accompanying the proposed MND as complete and comprehensive as possible. (Long Beach Savings and Loan Assn. v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, 263.) When considering whether to require preparation of a full EIR or allow review culminating in an MND instead, a court will examine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the stated mitigation measures may not achieve the goal of reducing impacts below a level of significance. (Citizen's Com. To Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 1157.) If any substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact after the agency's proposed mitigation measures are implemented exists, then preparation of an MND is not appropriate, even if substantial evidence exists to the contrary. (Public Resources Code § 21080(d); CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); Friends of `B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988, 1002.) An EIR must be prepared instead of a MND when there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have significant adverse environmental impacts. (Public Resources Code § 21151.) "The fair argument standard is a `low threshold' test for requiring the preparation of an EIR." (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) "If there is substantial evidence of a Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 3 of 15 significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be `fairly argued' that the project may have a significant impact." (Friends of `B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1001; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15064.) "[T]he significance of an activity may vary with the setting." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (b).) The development of a single family home that may have minimal impacts in an urban setting could have significant impacts in an aesthetically and biologically sensitive area such as this. Courts show a clear preference for resolving doubts in favor of preparing an EIR. (Architectural Heritage Association. v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.AppAth 1095, 1110; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Cal.AppAth 608, 617-618; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1602-03.) Here, there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Swenson Project may have numerous significant adverse impacts. III. The MND's Analysis is Inadequate and Inaccurate. The purpose of the initial study, upon which the City's MND relies, is to provide the lead agency with adequate information regarding a project to determine the appropriate environmental review document and "documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment." (Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 1170, citations omitted.) There must be a basis within the record to support the conclusions reached by the initial study. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1201.) "Where an agency... fails to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate." (El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1591, 1597, citations omitted.) Failure to adequately analyze all of a project's potentially significant impacts or provide evidence to support conclusions reached in the initial study is a failure to comply with the law. A. The MND Provides and Incomplete Project Description. The MND fails to give the public a complete picture of the Project, downplaying the extent and impact of the development. The information contained within the MND is to be used as a basis for the decision on what would be the least impactful means for the project to proceed. "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity." (McQueen v. Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 4 of 15 Board of Directors of the Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental costs ...." (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-193.) Here, the MND fails to disclose and analyze the significant landscaping that will be included as part of the Project. The MND also fails to inform decision makers that this Project would be the first of its kind, allowing development at a greater elevation than any other residential development in the City, which will make it visible from a significant distance. The MND inaccurately claims the Project would be adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills when it will actually be constructed on those foothills. The MND also lacks information regarding the full extent of the building pad. The document discusses only the square footage for the residence, it does not analyze the square footage for the large outdoor entertaining area that is proposed as part of the Project. This outdoor area includes a pool, spa, large overlook viewing area and additional outdoor recreation area. The impacts of all aspects of the Project must accurately disclosed and thoroughly analyzed. B. The MND Provides an Inaccurate Description of the Existing Conditions. The "physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published... will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125.) The California Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the longstanding requirement that an agency use the existing environmental conditions to determine the significance of impacts, and recognized a narrow exception to this requirement when using the existing conditions analysis would be misleading. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 CalAth 439, 457.) Here, the MND relies on an inaccurate description of the existing conditions at the Project site as the baseline for environmental analysis. The MND repeatedly references an existing building pad on the Project site. (MND p. 1.) There has never been any approved grading of the site. At some point in time, a previous owner (without any plans or permits) made a path traversing the lower slope to an elevation of 90 feet, but did not grade a building pad. The only relatively flat surface on the site is located at a 90 foot elevation. Such surface has never been graded pursuant to an approved plan or permit. The area around this surface has incurred substantial erosion in recent years. The physical condition of the lot requires substantial excavation, grading, ripping of rock and Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 5 of 15 placement of over 800 feet of walls. All of this work will have severe impacts for the hillside, slope and the mountain that must be disclosed in the MND. C. The MND's Analysis of the Project's Impacts is Inadequate 1. The Project Would Have Significant Biological Impacts. a. Impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Require a Mandatory Finding of Significance. CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance of an impact where a project "has the potential to ... reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15065 (a).) Peninsular bighorn sheep have been observed on the Swenson Project site recently and on several occasions. (Attachment 1, photo of bighorn sheep on Project site.) On one of those occasions, in April of 2014, five Peninsular bighorn sheep were observed on the Project site by Mr. McVeigh. The construction of this Project would adversely impact this endangered species by allowing development to intrude further into their habitat, thereby restricting their range. This impact requires a mandatory finding of significance and the preparation of an EIR instead of an MND. b. The MND Fails to Disclose Impacts to Species of Special Concern. The biological survey conducted for the Project site identified numerous species that are expected or were observed on the site. The MND claims that no sensitive species were observed, but this claim is inaccurate. There are several species, or evidence of such species, that were found during the surveys, but were not identified as special status species in the surveys or in the MND, even though the Department of Fish and Wildlife identify them as such. The following special status species were identified in the biological survey: • Rosy Boa, US Forest Service sensitive species • Costa's Hummingbird, US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern • Pallid Bat, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern • Spotted Bat, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern • Hoary Bat, Western Bat Working Group Medium Priority Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 6 of 15 • Southern Grasshopper Mouse, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (See Attachment 2, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Special Animals List, January 2016.) Even though not currently listed as threatened or endangered, the impacts to these species of special concern must be studied and mitigated as part of the environmental review process. These species of special concern are not listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act, but nonetheless are declining at a rate that could result in listing, and/or historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. The MND fails to disclose the Project's impacts to these special status species. C. Wildlife Movement Would Be Restricted by the Project. The installation of walls along the length of the driveway would serve as a barrier, inhibiting movement of bighorn sheep and the many other species that use this site, including coyotes, mountain lions, rattlesnakes, chuckwalla, several species of squirrels, salamanders, rabbits, eagles, iguana, lizards and quail. The MND fails to analyze the impacts to wildlife movement that would result from the bifurcation of the Project site by the driveway rockfall walls. 2. The Project Would Have Significant Aesthetic Impacts. "[A]ny substantial, negative effect of a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a "significant" environmental impact under CEQA." (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1604.) According to the California Court of Appeal, lay opinions that articulate the basis of the opinion can constitute substantial evidence of a negative aesthetic impact. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004 ) 116 Cal.AppAth 396, 402.) Expert testimony on the matter is not required because the overall aesthetic impact of a project is a subjective matter for which personal observations are sufficient evidence of the impact. (Id.; Oro Fine Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882.) The analysis of aesthetic impacts for the Swenson Project is inaccurate and incomplete. First, the photo simulations prepared for the Project are misleading. They are taken from very nearby areas, which fail to disclose the visual impacts of the Project from a distance. Located two stories above existing adjacent homes and other residences in La Quinta, the Swenson Project will be highly visible from the adjacent existing homes and from a distance. Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 7 of 15 The photo simulations also fail to include renderings of the 350 foot long and up to seven foot high driveway walls that would be included in the Project, as well as the extensive outdoor recreation areas. These walls, and the required 18 foot tall retaining walls, will be incompatible with the desert landscape and with the development below. The magnitude of the planned walls disrupts the continuity of views of the Santa Rosa Mountain range and would deprive the community of the scenic benefits they have enjoyed for many years. This would be the only scar on the scenic mountains which are a prime aesthetic "element" in the City. The use of cast stone and faux rock walls does not mitigate this impact. There are no walls within the developed area (completed areas) of the Mountain Estates that are faced with cast stone. The massive amount of development that would occur as part of the Project would require extensive cuts into the steeply sloped hillside. The grading required for the driveway, wall structures and residence will severely and permanently scar the hillside. The MND must evaluate whether this massive reshaping of the landscape will be visible from nearby hiking trails. Additionally, the MND fails to analyze the off -site impacts of constructing the driveway rockfall walls along the western property line for the site. The footings required for the rockfall walls will require jack -hammering and rock removal on the preserved property adjacent to the Project site. To truly evaluate the visual impacts of the Swenson Project, the City should require the installation of story poles denoting the location and height of the house and walls associated with this Project. This will allow the City to assess the visibility of the Swenson Residence and will enable residents to more accurately comment upon the visual impacts of the project. Further, not only will the Project result in an adverse aesthetic impact from the construction of a large residence, but it will also bring incompatible landscaped vegetation to the desert backdrop. The City of La Quinta has written frequently in various publications about the scenic aspects and related benefits of the Santa Rosa Mountains surrounding and within the City. The plans for the Swenson Project provide for a large quantity of new trees, shrubs and ground cover. Extensive landscaping may be appropriate in non -mountain locations but for this Project it would have a negative impact related to the benefits of the scenic views of the mountain range. A change to a landscaped hillside for the purpose of screening off structures on the hillside would have a significant negative impact. Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 8 of 15 3. The MND Underestimates Construction Air Quality Impacts. The MND claims that there only would be 700 cubic yards of fill that would be removed from the site as part of the Project, but does not provide any analysis or evidence to substantiate this figure. This appears to be an underestimation of the amount of fill that would be required to be removed to a depth of at least four feet for the construction of a nearly 6,000 square foot home. It appears this calculation may not include the fill removal that would be required for the 350 foot long driveway and extensive outdoor recreation area. Based on the size of the residence and driveway, and depth of excavation required, a more reasonable estimate of the amount of fill that would be removed from the site is over 1,100 cubic yards. The massive amount of grading required for the project could also result in the release of particulate matter from the fine dirt and sand on the site. The Santa Rosa Cove area of La Quinta is subject to severe windstorms during the year. Significant quantities of dirt and sand will blow on the homes located adjacent to the Project site, including a house within 25 yards of the Project. According to the MND's calculations, the Project is just below the localized significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5. Once the analysis of construction air quality impacts is revised to include all of the grading that would be required for the Project, it is likely the Swenson Project would exceed these thresholds of significance, which were designed to protect the health of residents living adjacent to construction sites. The excavation of the Project site could also result in health impacts from release of the fungus that causes valley fever. Valley fever is particularly dangerous for persons over age 55, which many of the residents in this area are. The MND fails to analyze this potentially significant impact. 4. The MND Fails to Analyze Haul Trips. As set forth above, the MND underestimates the amount of fill that would need to be removed as part of this Project. Even if 700 cubic yards of fill is accurate, the MND fails to analyze the haul trips that would be required. Assuming a dump truck holds an average of 10 cubic yards of fill, the Project would require at least 70 haul trips. The MND does not include any analysis of the traffic impacts and traffic hazards that would result from this large number of haul trips on narrow residential streets. Additionally, movement of heavy construction equipment and trucks used for export and import of fill will put a burden on the community's streets, which already show numerous cracks in the Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 9 of 15 asphalt and excessive wear and tear. 5. The MND's Analysis of Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Is Inadequate. The Swenson Project requires substantial excavation and grading, including export of rocks and dirt and import of fill. To flatten the site for the driveway and building pad and to install footings for the hundreds of feet of walls included in the project, large rocks lodged about the site will need to be removed using jackhammers. This work will result in major disturbances to natural rock formations which have never before been disturbed. It will also have major noise and ground vibration impacts and could result in rock slide hazards for nearby residents. The MND fails to set a threshold of significance for the construction noise that will be produced by the Project in violation of CEQA. Noise levels at nearby homes could exceed 100 decibels during construction. That is louder than the sound of an airplane taking off. Exposure to such noise levels for more than 15 minutes could result in serious health impacts. (See http://dan,gerousdecibels.org/education/information- center/decibel-exposure-time-guidelines/, incorporated by reference.) These significant impacts require the preparation of an EIR. Additionally, these significant noise levels would adversely impact the Peninsular bighorn sheep and other species of special concern found on and adjacent to the Project site. The MND is also inadequate because it does not include any analysis of the ground vibrations that would result from the jack -hammering and rock ripping activities that would be required to construct the Project. The nearest home is only 25 yards from the Project. Vibrations from the construction activities could have severe consequences to the foundations, walls and floors of residences contiguous to the Swenson's property. Further, the geotechnical study prepared for the Project proposed that rocks greater than 6 inches that will be removed from the site could be crushed and used as fill. (Geotechnical report p. 21.) The MND fails to disclose or analyze the impacts that would be associated with rock crushing activities if they are employed as part of the Project. 6. The MND Fails to Analyze Operational Noise Impacts. The Swenson Project includes a large outdoor entertainment area, including a pool, spa, and recreation area. Project plans submitted to the Enclave Mountain Estates Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 10 of 15 Homeowners Association show that there will be an outdoor television and speakers. The noise from the site would carry because it is located 40 feet above the existing homes. The MND does not include any analysis of whether activities at these outdoor areas would adversely impact adjacent residents. 7. Hydrological Impacts Will Be Significant. As set forth in the attached review of the water quality management plan, prepared by hydrologic experts at SWAPE, the Project would have significant adverse flooding and water quality impacts that are not mitigated. The underground retention system proposed for the Project is inadequate to address flows from the Project site. (Attachment 3, SWAPE Review of Water Quality Management Plan.) While the Project applicant has submitted a report to support the proposed retention system, the disagreement between the applicant's expert and experts at SWAPE necessitate the preparation of an EIR to analyze the Project's hydrological and water quality impacts. "If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (g).) Thus, even if the City's consultants disagree with these assessments, an EIR should be prepared to resolve the disputes. (City of Carmel -by -the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 247-249 [expert disagreement about extent of a wetlands required preparation of EIR to resolve dispute]; Friend of Old Trees v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1398-1403 [expert dispute regarding project's impacts on water supplies required further environmental review].) Additionally, the MND and the hydrology and water quality reports fail to address the significant impacts that resulted under existing conditions during the storms of 2013 and 2014. Substantial flooding occurred at and adjacent to the Project site, causing significant property damage to the homes located near the site. The reports and MND fail to disclose that the Project would exacerbate existing hazardous conditions. 8. GeotecbnicalImpacts The Swenson Project could destabilize the hillside, resulting in hazardous conditions for the residents below. The geotechnical report acknowledges the potential for rock fall and other destabilization hazards. The report makes initial recommendations for addressing these impacts after completion of the Project by installing rockfall walls, but does not address mitigation of these hazards during construction when ground shaking from construction material will be greatest. Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 11 of 15 This Project would unnecessarily increase hazards to the residents below the site after construction is completed as well. As proposed, the Project would crush a portion of the excavated bedrock and use that along with imported fill as engineered fill on top of which the project would be built. Development constructed on top of man-made fill such as this is more prone to distress from earthquakes than those built on cut areas since fill materials have more tendencies to settle than natural soil found in cut areas. Earthquakes are common in this area; there was just one felt by residents on January 6, 2016. 9. The Project Would Have Significant Land Use Impacts. a. The Project Is Inconsistent With the General Plan Land Use Designation and Policies. "The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.) A general plan is the "constitution for future development" and controls over other local land use regulations, including zoning. (DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9 Ca1.4th 763, 773.) "[T]he requirement of consistency is the linchpin of California's land use and development laws. It is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law." (Debottari v. City of Norco (1985) 171 Ca1.App.3d 1204, 1213.) Here, the Swenson Project would be inconsistent with the land use designation for the site established in the City's General Plan. The Project site is designated for Natural Open Space. "This land use designation is applied to areas of natural open space, whether owned by private parties or public entities. With the exception of trail or trailhead development, little development is permitted in this designation." (General Plan Land Use Element II-5.) The preservation of these areas is particularly important in areas such as the Project site, which is located in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains: The Natural Open Space category applies particularly to lands in the foothills of the mountains that the City has always strived to preserve. These lands provide a backdrop to the development on the Valley floor, and are areas important to biological resource preservation. They provide an important social and economic asset to the City that cannot be undervalued. (General Plan Land Use Element II-21 to 22.) The City's Land Use Element preserves these Natural Open Space designated areas "for the long term, and reasserts the City's commitment to their preservation." (General Plan Land Use Element II-22.) The Open Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 12 of 15 Space Element includes Policy 3.1 which requires the City "to the greatest extent possible, prohibit development on lands designated as open space which are elevated and visually prominent from adjacent developed areas or are located within or in close proximity to areas identified as critical wildlife habitat." The Project site meets all of these qualifications for maximum preservation. Development of the Project site with a residence would be inconsistent with the General Plan's requirement to preserve this site as open space. (See also General Plan Open Space Goal 3, Policy OS- 1.1, Policy OS-3.3.) b. The Project Is Inconsistent With the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. We disagree with the City's conclusion that the Project site is located within Planning Area III of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. Based on the map included in this Specific Plan, a designation of Planning Area V is more likely the appropriate designation for the site. The Specific Plan designates Planning Area V as open space and defines it by the areas with slope in excess of 20 percent. The "Project -Specific WQMP Summary Data Form" submitted by the applicant for this Project describes the site as having a slope of at least 25 percent. Thus, based on both the maps and the slope for the site, a designation of Planning Area V should apply to the Swenson Project site. The development of a house on this site designated for open space would be inconsistent with the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. The Project is also inconsistent with the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan's policies and goals encouraging preservation of hillside areas because they "contribute to the City's visual, wildlife and archaeological resources." (Specific Plan p. 2.30.) The Specific Plan also requires that building masses not overwhelm the street scene. The Swenson Project, which would be built 40 feet above the existing street, would overwhelm the street scene in violation of this requirement. (Specific Plan p. 2.44.) The Specific Plan states that development should not be allowed on hillsides nor alluvial fan areas to protect the City's scenic resources and those hillside areas should be maintained as open space. (Specific Plan pp. 4.2, 4.4, 4.5.) The hillsides should also be preserved to protect to prevent impacts to residents and their property from seismic events, flooding and noise. (Specific Plan p. 4.7.) The Specific Plan also requires the City to be protected from the adverse impacts of storm water runoff including property damage as well as water quality. (Specific Plan p. 4.5.) Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 13 of 15 C. The Project Does Not Comply With the City's Hillside Ordinance. The Project would include massive amounts of grading that will forever change the contours of this highly visible hillside and will develop a large house, with long stretches of retaining and rock walls. All of this is in direct contrast of the intent of the City Hillside Ordinance which provides, among other purposes, the following: • To maximize the retention of the City's natural topographic features, including but not limited to mountainsides, skyline profiles, ridgelines, ridgecrest, hilltops... rock outcroppings, view corridors and scenic vistas... • To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and cut and fill slopes. • To ensure the building "will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of the design or location of the developmental use." 10. The Project Would Have Growth Inducing and Cumulative Impacts. Under section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the environmental review document must discuss "the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." A growth inducing impact may come from a project that removes obstacles to population growth. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d).) An EIR, instead of a MND, is required when a project that viewed by itself seems limited, but that could function as a catalyst for foreseeable future development. (City of Antioch v. City of Pittsburg (1986) 187 Ca1.App.3d 1325.) Additionally, when the possible effects of a project are "individually limited but cumulatively considerable" a finding that the project may have a significant effect on the environment must be made. (Public Resources Code § 21083.) When an unmitigated cumulatively considerable impact is found, an EIR must be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) Here, the Swenson Project would be the first residence allowed in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. It would open the door to more development in this scenic environment, encouraging other development in the mountain/hillside areas of the City. Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 14 of 15 IV. The MND Includes Improperly Deferred Mitigation Courts have held it is a violation of CEQA to approve a project based on a negative declaration without first resolving how adverse impacts will be mitigated. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296.) The court in Sundstrom found that the development and implementation of mitigation measures after project approval was a violation of CEQA. (Id. at 306-308; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1396.) Courts have prohibited the deferral of mitigation because "[t]here cannot be meaningful scrutiny of a mitigated negative declaration when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of project approval." (Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 884.) The mitigation measures for numerous potentially significant effects of this Project are mitigated only by statements that future plans would provide mitigation, without specifying the mitigation measures or requiring that the plans be submitted prior to Project approval. Preparation of a project specific geotechnical report, grading plans and drainage plans is improperly deferred until after Project approval. Additionally, no information on the design and engineering for the rockfall walls has been provided and will not be prepared until post -approval. Plans and mitigation measures need to be completed and submitted as part of the CEQA review process, and prior to the approval of any environmental review document, so that the public and decision makers can evaluate their efficacy before the Project is approved. (Public Resources Code § 21080(c)(2).) Conclusion CEQA requires an EIR whenever a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Public Resources Code § 21151.) An MND is appropriate only when, due to the mitigation measures, there is not a fair argument that there may be adverse impacts. Because the MND provides an inadequate analysis of impacts, and because of the substantial evidence to support a fair argument that many impacts may be significant, a full EIR must be prepared. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, AtMinteer Y Nicole Sauviat Criste January 20, 2016 Page 15 of 15 Cc: Les Johnson, Community Development Director Enclosure: Attachment 1, photo of bighorn sheep on Project site Attachment 2, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Special Animals List, January 2016 Attachment 3, SWAPE Review of Water Quality Management Plan ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT 2 f/ pP Fw , California Department of Fish and Wildlife 7�California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) SPECIAL ANIMALS LIST January 2016 Recommended Citation: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. January 2016. Special Animals List. Periodic publication. 51 pp. Table of Contents SpecialAnimals.......................................................................................................................................... iv NatureServe Element Ranking.....................................................................................................................v Animal Element Occurrences and Mapping..............................................................................................vii Taxonomic References ..............................................................................................................................viii Listing and Special Status Information....................................................................................................... ix Table of Special Status Code Abbreviations............................................................................................xiii SpecialAnimals List................................................................................................................................. xiv Special Animals (906 taxa) Last updated December 2015 "Special Animals" is a broad term used to refer to all the animal taxa tracked by the Department of Fish and Wildlife's California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status species". The Special Animals list includes species, subspecies, or Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU) where at least one of the following conditions applies: - Officially listed or proposed for listing under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts; - Taxa considered by the Department to be a Species of Special Concern (SSC); - Taxa which meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. (More information on CEQA is available at: http://resources.ca.gov/cega/guidelines - Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range but not currently threatened with extirpation; - Population(s) in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon's range but are threatened with extirpation in California; - Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at a significant rate (e.g. wetlands, riparian, vernal pools, old growth forests, desert aquatic systems, native grasslands, valley shrubland habitats, etc.); - Taxa designated as a special status, sensitive, or declining species by other state or federal agencies, or a non -governmental organization (NGO) and determined by the CNDDB to be rare, restricted, declining, or threatened across their range in California. Taxa marked with a "+" to the left of the scientific name are those for which there is location information in the CNDDB Geographic Information System (GIS), as of the date of this list. Taxa with a "Yes" in the "Notes" column have more information in an end note at the back of the list. Additional information on the CNDDB is available on the Department of Fish and Wildlife web site at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb Additional information on other Department resource management programs is available at- httDS://www.wildlife.ca.aov/Conservation The Species Conservation & Recovery Program has additional information on wildlife habitat, threats, and survey guidelines at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame IV NatureServe Element Ranking All Heritage Programs, such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) use the same ranking methodology, originally developed by The Nature Conservancy and now maintained and recently revised by NatureServe. It includes a Global rank (G-rank), describing the rank for a given taxon over its entire distribution and a State rank (S-rank), describing the rank for the taxon over its state distribution. For subspecies and varieties, there is also a "T" rank describing the global rank for the infraspecific taxon. The next page of this document details the criteria used to assign element ranks, from G1 to G5 for the Global rank and from S1 to S5 for the State rank. Procedurally, state programs such as the CNDDB develop the State ranks. The Global ranks are determined collaboratively among the Heritage Programs for the states/provinces containing the species. NatureServe then checks for consistency and logical errors at the national level. Because the units of conservation may include non -taxonomic biological entities such as populations or ecological communities, NatureServe refers to the targets of biological conservation as elements rather than taxa. An element rank is assigned using standard criteria and rank definitions. This standardization makes the ranks comparable between organisms and across political boundaries. NatureServe has developed a "rank calculator" to help increase repeatability and transparency of the ranking process. The three main categories that are taken into consideration when assigning an element rank are rarity, threats, and trends. Within these three categories, various factors are considered including: Range extent, area of occupancy, population size, total number of occurrences, environmental specificity and number of good occurrences (ranked A or B). Overall threat impact as well as intrinsic vulnerability (if threats are unknown). Long-term and short-term trends. Detailed information on the newest element ranking methodology can be found here: https://connect.natureserve.org/publications/StatusAssess Methodology With the above considerations in mind, refer below for the numerical definitions for G1-5 and S1-5. An element's ranking status may be adjusted up or down depending upon the considerations above. In Element Ranking GLOBAL RANKING The global rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall status of an element throughout its global range. Both Global and State ranks represent a letter and number score that reflects a combination of Rarity, Threat, and Trend factors, with weighting being heavier on Rarity than the other two. SPECIES OR NATURAL COMMUNITY LEVEL G1 = Critically Imperiled —At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 = Imperiled —At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. G3 = Vulnerable —At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4 = Apparently Secure —Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5 = Secure —Common; widespread and abundant. SUBSPECIES LEVEL Taxa which are subspecies or varieties receive a taxon rank (T-rank) attached to their G-rank. Where the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species, the T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecies. For example: the Point Reyes mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa ssp. phaea is ranked G5T2. The G-rank refers to the whole species range i.e., Aplodontia rufa. The T-rank refers only to the global condition of ssp. phaea. STATE RANKING The state rank (S-rank) is assigned much the same way as the global rank, but state ranks refer to the imperilment status only within California's state boundaries. S1 = Critically Imperiled —Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S2 = Imperiled —Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3 = Vulnerable —Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S4 = Apparently Secure —Uncommon but not rare in the state; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 = Secure —Common, widespread, and abundant in the state. Notes: 1. Other considerations used when ranking a 3. Other symbols: species or natural community include the pattern of distribution of the element on the landscape, GH All sites are historical; the element has fragmentation of the population/stands, and not been seen for at least 20 years, but historical extent as compared to its modern suitable habitat still exists (SH = All range. It is important to take a bird's eye or California sites are historical). aerial view when ranking sensitive elements rather than simply counting element GX All sites are extirpated; this element is occurrences. extinct in the wild (SX = All California sites are extirpated). 2. Uncertainty about the rank of an element is expressed in two major ways: GXC Extinct in the wild; exists in cultivation. By expressing the ranks as a range of values: G1 Q The element is very rare, but there are e.g., S2S3 means the rank is somewhere taxonomic questions associated with it. between S2 and S3. T Rank applies to a subspecies or variety. By adding a "T' to the rank: e.g., S2? This represents more certainty than S2S3, but less certainty than S2. Im Animal Element Occurrences and Mapping What is an Element Occurrence? An Element Occurrence (EO) is a location where the element has been documented to occur. It is a concept developed and applied within the NatureServe natural heritage network. An EO is not a population, but it may indicate that a population is present in that area; and a single population may be represented by more than one EO. An EO is based upon the source documents available to us at the time it was mapped. Both the mapped feature and the text portion of EO's are updated as new information becomes available. Element Occurrence (EO) Definitions vary by taxa: The EO definition refers to the types of information we map. For most animal taxa, the CNDDB is interested in information that indicates the presence of a resident population. However, for many migratory birds the CNDDB tracks detections of nest sites or behaviors indicating reproduction is occurring at the site. Details about avian detections are available in our Submitting Avian Detections document at: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitting data to cnddb.asp. For other taxa where we track only a certain part of their range or life history, the area or life stage is indicated on the list under the "Comment" column. Mapping Conventions: Our information is mapped to balance precision and uncertainty, based upon the source materials used to determine the location of the element occurrence (EO). Data with precise location information are mapped with 80m radius circles or specific polygons. Data with vague location information are mapped with non-specific circular features or non-specific polygons. Non-specific features indicate that the species was found somewhere within the mapped area, but the exact location was unknown. Generally, observations/collections within 1/4 mile and/or within continuous habitat, are combined into a single element occurrence (EO). vn Taxonomic References Last updated October 2015 Taxonomic References and Sources of Additional Information: The CNDDB follows current published taxonomy for animals as recognized by the scientific organizations listed below. The CNDDB reviews publications that propose new taxonomy and nomenclature for CNDDB-tracked species, and evaluates whether these proposals are recognized and accepted by the larger scientific community. The CNDDB makes every effort to use the best available science in the taxonomy we use, but different experts may recognize different names for some time after a taxonomic change is proposed. In these cases, the CNDDB will generally use the preexisting nomenclature until a change is formally recognized beyond the initial publication. In addition, the CNDDB recognizes some taxa identified by experts on the California fauna where these taxa may not be recognized by national biological societies. We generally follow the taxonomy used by NatureServe, with additional evaluation of taxonomy from the following sources: For reptiles and amphibians: The Center for North American Herpetology (http://www.cnah.org) The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (http://www.ssarherps.org) For fish: Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press. Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinosa -Perez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp. Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Diaz -Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J. Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407. For birds: The checklist of the American Ornithologists' Union: http://checklist.aou.org/ For mammals: The American Society of Mammalogists: http://www.mammalsociety.org/publications/mammalian-species Baker, R.J., L.C. Bradley, R.D. Bradley, J.W. Dragoo, M.D. Engstrom, R.S. Hoffman, C.A. Jones, F. Reid, D.W. Rice, & C. Jones. 2003. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/op229.pdf vni Listing and Special Status Information Last updated March, 2015 CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (CESA) LISTING CODES: The listing status of each species is current as of the date of this list. The most current changes in listing status will be found in the "Endangered and Threatened Animals List," which the CNDDB updates and issues quarterly. SE State listed as Endangered ST State listed as Threatened SCE State candidate for listing as Endangered SCT State candidate for listing as Threatened SCD State candidate for delisting FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) LISTING CODES: The listing status is current as of the date of this list. The most current changes in listing status will be found in the "Endangered and Threatened Animals List," which the CNDDB updates and issues quarterly. Federal listing actions contained in the Federal Register are also available at: http://www.regulations.gov FE Federally listed as Endangered FT Federally listed as Threatened FPE Federally proposed for listing as Endangered FPT Federally proposed for listing as Threatened FPD Federally proposed for delisting FC Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a review of listed species at least once every five years. Five year reviews from the Pacific Southwest Region are available at: http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/recoverV.html OTHER STATUS CODES The status of species on the Special Animals List according to other conservation organizations is provided. Taxa on these lists are reviewed for inclusion in the CNDDB Special Animals List, but are not automatically included. For example, taxa that are regionally rare within a portion of California may not be included, because they may be of lesser conservation concern across their full range in California. American Fisheries Society (AFS): Designations for freshwater and diadromous species were taken from the paper: Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Diaz -Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J. Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2008Jelks_h001.pdf ix Designations for marine and estuarine species were taken from the paper: Musick, J.A. et al. 2000. "Marine, Estuarine, and Diadromous Fish Stocks at Risk of Extinction in North America (Exclusive of Pacific Salmonids). Fisheries 25(11):6-30. Available at: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/sawfish/Reprintl390.pdf BLM Sensitive: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual §6840 states that "BLM sensitive species are: (1) species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and (2) species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA, which are designated as Bureau sensitive by the State Director(s). All Federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the 5 years following delisting will be conserved as Bureau sensitive species." The California-BLM Sensitive Animals list is available at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/wildlife.html CDF Sensitive: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection classifies "sensitive species" as those species that warrant special protection during timber operations. The list of "sensitive species" is given in §895.1 (Definitions) of the California Forest Practice Rules. The 2014 Forest Practice Rules are available at: http://www.calfire.ca.gov/resource mqt/resource mqt forestpractice.php. CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSQ: It is the goal and responsibility of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to maintain viable populations of all native species. To this end, the Department has designated certain vertebrate species as Species of Special Concern because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction. The goal of designating species as "Species of Special Concern" is to halt or reverse their decline by calling attention to their plight and addressing the issues of concern early enough to secure their long term viability. Not all "Species of Special Concern" have declined equally; some species may be just starting to decline, while others may have already reached the point where they meet the criteria for listing as a "Threatened" or "Endangered" species under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts. More information is available at: https://www.dfq.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc/ CDFW Fully Protected: The classification of Fully Protected was the State's initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been listed under the California and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts; the exceptions are white-tailed kite, golden eagle, trumpeter swan, northern elephant seal, and ring-tailed cat. The white-tailed kite and the golden eagle are tracked in the CNDDB; the trumpeter swan, northern elephant seal and ring-tailed cat are not. The Fish and Game Code sections dealing with Fully Protected species state that these species "...may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected" species, although take may be authorized for necessary scientific research. This language arguably makes the "Fully Protected" designation the strongest and most restrictive regarding the "take" of these species. In 2003, the code sections dealing with Fully Protected species were amended to allow the Department to authorize take resulting from recovery activities for state -listed species. More information on Fully Protected species and the take provisions can be found in the Fish and Game Code, (birds at §3511, mammals at §4700, reptiles and amphibians at §5050, and fish at §5515). Additional information on Fully x Protected fish can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1, Subdivision 1, Chapter 2, Article 4, §5.93. The category of Protected Amphibians and Reptiles in Title 14 has been repealed. The Fish and Game Code and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations are available online. IUCN - The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): The IUCN assesses, on a global scale, the conservation status of species, subspecies, varieties and even selected subpopulations in order to highlight taxa threatened with extinction, and therefore promote their conservation. Detailed information on the IUCN and the Red List is available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org Marine Mammal Commission Marine Mammal Species of Special Concern: Section 202 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act directs the Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, to make recommendations to the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and other federal agencies on research and management actions needed to conserve species of marine mammals. To meet this charge, the Commission devotes special attention to particular species and populations that are vulnerable to various types of human -related activities, impacts, and contaminants. Such species may include marine mammals listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act or as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In addition, the Commission often directs special attention to other species or populations of marine mammals not so listed whenever special conservation challenges arise that may affect them. More information on the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Marine Mammal Species of Special Concern list is available at: http://www.mmc.gov/species/welcome.shtml. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI): The North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies and private organizations that works to ensure the long-term health North America's native bird populations. They publish an annual State of the Birds report which includes a watch list of bird species in need of conservation help. Species on the list are assigned to either the Red Watch List for species with extremely high vulnerability, or Yellow Watch List for species that may be range restricted or may be more widespread but with declines and high threats. More information is available at: http://stateofthebirds.org. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Species of Concern: The Office of Protected Resources (OPR) is a headquarters program office of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service, or NMFS), under the U.S. Department of Commerce, with responsibility for protecting marine mammals and endangered marine life. NOAA's Office of Protected Resources works to conserve, protect, and recover species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The category "Species of Concern" was established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) effective 15 April 2004. Species of Concern are those species about which NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has some concerns regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). "Species of Concern" status does not carry any procedural or substantive protections under the ESA, but is meant to draw proactive attention and conservation action to these species. More information is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Birds of Conservation Concern: The goal of the Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 report is to accurately identify the migratory and non -migratory xi bird species (beyond those already designated as Federally Threatened or Endangered) that represent our highest conservation priorities and draw attention to species in need of conservation action. This report is available at: httD://www.fws.aov/miaratorvbirds/currentbirdissues/manaaement/BCC.html U.S. Forest Service Sensitive: USDA Forest Service defines sensitive species as plant and animal species identified by a regional forester that are not listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. Regional Foresters shall identify sensitive species occurring within the region. California is the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5). More information is available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/plants-animals and at: httD://www.fs.usda.aov/Internet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelardb5435266.xlsx Western Bat Working Group (WBWG): The WBWG is comprised of agencies, organizations and individuals interested in bat research, management and conservation from the 13 western states and provinces. The goals are (1) to facilitate communication among interested parties and reduce risks of species decline or extinction; (2) to provide a mechanism by which current information on bat ecology, distribution and research techniques can be readily accessed; and (3) to develop a forum to discuss conservation strategies, provide technical assistance and encourage education programs. Species are ranked as High, Medium, or Low Priority in each of 10 regions in western North America. Because California includes multiple regions where a species may have different WBWG Priority ranks, the CNNDB includes categories for Medium -High, and Low -Medium Priority. The CNDDB tracks bat species that are at least Low - Medium Priority in California. More information is available at: http://www.wbwg.org. Xerces Society Red List: The Xerces Society is an international non-profit organization dedicated to protecting biological diversity through invertebrate conservation. The Society advocates for invertebrates and their habitats by working with scientists, land managers, educators, and citizens on conservation and education projects. Their core programs focus on endangered species, native pollinators, and watershed health. More information on the Red List is available at: httD://www.xerces.ora. xii Table of Special Status Code Abbreviations Organization Abbreviation American Fisheries Society - Endangered AFS_EN American Fisheries Society - Threatened AFS_TH American Fisheries Society - Vulnerable AFS_VU Bureau of Land Management - Sensitive BLM_S Calif Dept of Forestry & Fire Protection - Sensitive CDF_S Calif Dept of Fish & Wildlife - Fully Protected CDFW_FP Calif Dept of Fish & Wildlife - Species of Special Concern CDFW_SSC Calif Dept of Fish & Wildlife - Watch List CDFW_WL IUCN - Critically Endangered IUCN_CR IUCN - Endangered IUCN EN IUCN - Near Threatened IUCN_NT IUCN - Vulnerable IUCN_VU IUCN - Least Concern IUCN LC IUCN - Data Deficient IUCN_DD IUCN - Conservation Dependent IUCN CD Marine Mammal Commission - Species of Special Concern MMC_SSC National Marine Fisheries Service - Species of Concern NMFS_SC North American Bird Conservation Initiative- Red Watch List NABCI_RWL North American Bird Conservation Initiative- Yellow Watch List NABCI_YWL U. S. Forest Service - Sensitive USFS_S U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern USFWS_BCC Western Bat Working Group - High Priority WBWG H Western Bat Working Group - Medium -High Priority WBWG MH Western Bat Working Group - Medium Priority WBWG M Western Bat Working Group - Low -Medium Priority WBWG LM Xerces Society - Critically Imperiled XERCES_CI Xerces Society - Imperiled XERCES_IM Xerces Society - Vulnerable XERCES_VU Xerces Society - Data Deficient XERCES DD Special Animals List The remainder of this document contains the CNDDB's Special Animals List current as of the date on the title page of this document. For additional information on how CNDDB determines what species to track please see the CNDDB webpage. xiv Species Commen PELECYPODA (clams and mussels) +Anodonta californiensis California floater Anodonta oregonensis Oregon floater +Gonidea angulata western ridged mussel +Margaritifera falcata western pearlshell +Pisidium ultramontanum montane peaclam GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) Algamorda newcombiana Newcomb's littorine snail +Ammonitella yatesii tight coin (=Yates' snail) +Ancotrema voyanum hooded lancetooth +Assiminea infima Badwater snail +Binneya notabilis Santa Barbara shelled slug +Colligyrus convexus canary duskysnail +Eremarionta immaculata white desertsnail Eremarionta millepalmarum Thousand Palms desertsnail +Eremarionta morongoana Morongo (=Colorado) desertsnail +Eremarionta rowelli bakerensis Baker's desertsnail +Eremarionta rowelli mccoiana California Mccoy snail +Fluminicola seminalis nugget pebblesnail +Fontelicella sp. Deep Springs fontelicella Glyptostoma gabrielense San Gabriel chestnut Haliotis corrugata pink abalone +Haliotis cracherodii black abalone Haliotis fulgens green abalone Haliotis kamtschatkana pinto abalone Haliotis sorenseni white abalone +Haplotrema catalinense Santa Catalina lancetooth +Haplotrema duranti ribbed lancetooth +Helisoma newberryi Great Basin rams -horn +Helminthoglypta allynsmithi Merced Canyon shoulderband +Helminthoglypta arrosa monticola mountain shoulderband Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G3Q S2? None None G5Q S2? None None G3 S1S2 None None G4G5S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 G1 S1 G1G2 S1S2 G1 S1 G1 S1 G1G2 S1S2 G1 S1 G1 S1 G1G3 S1 G3G4T1 S1 G3G4T1 S1 G2 S1S2 G1 S1 G2 S2 GY S2? G3 S1S2 G3G4 S2 G3G4 S2 G1 S1 G1 S1 G1G2 S1S2 G1Q S1 G1 S1 G2G3T1 S1 None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Endangered None None None None None Endangered None None None None None None None None None None None USFS:S IUCN:VU USFS:S IUCN:VU BLM:S IUCN:VU IUCN:DD IUCN:VU IUCN:VU IUCN:NT IUCN:DD IUCN:DD USFS:S NMFS:SC IUCN:CR NMFS:SC IUCN:EN NMFS:SC USFS:S IUCN:VU Species Commen GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Helminthoglypta arrosa pomoensis Pomo bronze shoulderband +Helminthoglypta ayresiana sanctaecrucis Ayer's snail +Helminthoglypta callistoderma Kern shoulderband +Helminthoglypta coelata mesa shoulderband +Helminthoglypta concolor whitefir shoulderband Helminthoglypta fontiphila Soledad shoulderband +Helminthoglypta hertleini Oregon shoulderband +Helminthoglypta milleri peak shoulderband +Helminthoglypta mohaveana Victorville shoulderband +Helminthoglypta nickliniana awania Peninsula coast range shoulderband +Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi Bridges' coast range shoulderband +Helminthoglypta sequoicola consors redwood shoulderband +Helminthoglypta stiversiana williamsi Williams' bronze shoulderband +Helminthoglypta talmadgei Trinity shoulderband +Helminthoglypta taylori westfork shoulderband Helminthoglypta traskii pacoimensis Pacoima shoulderband +Helminthoglypta traskii traskii Trask shoulderband Helminthoglypta uvasana Grapevine shoulderband Helminthoglypta vasquezi Vasquez shoulderband +Helminthoglypta walkeriana Morro shoulderband (=banded dune) snail Herpeteros angelus Soledad desertsnail +Hesperarion plumbeus leaden slug +lpnobius robustus robust tryonia +Juga acutifilosa topazjuga +Juga chacei Chacejuga +Juga occata scalloped juga +Juga orickensis redwood juga Lanx alta highcap lanx Lanx klamathensis scale lanx Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G2G3T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD G1G2T1T2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None IUCN:EN G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None BLM:S G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None IUCN:NT G3T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD G3T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD G2T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD G2G3T1 S1 None None IUCN:DD G2 S2 None None BLM:S G1 S1 None None G1G2T1 S1 None None G1G2T1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 Endangered None IUCN:CR G1 S1 None None G1G3 S1S3 None None G1G2 S1 None None G2 S2 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None USFS:S G2 S1S2 None None G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None Species Commen GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Lanx patelloides kneecaplanx +Megomphix californicus Natural Bridge megomphix +Micrarionta facta Santa Barbara islandsnail +Micrarionta feralis San Nicolas islandsnail +Micrarionta gabbi San Clemente islandsnail +Micrarionta opuntia pricklypear islandsnail +Monadenia callipeplus downy sideband +Monadenia chaceana Siskiyou shoulderband +Monadenia churchi Klamath sideband +Monadenia circumcarinate keeled sideband +Monadenia cristulata crested sideband +Monadenia fidelis leonina A terrestrial snail +Monadenia fidelis pronotis rocky coast Pacific sideband +Monadenia infumata ochromphalus yellow -based sideband +Monadenia infumata setosa Trinity bristle snail Monadenia marmarotis marble sideband +Monadenia mormonum buttoni Button's Sierra sideband +Monadenia mormonum hirsuta hirsute Sierra sideband +Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes Shasta sideband Monadenia troglodytes wintu Wintu sideband +Monadenia tuolumneana Tuolumne sideband +Monadenia yosemitensis Yosemite Mariposa sideband +Noyo intersessa Ten Mile shoulderband +Pomatiopsis binneyi robust walker Pomatiopsis californica Pacific walker Pomatiopsis chacei marsh walker +Pristiloma shepardae Shepard's snail +Pristinicola hemphilli pristine pyrg Prophysaon coeruleum Blue -gray taildropper slug Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA G2 S2 None G1G2 S1S2 None G1G2 S1S2 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G1G2 S1S2 None G2G3S2 None G2G3S2 None G1 S1 None G1G2 S1S2 None G4G5T1T2 S1S2 None G4G5T1 S1 None G2T1 S1 None G2T2 S2 None G1 S1 None G2T1 S1 None G2T1 S1 None G1G2T1T2 S1S2 None G1G2T1T2 S1S2 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G2 S2 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G1 S1 None G3 S1 None G3G4 S1S2 None CESA Other Status Notes None USFS:S None None IUCN:VU None IUCN:CR None IUCN:VU None IUCN:VU None None BLM:S None None BLM:S IUCN:VU None None None None Threatened IUCN:VU None None None BLM:S None IUCN:DD USFS:S None IUCN:DD USFS:S None BLM:S None None None None None None None USFS:S None Yes Species Commen GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Punctum hannai Trinity Spot +Pyrgulopsis aardahli Benton Valley (=Aahrdahl's) springsnail +Pyrgulopsis archimedis Archimedes pyrg +Pyrgulopsis cinerana Ash Valley pyrg +Pyrgulopsis diablensis Diablo Range pyrg +Pyrgulopsis eremica Smoke Creek pyrg +Pyrgulopsis falciglans Likely pyrg +Pyrgulopsis gibba Surprise Valley pyrg +Pyrgulopsis greggi Kern River pyrg +Pyrgulopsis lasseni Willow Creek pyrg +Pyrgulopsis longae Long Valley pyrg +Pyrgulopsis owensensis Owens Valley springsnail +Pyrgulopsis perturbata Fish Slough springsnail +Pyrgulopsis rupinicola Sucker Springs pyrg +Pyrgulopsis taylori San Luis Obispo pyrg +Pyrgulopsis ventricosa Clear Lake pyrg +Pyrgulopsis wongi Wong's springsnail +Radiocentrum avalonense Catalina mountainsnail +Rothelix warnerfontis Warner Springs shoulderband +Sterkia clementina San Clemente Island blunt -top snail +Trilobopsis roperi Shasta chaparral +Trilobopsis tehamana Tehama chaparral +Tryonia imitator mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) +Tryonia margae Grapevine Springs elongate tryonia +Tryonia rowlandsi Grapevine Springs squat tryonia +Vespericola karokorum Karok hesperian +Vespericola marinensis Marin hesperian +Vespericola pressleyi Big Bar hesperian Vespericola scotti Benson Gulch hesperian Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None G3 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None IUCN:VU G1G2 S1S2 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None IUCN:CR G2 S2 None None IUCN:LC USFS:S G1 S1 None None IUCN:CR G1 S1 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None IUCN:NT G1 S1 None None USFS:S G1 S1 None None BLM:S USFS:S G2 S2 None None IUCN:DD G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None IUCN:DD G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None BLM:S USFS:S G1 S1 None None Species Commen GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) +Vespericola shasta Shasta hesperian +Vespericola sierranus Siskiyou hesperian +Xerarionta intercisa horseshoe snail +Xerarionta redimita wreathed cactussnail Xerarionta tryoni Bicolor cactussnail ARACHNIDA (Spiders and relatives) +Aphrastochthonius grubbsi Grubbs' Cave pseudoscorpion Aphrastochthonius similis Carlow's Cave pseudoscorpion Archeolarca aalbui Aalbu's Cave pseudoscorpion +Banksula californica Alabaster Cave harvestman +Banksula galilei Galile's cave harvestman +Banksula grubbsi Grubbs' cave harvestman +Banksula incredula incredible harvestman +Banksula martinorum Martins' cave harvestman +Banksula melones Melones Cave harvestman +Banksula rudolphi Rudolph's cave harvestman +Banksula tuolumne Tuolumne cave harvestman +Banksula tutankhamen King Tut Cave harvestman +Calicina arida San Benito harvestman +Calicina breva Stanislaus harvestman +Calicina cloughensis Clough Cave harvestman +Calicina conifera Crane Flat harvestman +Calicina diminua Marin blind harvestman +Calicina dimorphica Watts Valley harvestman +Calicina macula marbled harvestman +Calicina mesaensis Table Mountain harvestman +Calicina minor Edgewood blind harvestman +Calicina piedra Piedra harvestman +Calileptoneta briggsi Briggs' leptonetid spider +Calileptoneta oasa Andreas Canyon leptonetid spider Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA G1 S1 None None G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None GH SH None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None Other Status Notes USFS:S IUCN:VU IUCN:VU IUCN:VU IUCN:VU Species Commen ARACHNIDA (Spiders and relatives) +Calileptoneta ubicki Ubick's leptonetid spider +Calileptoneta wapiti Mendocino leptonetid spider +Fissilicreagris imperialis Empire Cave pseudoscorpion +Hubbardia idria Idria short -tailed whipscorpion +Hubbardia secoensis Arroyo Seco short -tailed whipscorpion +Hubbardia shoshonensis Shoshone Cave whip -scorpion +Larca laceyi Lacey's Cave pseudoscorpion +Meta dolloff Dolloff Cave spider +Microcina edgewoodensis Edgewood Park micro -blind harvestman +Microcina homi Hom's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina jungi Jung's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina leei Lee's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina lumi Lum's micro -blind harvestman +Microcina tiburona Tiburon micro -blind harvestman +Neochthonius imperialis Empire Cave pseudoscorpion +Pseudogarypus orpheus Music Hall Cave pseudoscorpion +Socalchemmis gertschi Gertsch's socalchemmis spider +Socalchemmis icenoglei Icenogle's socalchemmis spider +Socalchemmis monterey Monterey socalchemmis spider +Talanites moodyae Moody's gnaphosid spider +Talanites ubicki Ubick's gnaphosid spider Telema sp. Santa Cruz telemid spider Texella deserticola Whitewater Canyon harvestman +Texella kokoweef Kokoweef Crystal Cave harvestman +Texella shoshone Shoshone Cave harvestman CRUSTACEA, Order Anostraca (fairy shrimp) +Artemia monica Mono Lake brine shrimp +Branchinecta campestris pocket pouch fairy shrimp +Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G3 S3 None None G2 S1 None None G1 S1 Endangered None I 1 [01011 W0 BLM:S IUCN:VU 11141►ay07 IUCN:EN Yes Species Commen CRUSTACEA, Order Anostraca (fairy shrimp) +Branchinecta longiantenna longhorn fairy shrimp +Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp +Branchinecta mesovallensis midvalley fairy shrimp +Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp +Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella +Linderiella santarosae Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp +Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp CRUSTACEA, Order Notostraca (tadpole shrimp) +Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp CRUSTACEA, Order Anomopoda (water fleas) +Dumontia oregonensis hairy water flea CRUSTACEA, Order Isopoda (isopods) +Bowmanasellus sequoiae Sequoia cave isopod +Caecidotea tomalensis Tomales isopod +Calasellus californicus Anisopod +Calasellus longus Anisopod CRUSTACEA, Order Amphipoda (amphipods) +Hyalella muerta Texas Spring amphipod +Hyalella sandra Death Valley amphipod +Stygobromus cherylae Barr's amphipod Stygobromus cowani Cowan's amphipod Stygobromus gallawayae Gallaway's amphipod +Stygobromus gradyi Grady's Cave amphipod Stygobromus grahami Graham's Cave amphipod +Stygobromus harai Hara's Cave amphipod Stygobromus hyporheicus Hypoheic amphipod Stygobromus imperialis Empire Cave amphipod +Stygobromus lacicolus Lake Tahoe amphipod +Stygobromus mackenziei Mackenzie's Cave amphipod Stygobromus myersae Myer's amphipod Stygobromus mysticus Secret Cave amphipod Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA G1 S1 Endangered None G3 S3 Threatened None G2 S2 None None G2 S2 Endangered None G2G3 S2S3 None None G1G2 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 Endangered None G3 S2S3 Endangered None G1G3 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G2 S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None Other Status Notes IUCN:EN IUCN:VU IUCN:EN IUCN:NT IUCN:EN IUCN:EN IUCN:VU IUCN:VU IUCN:VU Yes Yes Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CRUSTACEA, Order Amphipoda (amphipods) Stygobromus rudolphi G1 S1 Rudolph's amphipod Stygobromus sheldoni G1 S1 Sheldon's amphipod Stygobromus sierrensis G1 S1 Sierra amphipod +Stygobromus tahoensis G1 S1 Lake Tahoe stygobromid Stygobromus trinus G1 S1 Trinity County amphipod +Stygobromus wengerorum G1 S1 Wengerors' Cave amphipod CRUSTACEA, Order Decapoda (crayfish & shrimp) +Pacifastacus fortis G1 S1 Shasta crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus klamathensis G5T5 S3 Klamath crayfish +Syncaris pacifica G1 S1 California freshwater shrimp INSECTA, Order Odonata (dragonflies & damselflies) +Ischnura gemina G2 S2 San Francisco forktail damselfly INSECTA, Order Plecoptera (stoneflies) +Capnia lacustra G1 S1 Lake Tahoe benthic stonefly +Cosumnoperla hypocrena G2 S2 Cosumnes stripetail +Megaleuctra sierra G2Q S1? Shirttail Creek stonefly INSECTA, Order Orthoptera (grasshoppers, katydids, and crickets) +Aglaothorax longipennis G1 G2 S 1 S2 Santa Monica shieldback katydid +Ammopelmatus kelsoensis G 1 G2 S1S2 Kelso jerusalem cricket +Ammopelmatus muwu G1 S1 Point Conception jerusalem cricket +Idiostatus kathleenae G1G2 S1S2 Pinnacles shieldback katydid +Idiostatus middlekauffi G1 G2 S1 Middlekauffs shieldback katydid Macrobaenetes algodonensis G1G2 S 1 S2 Algodones sand treader cricket +Macrobaenetes kelsoensis G2 S2 Kelso giant sand treader cricket +Macrobaenetes valgum G1G2 S1S2 Coachella giant sand treader cricket Pristoceuthophilus sp. G1G3 S1S3 Samwell Cave cricket +Psychomastax deserticola G1G2 S1S2 desert monkey grasshopper +Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis G1G2 S1S2 Coachella Valley jerusalem cricket +Tetrix sierrana G1G2 S1S2 Sierra pygmy grasshopper +Trimerotropis infantilis G1 S1 Zayante band -winged grasshopper +Trimerotropis occidentiloides G1G2 S1S2 Santa Monica grasshopper None None None None CESA Other Status Notes None None None None None None None None IUCN:VU Endangered Endangered IUCN:CR None None Endangered Endangered IUCN:EN None None IUCN:VU None None None None None None None None IUCN:CR None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None None None IUCN:CR None None None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU None None IUCN:VU Endangered None IUCN:EN None None IUCN:EN Species Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Orthoptera (grasshoppers, katydids, and crickets) +Trimerotropisocculens G1G2S1S2 None None IUCN:EN Lompoc grasshopper INSECTA, Order Heteroptera (true bugs) +Ambrysus funebris G1 S1 Candidate None Nevares Spring naucorid bug +Belostoma saratogae G1 S1 None None Saratoga Springs belostoman bug +Oravelia pege G1 S1 None None Dry Creek cliff strider bug +Pelocoris shoshone G1G3 S1S2 None None Amargosa naucorid bug +Saldula usingeri G1 S1 None None Wilbur Springs shorebug INSECTA, Order Neuroptera (lacewings) +Oliarces clara G1G3 S2 None None cheeseweed owlfly (cheeseweed moth lacewing) INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) +Aegialia concinna G1 S1 None None BLM:S Ciervo aegilian scarab beetle IUCN:VU +Agabus rumppi G1G3 S1 None None Death Valley agabus diving beetle Agrilusharenus G1G2S1S2 None None Harenus jewel beetle +Anomala carlsoni G1 S1 None None Carlson's dune beetle +Anomala hardyorum G1 S1 None None Hardy's dune beetle +Anthicus antiochensis G1 S1 None None Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle +Anthicus sacramento G1 S1 None None IUCN:EN Sacramento anthicid beetle +Atractelmis wawona G1G3 S1S2 None None Wawona riffle beetle +Chaetarthria leechi G1? S1? None None Leech's chaetarthrian water scavenger beetle +Cicindela gabbii G2G4 S1 None None western tidal -flat tiger beetle +Cicindela hirticollis abrupta GSTH SH None None Sacramento Valley tiger beetle +Cicindela hirticollis gravida G5T2 S1 None None sandy beach tiger beetle +Cicindela latesignata latesignata G2G4T1T2 S1 None None western beach tiger beetle +Cicindela ohlone G1 S1 Endangered None Ohlone tiger beetle +Cicindela senilis frosti G2G3T1T3 S1 None None senile tiger beetle +Cicindela tranquebarica ssp. G5T1 S1 None None San Joaquin tiger beetle +Cicindela tranquebarica viridissima G5T1 S1 None None greenest tiger beetle +Coelusglobosus G1G2S1S2 None None IUCN:VU globose dune beetle +Coelus gracilis G1 S1 None None BLM:S San Joaquin dune beetle IUCN:VU Species Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Comment Rank ESA CESA INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) Coenonycha clementina G1? S1? None None San Clemente Island coenonycha beetle Cyclocephala wandae G1G2 S1S2 None None Wandae dune beetle Deltaspis ivae G1 S1 None None marsh -elder long -horned beetle +Desmocerus californicus dimorphus G3T2 S2 Threatened None valley elderberry longhorn beetle +Dinacoma caseyi G1 S1 Endangered None Casey's June beetle +Dubiraphia brunnescens G1 S1 None None brownish dubiraphian riffle beetle +Dubiraphia giulianii G1G3 S1S3 None None Giuliani's dubiraphian riffle beetle +Elaphrus viridis G1 S1 Threatened None Delta green ground beetle +Glaresis arenata G2 S2 None None Kelso Dunes scarab glaresis beetle +Hydrochara rickseckeri G2? S2? None None Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle +Hydroporus leechi G1? S1? None None Leech's skyline diving beetle +Hydroporus simplex G1? S1? None None simple hydroporus diving beetle +Hygrotus curvipes G1 S1 None None curved -foot hygrotus diving beetle +Hygrotus fontinalis G1 S1 None None travertine band -thigh diving beetle Juniperella mirabilis G1 S1 None None juniper metallic wood -boring beetle +Lepismadora agodones G1 S1 None None Algodones sand jewel beetle +Lichnanthe albipilosa G1 S1 None None white sand bear scarab beetle +Lichnanthe ursina G2 S2 None None bumblebee scarab beetle +Lytta hoppingi G1G2 S1S2 None None Hopping's blister beetle Lytta insperata G1G2 S1S2 None None Mojave Desert blister beetle +Lytta moesta G2 S2 None None moestan blister beetle +Lytta molesta G2 S2 None None molestan blister beetle +Lytta morrisoni G1G2 S1S2 None None Morrison's blister beetle +Microcylloepus formicoideus G1 S1 None None Furnace Creek riffle beetle +Miloderes nelsoni G2 S2 None None Nelson's miloderes weevil +Nebria darlingtoni G1 S1 None None South Forks ground beetle +Nebria gebleri siskiyouensis G4G5T4 S1S2 None None Siskiyou ground beetle +Nebria sahlbergii triad G1T1 S1 None None Trinity Alps ground beetle Ochthebius crassalus G1G3 S1S3 None None wing shoulder minute moss beetle Other Status Notes IUCN:CR Species Commen INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) +Ochthebius recticulus Wilbur Springs minute moss beetle +Onychobaris langei Lange's El Segundo Dune weevil +Optioservus canus Pinnacles optioservus riffle beetle Paleoxenus dohrni Dohrn's elegant eucnemid beetle +Polyphylla anteronivea Saline Valley snow -front June beetle +Polyphylla barbata Mount Hermon (=barbate) June beetle +Polyphylla erratica Death Valley June beetle +Polyphylla nubila Atascadero June beetle Prasinalia imperialis Algodones white wax jewel beetle +Pseudocotalpa andrewsi Andrew's dune scarab beetle Scaphinotus behrensi Behrens' snail -eating beetle +Trachykele hartmani serpentine cypress wood -boring beetle Trichinorhipis knulli Knull's metallic wood -boring beetle +Trigonoscuta brunnotesselata brown tassel trigonoscuta weevil +Trigonoscuta dorothea dorothea Dorothy's El Segundo Dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi agodones Algodones dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi imperialis Imperial dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi punctata Punctate dune weevil Trigonoscuta rothi rothi Roth's dune weevil +Trigonoscuta sp. Doyen's trigonoscuta dune weevil +Trigonoscuta stantoni Santa Cruz Island shore weevil +Vandykea tuberculata serpentine cypress long -horned beetle INSECTA, Order Mecoptera (scorpionflies) +Orobittacus obscurus gold rush hanging scorpionfly INSECTA, Order Diptera (flies) +Ablautus schlingeri Oso Flaco robber fly Apiocera warneri Glamis sand fly +Brennania belkini Belkin's dune tabanid fly +Efferia antiochi Antioch efferian robberfly Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G3? S3? None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 Endangered None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G2G4 S2S4 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1T1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1Q S1 None None G1? S1? None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None IUCN:VU Yes Species Commen INSECTA, Order Diptera (flies) Efferia macroxipha Glamis robberfly +Metapogon hurdi Hurd's metapogon robberfly +Paracoenia calida Wilbur Springs shore fly +Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Delhi Sands flower -loving fly +Rhaphiomidas terminatus terminatus El Segundo flower -loving fly Rhaphiomidas trochilus Valley mydas fly INSECTA, Order Lepidoptera (butterflies & moths) +Adela oplerella Opler's longhorn moth +Apodemia mormo langei Lange's metalmark butterfly +Areniscythris brachypteris Oso Flaco flightless moth Callophrys comstocki desert green hairstreak +Callophrys mossii bayensis San Bruno elfin butterfly +Callophrys mossii hidakupa San Gabriel Mountains elfin butterfly +Callophrys mossii marinensis Marin elfin butterfly +Callophrys thornei Thorne's hairstreak +Carolella busckana Busck's gallmoth +Carterocephalus palaemon magnus Sonoma arctic skipper Cercyonis pegala carsonensis Carson Valley wood nymph +Chlosyne leanira elegans Oso Flaco patch butterfly +Coenonympha tullia yontockett Yontocket satyr +Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering population +Euchloe hyantis andrewsi Andrew's marble butterfly +Eucosma hennei Henne's eucosman moth +Euphilotes battoides allyni El Segundo blue butterfly +Euphilotes battoides comstocki Comstock's blue butterfly Euphilotes baueri Bauer's dotted -blue +Euphilotes enoptes smithi Smith's blue butterfly Euphilotes mojave Mojave dotted -blue +Euphydryas editha bayensis Bay checkerspot butterfly Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G3 S1S3 None None G1 S1 None None G1T1 S1 Endangered None G1T1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G2 S2 None None G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G1 S1 None None G3G4 S1S2 None None XERCES:IM G4T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G4T1T2 S1S2 None None USFS:S G4T1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None BLM:S G1G3SH None None G5T5 S1 None None G5T1T2 S1S2 None None G4G5T1T2 S1S2 None None G5T1T2 S1 None None G4T2T3 S2S3 None None USFS:S G3G4T1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T2 S2 None None G2G4 S1S2 None None USFS:S XERCES:IM G5T1T2 S1S2 Endangered None XERCES:CI G2G3 S1S2 None None XERCES:IM G5T1 S1 Threatened None XERCES:CI Yes Species Commen INSECTA, Order Lepidoptera (butterflies & moths) +Euphydryas editha monoensis Mono checkerspot butterfly +Euphydryas editha quino quino checkerspot butterfly Euphyes vestris harbisoni dun skipper +Euproserpinus euterpe Kern primrose sphinx moth +Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis Palos Verdes blue butterfly +Hesperia miriamae longaevicola White Mountains skipper Hesperopsis gracielae Macneill's sootywing +Lycaena hermes Hermes copper butterfly Lycaena rubidus incana White Mountains copper +Panoquina errans wandering (=saltmarsh) skipper +Philotiella speciosa bohartorum Boharts' blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides albihalos White Mountains icarioides blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides missionensis Mission blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides moroensis Morro Bay blue butterfly +Plebejus icarioides parapheres Point Reyes blue butterfly +Plebejus idas lotis lotis blue butterfly +Plebejus saepiolus albomontanus White Mountains saepiolus blue butterfly +Plebejus saepiolus aureolus San Gabriel Mountains blue butterfly +Plebulina emigdionis San Emigdio blue butterfly +Polites mardon mardon skipper Polites sabuleti albamontana White Mountains sandhill skipper Pseudocopaeodes eunus eunus alkali skipper +Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus Carson wandering skipper +Pyrgus ruralis lagunae Laguna Mountains skipper +Speyeria adiaste adiaste unsilvered fritillary +Speyeria callippe callippe callippe silverspot butterfly +Speyeria egleis tehachapina Tehachapi Mountain silverspot butterfly +Speyeria nokomis carsonensis Carson Valley silverspot Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates t Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G5T2T3 S1S2 None None USFS:S G5T1T2 S1S2 Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T1 S1? None None G1G2 S1 Threatened None XERCES:CI G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G2G3T1 S1 None None G2G3 S1S2 None None XERCES:VU G1 S1 Candidate None IUCN:VU USFS:S G5T1 S1 None None G4G5 S2 None None IUCN:NT G3G4T1 S1 None None G5T2T3 S2? None None G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T2 S2 None None G5T1T2 S1S2 None None GSTH SH Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T2 S1S2 None None G5T1 S1 None None USFS:S G1G2 S1S2 None None USFS:S G2G3 S1 None None USFS:S XERCES:IM G5T2 S2 None None G3G4T2 S2 None None G3G4T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G1G2T1 S1 None None G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI G5T2 S2 None None USFS:S G3T1 S1 None None Yes Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Lepidoptera (butterflies & moths) +Speyeria zerene behrensii G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI Behren's silverspot butterfly +Speyeria zerene hippolyta G5T1 S1 Threatened None XERCES:CI Oregon silverspot butterfly +Speyeria zerene myrtleae G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES:CI Myrtle's silverspot butterfly +Speyeria zerene sonomensis G5T1 S1 None None Sonoma zerene fritillary INSECTA, Order Trichoptera (caddisflies) +Cryptochia denningi G1G2 S1S2 None None Denning's cryptic caddisfly +Cryptochia excella G1G2 S1S2 None None Kings Canyon cryptochian caddisfly +Cryptochia shasta G1G2 S1S2 None None confusion caddisfly +Desmona bethula G2G3 S2S3 None None amphibious caddisfly +Diplectrona californica G1G2 S1S2 None None California diplectronan caddisfly +Ecclisomyia bilera G1G2 S1S2 None None Kings Creek ecclysomyian caddisfly +Farula praelonga G1G2 S1S2 None None long-tailed caddisfly +Goeracea oregona G3 S1S2 None None Sagehen Creek goeracean caddisfly +Lepidostoma ermanae G1G2 S1S2 None None Cold Spring caddisfly +Limnephilus atercus G3G4 S1 None None Fort Dick limnephilus caddisfly +Neothremma genella G1G2 S1S2 None None golden -horned caddisfly Neothremma siskiyou G1G2 S1S2 None None Siskiyou caddisfly +Parapsyche extensa GH SH None None King's Creek parapsyche caddisfly +Rhyacophila lineata G1G3 S1S2 None None Castle Crags rhyacophilan caddisfly +Rhyacophila mosana G1G2Q S1S2 None None bilobed rhyacophilan caddisfly +Rhyacophila spinata G1G2 S1S2 None None spiny rhyacophilan caddisfly INSECTA, Order Hymenoptera (ants, bees, & wasps) +Andrena blennospermatis G2 S2 None None Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee +Andrena macswaini G2 S2 None None An andrenid bee +Andrena subapasta G1G2 S1S2 None None an andrenid bee +Argochrysis lassenae G1 S1 None None Lassen cuckoo wasp +Ashmeadiella chumashae G2? S2? None None Channel Islands leaf -cutter bee +Bombus caliginosus G4? S1S2 None None IUCN:VU obscure bumble bee +Bombus crotchii G3G4 S1S2 None None Crotch bumble bee +Bombus franklini G1 S1 None None IUCN:CR Franklin's bumble bee XERCES:CI Yes Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Hymenoptera (ants, bees, & wasps) +Bombusmorrisoni G4G5S1S2 None None IUCN:VU Morrison bumble bee +Bombus occidentalis G2G3 S1 None None USFS:S western bumble bee XERCES:IM +Bombus suckleyi GU S1 None None Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee +Ceratochrysis bradleyi G1 S1 None None Bradley's cuckoo wasp +Ceratochrysis gracilis G1 S1 None None Piute Mountains cuckoo wasp +Ceratochrysis longimala G1 S1 None None Desert cuckoo wasp +Ceratochrysis menkei G1 S1 None None Menke's cuckoo wasp +Chrysis tularensis G1G2 S1S2 None None Tulare cuckoo wasp Clepteshumboldti G1G2S1S2 None None Humboldt cuckoo wasp +Dufourea stagei G1G2 S1? None None Stage's dufourine bee +Eucerceris ruficeps G1G3 S1S2 None None redheaded sphecid wasp Euparagia unidentata G1G2 S1S2 None None Algodones euparagia Habropoda pallida G1G2 S1S2 None None white faced bee +Halictus harmonius G1 S1 None None XERCES:CI haromonius halictid bee +Hedychridium argenteum G1? S1? None None Riverside cuckoo wasp +Hedychridium milleri G1? S1? None None Borax Lake cuckoo wasp +Lasioglossum channelense G1 S1 None None Channel Island sweat bee +Melitta californica G4? S2? None None California mellitid bee Microbembexelegans G1G2S1S2 None None Algodones elegant sand wasp +Minymischa ventura GU SU None None Ventura cuckoo wasp +Myrmosula pacifica GH SH None None Antioch multilid wasp Neolarra alba GH SH None None white cuckoo bee +Paranomada californica G1 S1 None None California cuckoo bee +Parnopes borregoensis G1? S1? None None Borrego parnopes cuckoo wasp Perdita agodones G1G2 S1S2 None None Algodones perdita Perdita frontalis G1G2 S1S2 None None Imperial Perdita Perdita glamis G1G2 S1S2 None None Glamis perdita +Perdita scitula antiochensis G1T1 S1 None None Antioch andrenid bee +Philanthus nasa/is G1 S1 None None Antioch specid wasp Special Animals List - December 2015 Invertebrates Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes INSECTA, Order Hymenoptera (ants, bees, & wasps) +Protodufourea wasbaueri Wasbauer's protodufourea bee +Protodufourea zavortinki Zavortink's protodufourea bee +Rhopalolemma robertsi Roberts' rhopalolemma bee Sedomaya glamisensis Glamis night tiphiid Sphaeropthalma ecarinata Glamis night mutillid +Sphecodogastra antiochensis Antioch Dunes halcitid bee Stictiella villegasi Algodones sand wasp +Trachusa gummifera San Francisco Bay Area leaf -cutter bee G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None G1G2 S1S2 None None G1 S1 None None XERCES:DD XERCES:CI Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes PETROMYZONTIDAE (lampreys) +Entosphenushubbsi G1G2S1S2 None None AFS:TH Kern brook lamprey CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S Entosphenus lethophagus G3G4 S3 None None AFS:VU Pit -Klamath brook lamprey Entosphenus similis G3G4Q S3 None None AFS:TH Klamath River lamprey CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Entosphenus tridentatus G4 S4 None None AFS:VU Pacific lamprey BLM:S CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Entosphenus tridentatus ssp. 1 G4T1 S1 None None AFS:VU Goose Lake lamprey CDFW:SSC USFS:S Lampetra ayresii G4 S3 None None AFS:VU river lamprey CDFW:SSC ACIPENSERIDAE (sturgeon) +Acipensermedirostris (southern DPS) G3 S1S2 Threatened None AFS:VU Yes green sturgeon CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT NMFS:SC Acipenser transmontanus G4 S2 None None AFS:EN white sturgeon CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) +Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii G4T4 S3 None None AFS:VU coast cutthroat trout CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi G4T3 S2 Threatened None AFS:TH Lahontan cutthroat trout +Oncorhynchus clarkii seleniris G4T1T2S1S2 Threatened None AFS:EN Paiute cutthroat trout +Oncorhynchus gorbuscha G5 S1 None None pink salmon Oncorhynchus keta G5 S1 None None chum salmon +Oncorhynchus kisutch G4T2Q S2? Threatened Threatened AFS:TH Yes coho salmon - southern Oregon / northern California ESU +Oncorhynchus kisutch G4 S2? Endangered Endangered AFS:EN Yes coho salmon - central California coast ESU +Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita G5T1 S1 None None AFS:TH Volcano Creek golden trout CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum G5T1 Q S1 None None AFS:TH Eagle Lake rainbow trout CDFW:SSC USFS:S Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti G5T1 Q S1 None None AFS:TH Kern River rainbow trout CDFW:SSC USFS:S Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus G5T3Q S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes steelhead - Klamath Mountains USFS:S Province DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus G5T2T3Q S2S3 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes steelhead - central California coast DPS Species SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - south-central California coast DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - southern California DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - Central Valley DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - northern California DPS +Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus summer -run steelhead trout +Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 1 Goose Lake redband trout +Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 2 McCloud River redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 3 Warner Valley redband trout +Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei Little Kern golden trout +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU. +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - Central Valley spring -run ESU +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - Sacramento River winter -run ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - Central Valley fall / late fall -run ESU +Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - California coastal ESU Prosopium williamsoni mountain whitefish +Salvelinus confluentus bull trout OSMERIDAE (smelt) +Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt +Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt +Thaleichthys pacificus eulachon CYPRINIDAE (minnows and carp) +Gila coerulea blue chub +Gila elegans bonytail +Gila orcuttii arroyo chub +Lavinia exilicauda chi Clear Lake hitch Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda Sacramento hitch Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G5T2Q S2 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes G5T1Q S1 Endangered None AFS:EN Yes G5T2Q S2 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes G5T2T3Q S2S3 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes G5T4Q S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes G5T2Q S2 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5T1T2Q S1 S2 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5T2Q S1? None None AFS:VU USFS:S G5T2 S2 Threatened None AFS:EN G5 S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5 S1 Threatened Threatened AFS:TH Yes G5 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN G5 S2? None None AFS:VU Yes CDFW:SSC NMFS:SC USFS:S G5 S1 Threatened None AFS:TH Yes G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC G4 SX Threatened Endangered IUCN:VU G1 S1 Threatened Endangered AFS:TH IUCN:EN G5 S1 Candidate Threatened CDFW:SSC Yes (southern DPS) G5 S3 Threatened None G3G4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G1 SH Endangered Endangered AFS:EN IUCN:EN G2 S2 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC USFS:S G4T1 S1 None Threatened AFS:VU USFS:S G4T2T4 S2S4 None None CDFW:SSC Species CYPRINIDAE (minnows and carp) Lavinia exilicauda harengus Pajaro/Salinas hitch +Lavinia symmetricus mitrulus Pit roach +Lavinia symmetricus navarroensis Navarro roach +Lavinia symmetricus parvipinnis Gualala roach +Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 1 San Joaquin roach +Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 2 Tomales roach +Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 3 Red Hills roach Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 4 Clear Lake - Russian River roach Lavinia symmetricus subditus Monterey roach +Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead +Pogonichthys macrolepidotus Sacramento splittail +Ptychocheilus lucius Colorado pikeminnow +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 1 Amargosa Canyon speckled dace +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 2 Owens speckled dace +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3 Santa Ana speckled dace +Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 5 Long Valley speckled dace +Siphateles bicolor mohavensis Mohave tui chub Siphateles bicolor pectinifer Lahontan Lake tui chub +Siphateles bicolor snyderi Owens tui chub +Siphateles bicolor ssp. 1 Eagle Lake tui chub +Siphateles bicolor ssp. 2 High Rock Spring tui chub Siphateles bicolor ssp. 3 Pit River tui chub +Siphateles bicolor thalassina Goose Lake tui chub +Siphateles bicolor vaccaceps Cow Head tui chub CATOSTOMIDAE (suckers) +Catostomus fumeiventris Owens sucker +Catostomus latipinnis flannelmouth sucker Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G4T2T4 S2S4 None None CDFW:SSC G4T2 S2 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G4T3Q S3 None None CDFW:SSC G4T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G4T1 S1 None None AFS:VU BLM:S CDFW:SSC G4T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G4T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S GNR S3 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN G1 SX Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP IUCN:VU G5T1Q S1 None None AFS:TH BLM:S CDFW:SSC G5T1T2Q S1S2 None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5T1 S1 None None AFS:EN BLM:S CDFW:SSC G4T1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP G4T3 S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC G4T1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G4TX SX None None G4T1T3 S1 S3 None None G4T2T3 S2 None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC G4T1 S1 None None AFS:EN CDFW:SSC G3G4 S3 None None CDFW:SSC G3G4S1 None None Yes Yes Yes Species CATOSTOMIDAE (suckers) +Catostomus microps Modoc sucker +Catostomus occidentalis lacusanserinus Goose Lake sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus mountain sucker Catostomus rimiculus ssp. 1 Jenny Creek sucker +Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker +Catostomus snyderi Klamath largescale sucker +Chasmistes brevirostris shortnose sucker +Deltistes luxatus Lost River sucker +Xyrauchen texanus razorback sucker CYPRINODONTIDAE (killifishes) +Cyprinodon macularius desert pupfish +Cyprinodon nevadensis amargosae Amargosa pupfish Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G2 S2 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G5T2Q S1 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T2Q S1 None None AFS:VU G1 S1 Threatened None AFS:TH IUCN:VU G3 S3 None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT G1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G1 S1 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G1 S1S2 Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G1 S1 G2T1T2 S1S2 +Cyprinodon nevadensis nevadensis G2T1 S1 Saratoga Springs pupfish +Cyprinodon nevadensis shoshone G2T1 S1 Shoshone pupfish +Cyprinodon radiosus G1 S1 Owens pupfish +Cyprinodon salinus milleri G1T1Q S1 Cottonball Marsh pupfish +Cyprinodon salinus salinus G1T1 S1 Salt Creek pupfish GASTEROSTEIDAE (sticklebacks) Gasterosteus aculeatus microcephalus (South of Pt. Conception G5T2T3 S2S3 resident threespine stickleback only) Gasterosteus aculeatus santaannae G5T1 Q S1 Santa Ana (=Shay Creek) threespine stickleback +Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni G5T1 S1 unarmored threespine stickleback POLYPRIONIDAE (wreckfishes) Stereolepis gigas G3 S1 S2 giant sea bass Endangered Endangered AFS:EN IUCN:VU None None AFS:VU BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU None None AFS:TH CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU None None AFS:EN CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU Endangered Endangered AFS:EN CDFW:FP IUCN:EN None Threatened AFS:TH IUCN:EN None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN None None Yes None None AFS:EN Yes Endangered Endangered AFS:EN Yes CDFW:FP None None AFS:VU Yes IUCN:CR Species CENTRARCHIDAE (sunfishes) +Archoplites interruptus Sacramento perch EMBIOTOCIDAE (surfperches) Hysterocarpus traski lagunae Clear Lake tule perch +Hysterocarpus traski pomo Russian River tule perch Hysterocarpus traski traski Sacramento -San Joaquin tule perch GOBIIDAE (gobies) +Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby COTTIDAE (sculpins) +Cottus asperrimus rough sculpin Cottus gulosus riffle sculpin Cottus klamathensis klamathensis Upper Klamath marbled sculpin +Cottus klamathensis macrops bigeye marbled sculpin Cottus klamathensis polyporus Lower Klamath marbled sculpin Cottus perplexus reticulate sculpin Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status (Within native range G2G3 S1 None None AFS:TH only) CDFW:SSC G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T4 S4 None None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC G5T2T3 S2S3 None None G3 S3 Endangered None AFS:EN G2 S2 None G5 S3S4 None G4T1T2 S1S2 None G4T3 S2S3 None G4T2T4 S2S4 None G4 S2S3 None CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU Threatened AFS:VU BLM:S CDFW:FP IUCN:VU None CDFW:SSC None CDFW:SSC None AFS:VU CDFW:SSC None CDFW:SSC None Notes Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes AMBYSTOMATIDAE (mole salamanders) +Ambystoma californiense G2G3 S2S3 California tiger salamander +Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum G5T1T2 S1 S2 Santa Cruz long -toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum sigillatum G5T4 S3 southern long -toed salamander DICAMPTODONTIDAE (giant salamanders) Threatened Threatened CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:VU Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP None None +Dicamptodon ensatus G3 S2S3 None None IUCN:NT California giant salamander RHYACOTRITONIDAE (Olympic salamanders) +Rhyacotriton variegatus G3G4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC southern torrent salamander IUCN:LC USFS:S SALAMANDRIDAE (newts) Taricha rivularis G4 S2 None None IUCN:LC red -bellied newt +Taricha torosa (Monterey Co. & south G4 S4 None None CDFW:SSC Coast Range newt only) PLETHODONTIDAE (lungless salamanders) Aneides niger G3 S3 None None Santa Cruz black salamander +Batrachoseps altasierrae G4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC Greenhorn Mountains slender salamander +Batrachoseps bramei G3 S3 None None USFS:S Fairview slender salamander +Batrachoseps campi G3 S3 None None BLM:S Inyo Mountains slender salamander CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN USFS:S Batrachoseps diabolicus G2 S3 None None IUCN:DD Hell Hollow slender salamander +Batrachoseps gabrieli G2G3 S2S3 None None IUCN:DD San Gabriel slender salamander USFS:S Batrachoseps incognitus G2G3 S2 None None USFS:S San Simeon slender salamander Batrachoseps kawia G1G2 S2 None None IUCN:DD Sequoia slender salamander Batrachoseps luciae G2G3 S3 None None IUCN:LC Santa Lucia slender salamander +Batrachoseps major aridus G4T1 S1 Endangered Endangered desert slender salamander Batrachoseps minor G1 S1 None None IUCN:DD lesser slender salamander USFS:S +Batrachoseps pacificus G4 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC Channel Islands slender salamander +Batrachoseps regius G2 S2S3 None None IUCN:VU Kings River slender salamander USFS:S +Batrachoseps relictus G1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC relictual slender salamander IUCN:DD USFS:S +Batrachoseps robustus G3 S3 None None IUCN:NT Kern Plateau salamander +Batrachoseps simatus G2G3 S2S3 None Threatened IUCN:VU Kern Canyon slender salamander USFS:S +Batrachoseps stebbinsi G2 S2S3 None Threatened BLM:S Tehachapi slender salamander IUCN:VU Yes Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians Species Comment Rank ESA PLETHODONTIDAE (lungless salamanders) +Ensatina eschscholtzii croceator G5T3 S3 None yellow -blotched salamander +Ensatina klauberi G2G3 S3 None large -blotched salamander +Hydromantes brunus G2G3 S2S3 None limestone salamander +Hydromantes platycephalus Mount Lyell salamander +Hydromantes shastae Shasta salamander +Plethodon asupak Scott Bar salamander +Plethodon elongatus Del Norte salamander +Plethodon stormi Siskiyou Mountains salamander ASCAPHIDAE (tailed frogs) +Ascaphus truei Pacific tailed frog SCAPHIOPODIDAE (spadefoot toads) +Scaphiopus couchii Couch's spadefoot +Spea hammondii western spadefoot BUFONIDAE (true toads) +Anaxyrus californicus arroyo toad +Anaxyrus canorus Yosemite toad +Anaxyrus exsul black toad +Incilius alvarius Sonoran desert toad RANIDAE +Lithobates pipiens northern leopard frog +Lithobates yavapaiensis lowland leopard frog +Rana aurora northern red -legged frog +Rana boylii foothill yellow -legged frog G4 S4 None G1G2 S3 None G1G2 S1S2 None G4 S3 None G2G3S1S2 None G4 S3S4 None G5 S2 None G3 S3 None G2G3S2S3 G2G3S2S3 G1 S1 G5 SH (Native populations G5 S2 only) G4 SX G4 S3 G3 S3 CESA Other Status Notes None BLM:S CDFW:SSC USFS:S None CDFW:SSC USFS:S Threatened BLM:S CDFW:FP IUCN:VU USFS:S None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC Threatened BLM:S IUCN:VU USFS:S Threatened IUCN:VU Yes None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT Threatened IUCN:EN USFS:S None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT Endangered None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:EN Threatened None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:EN USFS:S None None None None None None +Rana cascadae G3G4 S3 None Cascades frog Threatened BLM:S Yes CDFW:FP IUCN:VU USFS:S None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:LC None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:LC None BLM:S Yes CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None CDFW:SSC Yes USFS:S None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S Species RANIDAE +Rana draytonii California red -legged frog +Rana muscosa southern mountain yellow -legged frog +Rana pretiosa Oregon spotted frog +Rana sierrae Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G2G3 S2S3 Threatened None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:VU G1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:EN USFS:S G2 SH Threatened None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU G1 S1 Endangered Threatened CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:EN USFS:S Species CHELONIIDAE (sea turtles) +Chelonia mydas green turtle KINOSTERNIDAE (musk and mud turtles +Kinosternon sonoriense Sonoran mud turtle EMYDIDAE (box and water turtles) +Emys marmorata western pond turtle Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G3 S1 Threatened None IUCN:EN TESTUDINIDAE (land tortoises) +Gopherus agassizii desert tortoise GEKKONIDAE (geckos) +Coleonyx switaki barefoot gecko +Coleonyx variegatus abbotti San Diego banded gecko CROTAPHYTIDAE (collared & leopard lizards) Gambelia copeii Cope's leopard lizard +Gambelia sila blunt -nosed leopard lizard PHRYNOSOMATIDAE (spiny lizards) +Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard +Phrynosoma mcallii flat -tailed horned lizard +Sceloporus graciosus graciosus northern sagebrush lizard +Uma inornata Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard +Uma notata Colorado Desert fringe -toed lizard +Uma scoparia Mojave fringe -toed lizard XANTUSIIDAE (night lizards) +Xantusia gracilis sandstone night lizard +Xantusia riversiana island night lizard Xantusia sierrae Sierra night lizard SCINCIDAE (skinks) +Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis Coronado Island skink TEIIDAE (whiptails and relatives) +Aspidoscelis hyperythra orangethroat whiptail +Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal whiptail G4 SH None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU G3G4 S3 None None BLM:S Yes CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU USFS:S G3 S2 Threatened Threatened IUCN:VU G4 S1 None Threatened BLM:S IUCN:LC G5T3T4 S1S2 None None G5 S1S2 None None IUCN:LC G1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G3G4 S3S4 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G3 S2 None Candidate BLM:S Endangered CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT G5T5 S3 None None BLM:S G1Q S1 Threatened Endangered IUCN:EN G3 S2 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT G3G4 S3S4 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU G3 S3 Delisted None IUCN:LC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S G5T2T3Q S1S2 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC G5 S2 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S G5T3T4 S2S3 None None Species ANGUIDAE (alligator lizards) +Elgaria panamintina Panamint alligator lizard ANNIELLIDAE (Legless lizards) +Anniella pulchra nigra black legless lizard +Anniella pulchra pulchra silvery legless lizard HELODERMATIDAE (venomous lizards) +Heloderma suspectum cinctum banded gila monster BOIDAE (boas) +Charina trivirgata rosy boa +Charina umbratica southern rubber boa COLUBRIDAE (egg -laying snakes) Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake Bogertophis rosaliae Baja California rat snake Coluber fuliginosus Baja California coachwhip +Diadophis punctatus modestus San Bernardino ringneck snake +Diadophis punctatus similis San Diego ringneck snake +Lampropeltis zonata (parvirubra) California mountain kingsnake (San Bernardino population) +Lampropeltis zonata (pulchra) California mountain kingsnake (San Diego population) +Masticophis flagellum ruddocki San Joaquin whipsnake +Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Alameda whipsnake Pituophis catenifer pumilus Santa Cruz Island gopher snake +Salvadora hexalepis virgultea coast patch -nosed snake NATRICIDAE (live -bearing snakes) +Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake +Thamnophis hammondii two -striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii ssp. Santa Catalina garter snake +Thamnophis sirtalis ssp. south coast garter snake Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles Comment Rank ESA (Coastal plain from Ventura Co. to San Diego Co., from sea level to about 850 m.) G3 S3 None G3G4T2T3Q S2 None G3G4T3T4Q S3 None G4T4 S1 None G4G5 S3S4 None G2G3S2S3 None G5T2 S2 None G4 S1 None G5 S1S2 None G5T2T3Q S2? None G5T2T3 S2? None G4G5 S2? None G4G5S1S2 None G5T2T3 S2? G4T2 S2 G5T1T2 S1? G5T4 S2S3 None Threatened Threatened None None None None CESA Other Status Notes None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU USFS:S None CDFW:SSC USFS:S None CDFW:SSC USFS:S None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT None IUCN:LC USFS:S Threatened USFS:S None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None USFS:S None USFS:S None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S None BILKS CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S None CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC G2 S2 Threatened Threatened IUCN:VU G4 S3S4 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S G4T1? S1 None None G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes Yes Species NATRICIDAE (live -bearing snakes) +Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake VIPERIIDAE (vipers) +Crotalus ruber red -diamond rattlesnake Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status G5T2Q S2 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP G4 S3 None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S Notes Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA ANATIDAE (ducks, geese, and swans) Anseralbifrons elgasi (Wintering) G5T2 S2S3 None None tule greater white -fronted goose Aythya americana (Nesting) G5 S3S4 None None redhead Aythya valisineria (Nesting) G5 S2 None None canvasback Branta bernicla (Wintering & staging) G5 S2? None None brant +Branta hutchinsii leucopareia (Wintering) G5T3 S2 Delisted None cackling (=Aleutian Canada) goose Bucephala islandica (Nesting) G5 S1 None None Barrow's goldeneye +Dendrocygna bicolor (Nesting) G5 S1 None None fulvous whistling -duck +Histrionicus histrionicus (Nesting) G4 S1 None None harlequin duck PHASIANIDAE (grouse and ptarmigan) +Bonasa umbellus G5 S3S4 None None ruffed grouse +Centrocercus urophasianus (Nesting & leks) G3G4 S2S3 None None greater sage -grouse +Dendragapus fuliginosus howardi G5T2T3 S2S3 None None Mount Pinos sooty grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus G4T3 SX None None columbianus Columbian sharp -tailed grouse ODONTOPHORIDAE (partridge and quail) Callipepla californica catalinensis G5T2 S2 None None Catalina California quail GAVIIDAE (loons) Gavia immer (Nesting) G5 S1 None None common loon DIOMEDEIDAE (albatross) Phoebastria albatrus G1 S1 Endangered None short -tailed albatross HYDROBATIDAE (storm petrels) +Oceanodroma furcata (Nesting colony) G5 S1 None None fork -tailed storm -petrel +Oceanodroma homochroa (Nesting colony) G2 S2 None None ashy storm -petrel +Oceanodroma melania (Nesting colony) black storm -petrel PELECANIIDAE (pelicans) +Pelecanus erythrorhynchos (Nesting colony) American white pelican +Pelecanus occidentalis californicus (Nesting colony & California brown pelican communal roosts) G3G4S1 None None G4 S1 None None G4T3 S3 Delisted Delisted Other Status Notes CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:WL IUCN:LC BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU NABCI:RWL BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC BLM:S CDFW:FP USFS:S Yes Yes Species Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status PHALACROCORACIDAE (cormorants) +Phalacrocorax auritus (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL double -crested cormorant IUCN:LC ARDEIDAE (herons, egrets, and bitterns) +Ardea alba (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None CDF:S great egret IUCN:LC +Ardea herodias (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None CDF:S great blue heron IUCN:LC Botaurus lentiginosus G4 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC American bittern +Egretta thula (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC snowy egret +Ixobrychus exilis (Nesting) G5 S2 None None CDFW:SSC least bittern IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Nycticorax nycticorax (Nesting colony) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC black -crowned night heron THRESKIORNITHIDAE (ibises and spoonbills) +Plegadis chihi (Nesting colony) G5 S3S4 None None CDFW:WL white-faced ibis IUCN:LC CICONIIDAE (storks) Mycteria americana G4 S2? None None CDFW:SSC wood stork IUCN:LC CATHARTIDAE (New World vultures) +Gymnogyps californianus G1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDF:S California condor CDFW:FP IUCN:CR NABCI:RWL ACCIPITRIDAE (hawks, kites, harriers, & eagles) +Accipitercooperii (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL Cooper's hawk IUCN:LC +Accipitergentilis (Nesting) G5 S3 None None BLM:S northern goshawk CDF:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S +Accipiterstriatus (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL sharp -shinned hawk +Aquila chrysaetos (Nesting & wintering) G5 S3 None None BLM:S golden eagle CDF:S CDFW:FP CDFW:WL IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Buteo regalis (Wintering) G4 S3S4 None None CDFW:WL ferruginous hawk IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Buteo swainsoni (Nesting) G5 S3 None Threatened BLM:S Swainson's hawk IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Circus cyaneus (Nesting) G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC northern harrier IUCN:LC +Elanus leucurus (Nesting) G5 S3S4 None None BLM:S white-tailed kite CDFW:FP IUCN:LC Notes Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status ACCIPITRIDAE (hawks, kites, harriers, & eagles) +Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Nesting & wintering) G5 S2 Delisted Endangered BLM:S bald eagle CDF:S CDFW:FP IUCN:LC USFS:S USFWS:BCC +Pandion haliaetus (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDF:S osprey CDFW:WL IUCN:LC Parabuteo unicinctus (Nesting) G5 S1 None None CDFW:WL Harris' hawk IUCN:LC FALCONIDAE (falcons) +Falco columbarius (Wintering) G5 S3S4 None None CDFW:WL merlin IUCN:LC +Falco mexicanus (Nesting) G5 S4 None None CDFW:WL prairie falcon IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC +Falco peregrinus anatum (Nesting) G4T4 S3S4 Delisted Delisted CDF:S American peregrine falcon CDFW:FP USFWS:BCC RALLIDAE (rails, coots, and gallinules) +Coturnicops noveboracensis G4 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC yellow rail IUCN:LC NABCI:RWL USFS:S USFWS:BCC +Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus G3G4T1 S1 None Threatened BLM:S California black rail CDFW:FP IUCN:NT NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC +Rallus longirostris levipes G5T1T2 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP light-footed clapper rail NABCI:RWL +Rallus longirostris obsoletus G5T1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP California clapper rail NABCI:RWL +Rallus longirostris yumanensis G5T3 S1 Endangered Threatened CDFW:FP Yuma clapper rail NABCI:RWL GRUIDAE (cranes) Grus canadensis canadensis (Wintering) G5T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC lesser sandhill crane +Grus canadensis tabida (Nesting & wintering) G5T4 S2 None Threatened BLM:S greater sandhill crane CDFW:FP USFS:S CHARADRIIDAE (plovers and relatives) +Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (Nesting) G3T3 S2 Threatened None CDFW:SSC western snowy plover NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC +Charadrius montanus (Wintering) G3 S2? None None BLM:S mountain plover CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC HAEMATOPODIDAE (oystercatchers) Haematopus bachmani (Nesting) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC black oystercatcher NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Notes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Species Commen SCOLOPACIDAE (sandpipers and relatives) Numenius americanus (Nesting) long -billed curlew LARIDAE (gulls and terns) Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds t Rank ESA G5 S2 +Chlidonias niger (Nesting colony) G4 S2 black tern +Gelochelidon nilotica (Nesting colony) G5 S1 gull -billed tern +Hydroprogne caspia (Nesting colony) G5 S4 Caspian tern +Larus californicus (Nesting colony) G5 S4 California gull Leucophaeus atricilla (Nesting colony) G5 S1 laughing gull +Rynchops niger (Nesting colony) G5 S2 black skimmer Sterna forsteri (Nesting colony) G5 S4 Forster's tern +Sternula antillarum browni (Nesting colony) G4T2T3Q S2 California least tern Thalasseus elegans (Nesting colony) G2 S2 elegant tern ALCIDAE (auklets, puffins, and relatives) +Brachyramphus marmoratus (Nesting) G3G4 S1 marbled murrelet +Cerorhinca monocerata (Nesting colony) G5 S3 rhinoceros auklet +Fratercula cirrhata (Nesting colony) G5 S1S2 tufted puffin Ptychoramphus aleuticus (Nesting colony) G4 S2S4 Cassin's auklet +Synthliboramphus scrippsi (Nesting colony) G3 S2 Scripps's murrelet CUCULIDAE (cuckoos and relatives) +Coccyzus americanus occidentalis (Nesting) G5T2T3 S1 western yellow -billed cuckoo STRIGIDAE (owls) +Asio flammeus short -eared owl +Asio otus long-eared owl +Athene cunicularia burrowing owl (Nesting) G5 S3 (Nesting) G5 SP (Burrow sites & some G4 S3 wintering sites) CESA Other Status Notes None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC None None IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC None None IUCN:LC Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP NABCI:RWL None None CDFW:WL IUCN:NT Threatened Endangered CDF:S IUCN:EN NABCI:RWL None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC Candidate Threatened BLM:S IUCN:VU NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC Threatened Endangered BLM:S NABCI:RWL USFS:S USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Species STRIGIDAE (owls) +Micrathene whitneyi elf owl Psiloscops flammeolus flammulated owl +Strix nebulosa great gray owl Strix occidentalis caurina northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis California spotted owl APODIDAE (swifts) Chaetura vauxi Vaux's swift +Cypseloides niger black swift TROCHILIDAE (hummingbirds) +Calypte costae Costa's hummingbird Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird Selasphorus sasin Allen's hummingbird PICIDAE (woodpeckers) +Colaptes chrysoides gilded flicker Melanerpes lewis Lewis' woodpecker +Melanerpes uropygialis Gila woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus White -headed woodpecker +Picoides arcticus black -backed woodpecker Picoides nuttallii Nuttall's woodpecker +Sphyrapicus ruber red -breasted sapsucker TYRANNIDAE (tyrant flycatchers) Contopus cooperi olive -sided flycatcher Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes (Nesting) G5 S1 None Endangered BLM:S IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G4 S2S4 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S1 None Endangered CDF:S IUCN:LC USFS:S G3T3 S2S3 Threatened Candidate CDF:S Yes Threatened CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT NABCI:YWL G3T3 S3 None None BLM:S Yes CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT USFS:S USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC (Nesting) G4 S2 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S1S2 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC G5 S1 None Endangered BLM:S IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G4 S4 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC G5 S1 None Endangered BLM:S IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G4 S4 None None IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC G5 S2 None None (Nesting) G4G5 S4S5 None None IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC (Nesting) G5 S4 None None (Nesting) G4 S4 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Species TYRANNIDAE (tyrant flycatchers) +Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher +Empidonax traillii brewsteri little willow flycatcher +Empidonax traillii extimus southwestern willow flycatcher +Myiarchus tyrannulus brown -crested flycatcher +Pyrocephalus rubinus vermilion flycatcher LANIIDAE (shrikes) +Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus anthonyi Island loggerhead shrike +Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi San Clemente loggerhead shrike VIREONIDAE (vireos) +Vireo bellii arizonae Arizona bell's vireo +Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo Vireo huttoni unitti Catalina Hutton's vireo +Vireo vicinior gray vireo CORVIDAE (Jays, crows, and magpies) Aphelocoma californica cana Eagle Mountain scrub -jay Aphelocoma insularis Island scrub -jay Pica nuttalli yellow -billed magpie ALAUDIDAE (larks) +Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark HIRUNDINIDAE (swallows) +Progne subis purple martin +Riparia riparia bank swallow PARIDAE (titmice and relatives) +Baeolophus inornatus oak titmouse Poecile atricapillus black -capped chickadee Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes (Nesting) G5 S1S2 (Nesting) G5T3T4 S1S2 (Nesting) G5T2 S1 (Nesting) G5 S3 (Nesting) G5 S2S3 (Nesting) G4 S4 G4T1 S1 G4T1Q S1 (Nesting) G5T4 S1S2 (Nesting) G5T2 S2 G5T2? S2? (Nesting) G4 S2 G5T1T2 S1 S2 G1 S1 (Nesting & communal G3G4 S3S4 roosts) G5T3Q S3 (Nesting) G5 S3 (Nesting) G5 S2 (Nesting) G4 S4 G5 S3 None Endangered IUCN:LC USFS:S USFWS:BCC None Endangered USFWS:BCC Endangered Endangered NABCI:RWL None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:SSC NABCI:RWL Endangered None CDFW:SSC NABCI:RWL None Endangered BLM:S IUCN:NT USFWS:BCC Endangered Endangered IUCN:NT NABCI:YWL None None CDFW:SSC None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFS:S USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:WL None None IUCN:NT NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC None Threatened BLM:S IUCN:LC None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes TROGLODYTIDAE (wrens) +Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus (San Diego & Orange G5T3Q S3 sandiegensis Counties only) coastal cactus wren Cistothorus palustris clarkae G5T2T3 S2S3 Clark's marsh wren Thryomanes bewickii leucophrys GSTX SX San Clemente Bewick's wren SYLVIIDAE (gnatcatchers) +Polioptila californica californica G3T2 S2 coastal California gnatcatcher +Polioptila melanura G5 S3S4 black -tailed gnatcatcher MIMIDAE (mockingbirds and thrashers) +Toxostoma bendirei G4G5 S3 Bendire's thrasher +Toxostoma crissale G5 S3 Crissal thrasher +Toxostoma lecontei G4 S3 Le Conte's thrasher PARULIDAE (wood -warblers) +Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat +Icteria virens yellow -breasted chat +Oreothlypis luciae Lucy's warbler +Oreothlypis virginiae Virginia's warbler None None CDFW:SSC Yes USFS:S USFWS:BCC None None CDFW:SSC None None CDFW:SSC Threatened None None None None None None None None None G5T3 S3 None None (Nesting) G5 S3 None None (Nesting) G5 S2S3 None None (Nesting) G5 S2 None None CDFW:SSC NABCI:YWL CDFW:WL IUCN:LC BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC CDFW:WL IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Yes Yes Yes Setophaga occidentalis (Nesting) G4G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC hermit warbler +Setophaga petechia (Nesting) G5 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC Yes yellow warbler USFWS:BCC +Setophaga petechia sonorana (Nesting) G5T2T3 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Yes Sonoran yellow warbler USFWS:BCC EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) +Aimophila ruficeps canescens G5T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:WL southern California rufous -crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps obscura G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Santa Cruz Island rufous -crowned sparrow +Ammodramus savannarum (Nesting) G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC grasshopper sparrow IUCN:LC +Artemisiospiza belli belli G5T2T4 S2? None None CDFW:WL Yes Bell's sage sparrow USFWS:BCC +Artemisiospiza belli clementeae G5T1 Q S1 Threatened None CDFW:SSC Yes San Clemente sage sparrow NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC +Chondestes grammacus (Nesting) G5 S4S5 None None IUCN:LC lark sparrow Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds Species Comment EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) +Junco hyemalis caniceps (Nesting) gray -headed junco +Melospiza melodia song sparrow ("Modesto" population) +Melospiza melodia graminea Channel Island song sparrow +Melospiza melodia maxillaris Suisun song sparrow +Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow +Melospiza melodia samuelis San Pablo song sparrow Melozone aberti Abert's towhee +Melozone crissalis eremophilus Inyo California towhee Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus Bryant's savannah sparrow +Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Belding's savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus (Wintering) large -billed savannah sparrow Pipilo maculatus clementae San Clemente spotted towhee +Piranga flava (Nesting) hepatic tanager +Piranga rubra (Nesting) summer tanager Pooecetes gramineus affinis (Wintering) Oregon vesper sparrow Spizella atrogularis (Nesting) black -chinned sparrow +Spizella breweri (Nesting) Brewer's sparrow Spizella passerina (Nesting) chipping sparrow CARDINALIDAE (cardinals) +Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal ICTERIDAE (blackbirds) Agelaius phoeniceus aciculatus Kern red -winged blackbird +Agelaius tricolor (Nesting colony) tricolored blackbird +Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus (Nesting) yellow -headed blackbird FRINGILLIDAE (finches and relatives) +Spinus lawrencei (Nesting) Lawrence's goldfinch Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G5T5 S1 None None CDFW:WL G5 S3? None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC G5T2? S2? None None CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC G5T2? S2? None None CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC G3G4 S3 None None IUCN:LC G4G5T2 S2 Threatened Endangered NABCI:RWL G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T3 S3 None Endangered G5T2T3 S2? None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC USFWS:BCC G5 S1 None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC G5 S1 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G5T3? S3? None None CDFW:SSC NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC G5 S4 None None IUCN:LC USFWS:BCC G5 S4S5 None None IUCN:LC G5 S1 None None CDFW:WL IUCN:LC G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G2G3S1S2 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN NABCI:RWL USFWS:BCC G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G3G4 S3S4 None None IUCN:LC NABCI:YWL USFWS:BCC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Species TALPIDAE (moles) +Scapanus latimanus insularis Angel Island mole +Scapanus latimanus parvus Alameda Island mole SORICIDAE (shrews) +Sorex lyelli Mount Lyell shrew +Sorex ornatus relictus Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew Sorex ornatus salarius Monterey shrew +Sorex ornatus salicornicus southern California saltmarsh shrew +Sorex ornatus sinuosus Suisun shrew +Sorex ornatus willetti Santa Catalina shrew +Sorex vagrans halicoetes salt -marsh wandering shrew Sorex vagrans paludivagus Monterey vagrant shrew PHYLLOSTOMIDAE (leaf -nosed bats) +Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican long -tongued bat +Leptonycteris yerbabuenae lesser long -nosed bat +Macrotus californicus California leaf -nosed bat VESPERTILIONIDAE (evening bats) +Antrozous pallidus pallid bat +Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big -eared bat +Euderma maculatum spotted bat +Lasionycteris noctivagans silver -haired bat +Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat +Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat +Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G5T1 S1 None None G5T1Q S1 None None CDFW:SSC G3G4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1? S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2Q S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None G4 S1 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT WBWG:H G4 S1 Endangered None IUCN:VU Yes WBWG:H G4 S3 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC G5 S3 None G3G4S2 None G4 S3 None G5 S3S4 None G5 S3 None G5 S4 None G5 S3 None IUCN:LC WBWG:H None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S WBWG:H Candidate BLM:S Threatened CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S WBWG:H None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:H None IUCN:LC WBWG:M None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:H None IUCN:LC WBWG:M None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:H Yes Yes Species VESPERTILIONIDAE (evening bats) +Myotis ciliolabrum western small -footed myotis +Myotis evotis long-eared myotis Myotis lucifugus little brown bat +Myotis occultus Arizona Myotis +Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis +Myotis velifer cave myotis +Myotis volans long-legged myotis +Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis MOLOSSIDAE (free -tailed bats) +Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat +Nyctinomops femorosaccus pocketed free -tailed bat +Nyctinomops macrotis big free -tailed bat OCHOTONIDAE (pikas) +Ochotona princeps schisticeps gray -headed pika LEPORIDAE (rabbits and hares) +Brachylagus idahoensis pygmy rabbit +Lepus americanus klamathensis Oregon snowshoe hare +Lepus americanus tahoensis Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare +Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit +Lepus townsendii townsendii western white-tailed jackrabbit +Sylvilagus bachmani riparius riparian brush rabbit APLODONTIDAE (mountain beavers) +Aplodontia rufa californica Sierra Nevada mountain beaver +Aplodontia rufa nigra Point Arena mountain beaver Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Comment Rank ESA CESA G5 S3 None None G5 S3 None None (San Bernardino Mts G3 S2S3 None None population) G4 S1 None None G4 S3 None None G5 S1 None None G5 S3 None None G5 S4 None None G5T4 S3S4 None None G4 S3 None None G5 S3 None None G5T2T4 S2S4 None None Other Status Notes BLM:S IUCN:LC WBWG:M BLM:S IUCN:LC WBWG:M IUCN:LC WBWG:M CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:M BLM:S IUCN:LC USFS:S WBWG:H BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:M IUCN:LC WBWG:H BLM:S IUCN:LC WBWG:LM BLM:S CDFW:SSC WBWG:H CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:M CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC WBWG:MH IUCN:NT Yes G4 S3 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S G5T3T4Q S2? None None CDFW:SSC G5T3T4Q S2? None None CDFW:SSC G5T3T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC G5T5 S3? None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 Endangered Endangered G5T3T4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:LC G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC Yes IUCN:LC Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes APLODONTIDAE (mountain beavers) +Aplodontia rufa phaea G5T2 S2 None None CDFW:SSC Point Reyes mountain beaver IUCN:LC SCIURIDAE (squirrels and relatives) +Ammospermophilus nelsoni G2 S2 None Threatened BLM:S Nelson's antelope squirrel IUCN:EN Callospermophilus lateralis bernardinus G5T1 S1 None None San Bernardino golden -mantled ground squirrel +Glaucomys sabrinus californicus G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC San Bernardino flying squirrel USFS:S +Neotamias panamintinus acrus G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None Kingston Mountain chipmunk +Neotamias speciosus callipeplus G4T1T2 S1 S2 None None USFS:S Mount Pinos chipmunk +Neotamias speciosus speciosus G4T2T3 S2S3 None None lodgepole chipmunk +Xerospermophilus mohavensis G2G3 S2S3 None Threatened BLM:S Mohave ground squirrel IUCN:VU +Xerospermophilus tereticaudus G5T2Q S1 S2 None None BLM:S chlorus CDFW:SSC Palm Springs round -tailed ground squirrel GEOMYIDAE (pocket gophers) Thomomys bottae operarius G5T1? S1? None None Owens Lake pocket gopher HETEROMYIDAE (kangaroo rats, pockets mice, & kangaroo mice) +Chaetodipus californicus femoralis G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC Dulzura pocket mouse +Chaetodipus fallax fallax G5T3T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC northwestern San Diego pocket mouse +Chaetodipus fallax pallidus G5T34 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC pallid San Diego pocket mouse +Dipodomys californicus eximius G4T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Marysville California kangaroo rat +Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyensis G3G4T1 S1 None None Berkeley kangaroo rat +Dipodomys heermanni dixoni G3G4T2T3 S2S3 None None Merced kangaroo rat +Dipodomys heermanni morroensis G3G4TH SH Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP Morro Bay kangaroo rat +Dipodomysingens G1G2S1S2 Endangered Endangered IUCN:EN giant kangaroo rat +Dipodomys merriami collinus G5T1T2S1S2 None None Earthquake Merriam's kangaroo rat +Dipodomys merriami parvus G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC San Bernardino kangaroo rat +Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus G3T1 T2 S1 S2 None None BLM:S short -nosed kangaroo rat +Dipodomys nitratoides exilis G3TH SH Fresno kangaroo rat +Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides G3T1 T2 S1 S2 Tipton kangaroo rat +Dipodomys panamintinus argusensis G5T1T3 S1 S3 Argus Mountains kangaroo rat +Dipodomys panamintinus G5T3 S3 panamintinus Panamint kangaroo rat CDFW:SSC IUCN:VU Endangered Endangered IUCN:VU Endangered Endangered IUCN:VU None None None None Yes Yes Yes Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Species Comment Rank ESA CESA HETEROMYIDAE (kangaroo rats, pockets mice, & kangaroo mice) Other Status Notes +Dipodomys stephensi G2 S2 Endangered Threatened IUCN:EN Stephens' kangaroo rat +Dipodomys venustus elephantinus G4T2 S2 None None CDFW:SSC big -eared kangaroo rat +Dipodomys venustus venustus G4T1 S1 None None Santa Cruz kangaroo rat +Perognathus alticolus alticolus G1 G2TH SH None None BLM:S white -eared pocket mouse +Perognathus alticolus inexpectatus Tehachapi pocket mouse +Perognathus inornatus San Joaquin Pocket Mouse +Perognathus inornatus psammophilus Salinas pocket mouse +Perognathus longimembris bangsi Palm Springs pocket mouse +Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse +Perognathus longimembris internationalis Jacumba pocket mouse +Perognathus longimembris pacificus Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris salinensis Saline Valley pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris tularensis Tulare pocket mouse +Perognathus parvus xanthonotus yellow -eared pocket mouse MURIDAE (mice, rats, and voles) +Arborimus albipes white-footed vole +Arborimus pomo Sonoma tree vole Microtus californicus halophilus Monterey vole +Microtus californicus mohavensis Mohave river vole +Microtus californicus sanpabloensis San Pablo vole +Microtus californicus scirpensis Amargosa vole +Microtus californicus stephensi south coast marsh vole +Microtus californicus vallicola Owens Valley vole +Neotoma albigula venusta Colorado Valley woodrat +Neotoma fuscipes annectens San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat +Neotoma fuscipes riparia riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) woodrat +Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat G1G2T1T2 S1S2 None None G2G3 S2S3 None None G4T2? S2? None None G5T2T3 S2S3 None None G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None G5T2T3 S1S2 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN USFS:S CDFW:SSC IUCN:EN USFS:S BLM:S CDFW:SSC BLM:S CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None G5T1 S1 None None G5T2T3 S1S2 None None BLM:S G3G4 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:LC G3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:NT G5T1 S1 None None G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 Endangered Endangered G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T3 S3 None None BLM:S CDFW:SSC G5T3T4 S1S2 None None G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1Q S1 Endangered None CDFW:SSC G5T3T4 S3S4 None None CDFW:SSC Yes Yes Yes Yes Species MURIDAE (mice, rats, and voles) +Neotoma macrotis luciana Monterey dusky -footed woodrat +Onychomys torridus ramona southern grasshopper mouse +Onychomys torridus tularensis Tulare grasshopper mouse +Peromyscus maniculatus anacapae Anacapa Island deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus clementis San Clemente deer mouse +Reithrodontomys megalotis distichlis Salinas harvest mouse +Reithrodontomys megalotis santacruzae Santa Cruz harvest mouse +Reithrodontomys raviventris salt -marsh harvest mouse +Sigmodon arizonae plenus Colorado River cotton rat +Sigmodon hispidus eremicus Yuma hispid cotton rat DIPODIDAE (jumping mice) +Zapus trinotatus orarius Point Reyes jumping mouse CANIDAE (foxes, wolves, and coyotes) +Canis lupus gray wolf Urocyon littoralis island fox +Urocyon littoralis catalinae Santa Catalina Island fox +Urocyon littoralis clementae San Clemente Island fox +Urocyon littoralis dickeyi San Nicolas Island fox +Urocyon littoralis littoralis San Miguel Island fox +Urocyon littoralis santacruzae Santa Cruz Island fox +Urocyon littoralis santarosae Santa Rosa Island fox +Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox +Vulpes vulpes necator Sierra Nevada red fox MUSTELIDAE (weasels and relatives) +Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea otter +Gulo gulo California wolverine +Lontra canadensis sonora southwestern river otter +Martes caurina Pacific marten +Martes caurina humboldtensis Humboldt marten Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC IUCN:DD G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None BILKS CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T2 S1 S2 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1 S1 None None G5T1Q S1 None None Yes G1G2 S1S2 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP IUCN:EN G5T2T3 SH None None CDFW:SSC G5T2T3 S2S3 None None CDFW:SSC G5T1T3Q S1 S3 None None CDFW:SSC G4 S1 Endangered Endangered IUCN:LC (Mapped by subspecies) G1 S1 None Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 None Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 None Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G1T1 S1 Endangered Threatened IUCN:CR Yes G4T2 S2 Endangered Threatened G5T1T2 S1 None Threatened USFS:S G4T2 S2 Threatened None CDFW:FP Yes IUCN:EN MMC:SSC G4 S1 None Threatened CDFW:FP IUCN:NT USFS:S G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC Yes G5 S3 None None IUCN:LC USFS:S G5T1 S1 None None CDFW:SSC USFS:S Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals Species Comment Rank ESA CESA Other Status Notes MUSTELIDAE (weasels and relatives) +Martes caurina sierrae G5T3 S3 None None USFS:S Sierra marten +Pekania pennanti G5T2T3Q S2S3 Proposed Candidate BLM:S Yes fisher - West Coast DPS Threatened Threatened CDFW:SSC USFS:S +Taxidea taxus G5 S3 None None CDFW:SSC American badger IUCN:LC MEPHITIDAE (skunks) +Spilogale gracilis amphiala G5T3 S3 None None CDFW:SSC Channel Islands spotted skunk FELIDAE (cats and relatives) Lynx rufus pallescens G5T3? S3? None None pallid bobcat +Puma concolorbrowni G5T1T2Q S1 None None CDFW:SSC Yuma mountain lion OTARIIDAE (sea lions and fur seals) +Arctocephalus townsendi G1 S1 Threatened Threatened CDFW:FP Guadalupe fur -seal IUCN:NT +Callorhinus ursinus G3 S1 None None IUCN:VU northern fur -seal +Eumetopias jubatus G3 S2 Delisted None IUCN:EN Steller (=northern) sea -lion MMC:SSC BOVIDAE (sheep and relatives) +Ovis canadensis nelsoni G4T4 S3 None None BLM:S Yes desert bighorn sheep CDFW:FP USFS:S +Ovis canadensis nelsoni pop. 2 G4T3Q S1 Endangered Threatened CDFW:FP Yes Peninsular bighorn sheep DPS +Ovis canadensis sierrae G4T2 S2 Endangered Endangered CDFW:FP Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep Special Animals List - December 2015 End Notes Invertebrates GASTROPODA (Snails, slugs and abalone) Prophysaon coeruleum Blue -gray taildropper slug 1) May be a species complex. ARACHNIDA (Spiders and relatives) Hubbardia shoshonensis Shoshone Cave whip -scorpion 1) BLM Sensitive Species list has this species as Trithyreus shoshonensis. CRUSTACEA, Order Amphipoda (amphipods) Hyalella muerta Texas Spring amphipod 1) First North American hypogean hyalellid. Hyalella sandra Death Valley amphipod 1) Population in Texas Springs is an accidental introduction. Population in Nevares Springs may be a new species. INSECTA, Order Coleoptera (beetles) Trigonoscuta sp. Doyen's trigonoscuta dune weevil 1) Sometimes referred to as "Trigonoscuta doyeni" which is an unpublished manuscript name. INSECTA, Order Lepidoptera (butterflies & moths) Callophrys thornei Thorne's hairstreak 1) Formerly Mitoura thornei; changed to Callophrys thornei. Euproserpinus euterpe Kern primrose sphinx moth 1) Known from 2 sites at the south end of California's Central Valley. Until its rediscovery in Kern Co in 1974, this moth had been thought to be extinct. A 2nd population was recently found in SLO (Xerces Society 2005). Speyeria zerene myrtleae Myrtle's silverspot butterfly 1) The USFWS and others have not yet determined if the taxonomic expansion by Emmel and Emmel (1998) into S. z. myrtleae and S. z. puntareyes is warranted. The Speyereia zerene along coast of Marin and Sonoma Counties are Federally Endangered under the subspecies concept in the 1992 listing. Fishes ACIPENSERIDAE (sturgeon) Acipenser medirostris green sturgeon 1) Federal listing includes all spawning populations south of the Eel River. 2) The NMFS "Special Concern" designation refers to the northern DPS which includes spawning populations north of the Eel River (inclusive). SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon - central California coast ESU 1) The federal listing is limited to naturally spawning populations in streams between Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. and the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz Co. 2) The state listing is limited to Coho south of Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. coho salmon - southern Oregon / northern California ESU 1) Federal listing refers to populations between Cape Blanco, Oregon & Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. California. 2) State listing refers to populations between the Oregon border & Punta Gorda, Humboldt Co. California. Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes SALMONIDAE (trout & salmon) Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - central California coast DPS 1) Federal listing includes all runs in coastal basins from the Russian River in Sonoma County, south to Soquel Creek in Santa Cruz County, inclusive. It includes the San Francisco and San Pablo Bay basins, but excludes the Sacramento -San Joaquin River basins. steelhead - Central Valley DPS 1) Federal listing includes all runs in the Sacramento & San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. steelhead - Klamath Mountains Province DPS 1) This ESU includes all naturally spawned populations residing in streams between the Elk River in Oregon and the Klamath River in California, inclusive. 2) The SSC designation refers only to the California portion of the ESU and refers only to the summer -run. steelhead - northern California DPS 1) The federal designation refers to naturally spawned populations residing below impassable barriers in coastal basins from Redwood Creek in Humboldt Co. to, and including, the Gualala River in Mendocino Co. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers only to the summer -run. steelhead - south-central California coast DPS 1) Federal listing includes all runs in coastal basins from the Pajaro River south to, but not including, the Santa Maria River. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to southern steelhead trout. steelhead - southern California DPS 1) The federal designation refers to fish in the coastal basins from the Santa Maria River (inclusive), south to the U.S. - Mexico Border. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to southern steelhead trout. summer -run steelhead trout 1) Summer -run steelhead are part of both the Klamath Mountains Province DPS and the Northern California DPS. Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon - California coastal ESU 1) Originally proposed as part of a larger Southern Oregon & California Coastal ESU. This new ESU was revised to include only naturally spawned coastal spring & fall -run chinook salmon between Redwood Creek in Humboldt Co & the Russian River in Sonoma Co. chinook salmon - Central Valley fall / late fall -run ESU 1) The Central Valley fall/late fall -run ESU refers to populations spawning in the Sacramento & San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. 2) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers only to the fall -run. Chinook salmon - Central Valley spring -run ESU 1) Federal listing refers to the Central Valley Spring -run ESU. It includes populations spawning in the Sacramento River & its tributaries. OSMERIDAE (smelt) Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt 1) AFS Threatened designation take from: Musick, J.T. et al. 2000. "Marine, Estuarine, and Diadromous Fish Stocks at Risk of Extinction in North America (Exclusive of Pacific Salmonids). Fisheries 25(11):6-30. 2) Federal Candidate status is for the San Francisco Bay -Delta DPS of the longfin smelt. CYPRINIDAE (minnows and carp) Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 1 San Joaquin roach 1) Current taxonomy considers this taxon to be a population of Lavinia symmetricus symmetricus, the Sacramento -San Joaquin roach. Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 1 Amargosa Canyon speckled dace 1) Current taxonomy considers this taxon to be a distinct population of Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis. Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 2 Owens speckled dace 1) Current taxonomy includes the Benton Valley speckled dace (formerly ssp 4) with the Owens speckled dace. Special Animals List - December 2015 Fishes GASTEROSTEIDAE (sticklebacks) Gasterosteus aculeatus microcephalus resident threespine stickleback 1) The U.S. Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refers to the full species. Gasterosteus aculeatus santaannae Santa Ana (=Shay Creek) threespine stickleback 1) The U.S. Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refers to the full species. Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni unarmored threespine stickleback 1) The U.S. Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refer to the full species. POLYPRIONIDAE (wreckfishes) Stereolepis gigas giant sea bass 1) AFS Vulnerable designation taken from: Musick, J.T. et al. 2000. "Marine, Estuarine, and Diadromous Fish Stocks at Risk of Extinction in North America (Exclusive of Pacific Salmonids). Fisheries 25(11):6-30. Amphibians AMBYSTOMATIDAE (mole salamanders) Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander 1) Central Valley DPS federally listed as threatened. Santa Barbara & Sonoma counties DPS federally listed as endangered. PLETHODONTIDAE (lungless salamanders) Batrachoseps relictus relictual slender salamander 1) Taxonomy follows Jockusch, Martinez-solano, Hansen, Wake (2012. Morphological and molecular diversification of slender salamanders (Caudata: Plethodontidae: Batrachoseps) in the southern Sierra Nevada of California with descriptions of two new species. Zootaxa 3190:130), which synonymized Batrachoseps Sp. 1, Breckenridge Mountain slender salamander, with B. relictus. Plethodon asupak Scott Bar salamander 1) Newly described species from what was part of the range of Plethodon stormi (Mead et al. 2005). 2) Since this newly described species was formerly considered to be a subpopulation of Plethodon stormi, and since Plethodon stormi is listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), Plethodon asupak retains the designation as a Threatened species under CESA (Calif. Regulatory Notice Register, No. 21-Z, p.916, 25 May 2007). BUFONIDAE (true toads) Anaxyrus californicus arroyo toad 1) Formerly Bufo microscaphus californicus, now considered a full species. 2) At the time of listing, arroyo toad was known as Bufo microscaphus californicus, a subspecies of southwestern toad. In 2001 it was determined to be its own species, Bufo californicus. Since then, many species in the genus Bufo were changed to the genus Anaxyrus, and now arroyo toad is known as Anaxyrus californicus (Frost et al. 2006). Anaxyrus canorus Yosemite toad 1) Formerly Bufo canorus; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De Sa, Charming, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Anaxyrus (Tschudi, 1845). The standard common name remains Yosemite toad. 2) The USFWS published a final rule on April 29, 2014, to list the Yosemite toad as Threatened. The effective date for this rule is June 30, 2014. Anaxyrus exsul black toad 1) Formerly Bufo exsul; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De Sa, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Anaxyrus (Tschudi, 1845). The standard common name remains black toad. Special Animals List - December 2015 Amphibians BUFONIDAE (true toads) Incilius alvarius Sonoran desert toad 1) Formerly Bufo alvarius. Between 2006 & 2009 the scientific name has been changed to Cranopsis alvaria, to 011otis alvaria, to Incilius alvarius, back to 011otis alvarius and then back to Incilius alvarius. The common name has changed from Colorado River toad to Sonoran desert toad. RANIDAE Lithobates pipiens northern leopard frog 1) Formerly Rana pipiens; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De Sa, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Lithobates (Fitzinger, 1843). The standard common name remains northern leopard frog. Lithobates yavapaiensis lowland leopard frog 1) Formerly Rana yavapaiensis; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, De Sa, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green & Wheeler (2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370) placed this species in the genus Lithobates (Fitzinger, 1843). The standard common name remains lowland leopard frog. Rana aurora northern red -legged frog 1) A recent mtDNA study consludes that Rana aurora aurora and Rana aurora draytonii should be recongnized as separate species with a narrow zone of overlap. Rana draytonii California red -legged frog 1) A recent mtDNA study concludes that Rana aurora aurora and Rana aurora draytonii should be recongnized as separate species with a narrow zone of overlap, and that the range of draytonii extends about 100 km further north in coastal California than previously thought. Rana muscosa southern mountain yellow -legged frog 1) Federal listing refers to populations in the San Gabriel, San Jacinto & San Bernardino Mountains (southern DPS). 2) Federal Proposed status refers to all populations that occur north of the Tehachapi Mountains in the Sierra Nevada (northern DPS). The USFWS published a final rule on April 29, 2014, to list the northern DPS of Rana mucosa as Endangered.This rule becomes effective June 30, 2014. 3) Rana muscosa has been split into Rana sierrae, the Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog, found in the northern and central Sierra Nevada and Rana muscosa, the southern mountain yellow -legged frog, found in the southern Sierra Nevada and southern California. Rana sierrae Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog 1) Formerly Rana muscosa. Rana muscosa has been split into Rana sierrae, the Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog, found in the northern and central Sierra Nevada and Rana muscosa, the southern mountain yellow -legged frog, found in the southern Sierra Nevada and southern California. 2) Rana sierrae is a federally proposed endangered species (Apr 2013). 3) The USFWS published a final rule on April 29, 2014, to list the Sierra Nevada yellow -legged frog as Endangered.This rule becomes effective June 30, 2014. Reptiles EMYDIDAE (box and water turtles) Emys marmorata western pond turtle 1) The paper: Spinks, Phillip Q. & H. Bradley Shaffer. 2005. Range -wide molecular analysis of the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata): cryptic variation, isolation by distance, and their conservation implications. Molecular Ecology (2005) 14, 2047-2064. determined that the current subspecies split was not warranted. Therefore, we are now tracking the western pond turtle only at the full species level. 2) The paper: Spinks, Phillip Q., & H. Bradley Shaffer. 2009. Conflicting Mitochondrial and Nuclear Phylogenies for the Widely Disjunct Emys (Testudines: Emydidae) Species Complex, and What They Tell Us about Biogeography and Hybridization. Systematic Biology. 58(1): pp. 1-20 determined that the correct genus name is Emys. Special Animals List - December 2015 Reptiles HELODERMATIDAE (venomous lizards) Heloderma suspectum cinctum banded gila monster 1) The BLM "Sensitive Species" designation refers to the full species. BOIDAE (boas) Charina trivirgata rosy boa 1) The Forest Service "Sensitive" designation refers only to the subspecies roseofusca. 2) The taxonomy of this species is in flux. The name Lichanura trivirgata is a synonym. Some sources list several subspecies while others don't recognize any subspecies. Birds PHASIANIDAE (grouse and ptarmigan) Centrocercus urophasianus greater sage -grouse 1) As of Oct 2013, the Bi-State DPS of greater sage -grouse (Mono Basin; Mono, Alpine, & Inyo Co.) have a federal status of Proposed Threatened; the remaining populations of the species are Candidate. Dendragapus fuliginosus howardi Mount Pinos sooty grouse 1) Formerly merged with D. obscurus as blue grouse, but separated on the basis of genetic evidence and differences in voice, behavior, & plumage. 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. RALLIDAE (rails, coots, and gallinules) Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN designation of "Near Threatened" refers to the full species. Rallus longirostris levipes light-footed clapper rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Rallus longirostris yumanensis Yuma clapper rail 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. CHARADRIIDAE (plovers and relatives) Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover 1) Federal listing applies only to the Pacific coastal population 2) DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to both the coastal & interior populations. 3) USFWS - Birds of Conservation Concern designation refers to non -listed subspecies or populations of Threatened or Endangered species. Charadrius montanus mountain plover 1) The 5 Dec 2002 proposal to list the mountain plover as a threatened species was withdrawn by the FWS as of 12 May 2011. LARIDAE (gulls and terns) Gelochelidon nilotica gull -billed tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna nilotica Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds LARIDAE (gulls and terns) Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna caspia Sternula antillarum browni California least tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna antillarum browni. 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Thalasseus elegans elegant tern 1) Taxonomy recently changed from Sterna elegans ALCIDAE (auklets, puffins, and relatives) Synthliboramphus scrippsi Scripps's murrelet 1) Formerly included in Xantus's murrelelt as Synthliboramphus hypoleucus scrippsi, now considered a full species STRIGIDAE (owls) Athene cunicularia burrowing owl 1) A burrow site = an observation of one or more owls at a burrow or evidence of recent occupation such as whitewash and feathers. Winter observations at a burrow are mapped. Winter observations with or without a burrow in San Francisco, Ventura, Sonoma, Marin, Napa & Santa Cruz Counties are mapped. Strix occidentalis caurina northern spotted owl 1) There are no northern spotted owl EOs in the CNDDB. All northern spotted owl location information is maintained in a separate data layer. This layer is packaged with the CNDDB layer in BIOS. All RareFind subscribers have access to this information through BIOS (http:BIOS.dfg.ca.gov) 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Strix occidentalis occidentalis California spotted owl 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. TYRANNIDAE (tyrant flycatchers) Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher 1) State listing of the full species includes all subspecies 2) USFWS: Birds of Conservation Conern designation refers to non -listed subspecies or populations of Threatened or Endangered species. Empidonax traillii brewsteri little willow flycatcher 1) State listing of the full species includes all subspecies 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 3) USFWS - Birds of Conservation Concern designation refers to non -listed subspecies or populations for Threatened or Endangered species. Empidonax traillii extimus southwestern willow flycatcher 1) State listing of the full species includes all subspecies 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds LANIIDAE (shrikes) Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi San Clemente loggerhead shrike 1) Subspecific identity of shrikes currently on San Clemente is uncertain. Mundy et al. (1997a, b) provided evidence L. I. mearnsi is genetically distinct from L. I. gambeli and L. I. anthonyi, whereas Patten and Campbell (2000) concluded, based on morphology, that the birds now on San Clemente are intergrades between L. I. mearnsi and L. I. anthonyi. VIREONIDAE (vireos) Vireo bellii arizonae Arizona bell's vireo 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN designation of 'Near Threatened" refers to the full species. Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN designation of "Near Threatened" refers to the full species. TROGLODYTIDAE (wrens) Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis coastal cactus wren 1) Nomenclature follows the draft DFG Bird Species of Special Concern report. SYLVIIDAE (gnatcatchers) Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher 1) AKA Alta California gnatcatcher 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. MIMIDAE (mockingbirds and thrashers) Toxostoma lecontei Le Conte's thrasher 1) The BLM "Sensitive Species" designation refers to the subspecies Toxostoma lecontei macmillanorum. 2) DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers only to the San Joaquin population, AKA T. I. macmillanorum. PARULIDAE (wood -warblers) Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 1) AKA San Francisco common yellowthroat Setophaga petechia yellow warbler 1) This element includes the subspecies S. p. morcormi & S. p. brewsteri, which are tracked under the full species, S. petechia due to difficulty distinguishing them. S. p. sonorana, which nests in California only along the Colorado River is tracked separately. Setophaga petechia sonorana Sonoran yellow warbler 1) Nests in California only along the Colorado River. Observations of yellow warblers from other regions are tracked as the full species, S. petechia. EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) Artemisiospiza belli belli Bell's sage sparrow 1) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Artemisiospiza belli clementeae San Clemente sage sparrow 1) Subspecific validity uncertain. Recognized by AOU (1957), but not by Patten and Unitt (2002). 2) The American Bird Conservancy "WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern" designation refers to the full species. Special Animals List - December 2015 Birds EMBERIZIDAE (sparrows, buntings, warblers, & relatives) Melospiza melodia graminea Channel Island song sparrow 1) Subspecific validity is uncertain. This subspecies when referred to as Santa Barbara song sparrow is extinct. However, the subspecies was merged by Patten (2001) with the San Miguel (M. m. micronyx), and San Clemente (M. m. clementae) song sparrows as the Channel Island song sparrow with the Subspecific name M. m. graminea. Melozone crissalis eremophilus Inyo California towhee 1) Previously was in the genus Pipilo. Piranga flava hepatic tanager 1) According to The A.O.U. Check -list of North American Birds, Seventh Edition, this species is probably misplaced in the current phylogenetic listing but for which data indicating proper placement are not yet available. Piranga rubra summer tanager 1) According to The A.O.U. Check -list of North American Birds, Seventh Edition, this species is probably misplaced in the current phylogenetic listing but for which data indicating proper placement are not yet available. ICTERIDAE (blackbirds) Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird 1) Emergency protection under CESA granted on December 3rd 2014 by the California Fish and Game Commission. Mammals PHYLLOSTOMIDAE (leaf -nosed bats) Leptonycteris yerbabuenae lesser long -nosed bat 1) Listed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae. VESPERTILIONIDAE (evening bats) Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation is based on the draft updated Mammalian Species of Special Concern report. Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation is based on the draft updated Mammalian Species of Special Concern report. OCHOTONIDAE (pikas) Ochotona princeps schisticeps gray -headed pika 1) All of the subspecies of pika in California have been synonymized under Ochotona princeps schisticeps. APLODONTIDAE (mountain beavers) Aplodontia rufa californica Sierra Nevada mountain beaver 1) The IUCN "Least Concern" designation refers to the full species. Aplodontia rufa nigra Point Arena mountain beaver 1) The IUCN "Least Concern" designation refers to the full species. Aplodontia rufa phaea Point Reyes mountain beaver 1) The IUCN "Least Concern" designation refers to the full species. Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals HETEROMYIDAE (kangaroo rats, pockets mice, & kangaroo mice) Chaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern San Diego pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" desgination refers to the full species. Chaetodipus fallax pallidus pallid San Diego pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to the full species. Perognathus alticolus alticolus white -eared pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" and the BLM "Sensitive Species" designations refer to the full species. 2) The IUCN "Endangered" designation is at the species level. Perognathus alticolus inexpectatus Tehachapi pocket mouse 1) The DFG "Species of Special Concern" designation refers to the full species. 2) The IUCN "Endangered" designation is at the species level. Perognathus inornatus San Joaquin Pocket Mouse 1) This element includes the subspecies P. i. inornatus & P. i. neglectus, which are tracked under the full species, P. inornatus due to difficulty distinguishing them. P. i. inornatus generally occurs on the eastern side of San Joaquin Valley, while P. i. neglectus generally occurs on the western side. P. i. psammophilus, which occurs only in the Salinas Valley, is tracked separately. MURIDAE (mice, rats, and voles) Neotoma fuscipes riparia riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) woodrat 1) This species is currently undergoing taxonomic revision Reithrodontomys megalotis santacruzae Santa Cruz harvest mouse 1) Synonomous with Reithrodontomys megalotus longicaudus, Santa Cruz Island Population. CANIDAE (foxes, wolves, and coyotes) Urocyon littoralis island fox 1) State listing is at the full species level and includes all subspecies on all islands. Federal listing does not include San Nicolas & San Clemente island subspecies. Urocyon littoralis catalinae Santa Catalina Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered" designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis clementae San Clemente Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered" designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis dickeyi San Nicolas Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered" designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis littoralis San Miguel Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered" designation refers to the full species. Urocyon littoralis santacruzae Santa Cruz Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endangered" designation refers to the full species. Special Animals List - December 2015 Mammals CANIDAE (foxes, wolves, and coyotes) Urocyon littoralis santarosae Santa Rosa Island fox 1) The IUCN "Critically Endanagered" designation refers to the full species. MUSTELIDAE (weasels and relatives) Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea otter 1) The IUCN "Endangered" designation refers to the full species. Lontra canadensis sonora southwestern river otter 1) SSC status refers only to the supspecies L. canadensis sonora, which is known in California only from the Colorado River. Pekania pennanti fisher - West Coast DPS 1) The subspecies M. p. pacifica is no longer considered a valid subspecies. The west coast population of the fisher is now considered to be a distinct population segment (DPS). 2) Federal candidate status refers to the distinct population segment (DPS) in Washington, Oregon & California. 3) The Fish and Game Commission Notice of Findings stated that the Pacific fisher was a candidate for listing as either an Endangered or Threatened species. At the 23 Jun 2010 meeting the FGC determined that the listing was not warranted. An 11 Mar 2013 Notice of Findings stated that pursuant to court order, the FGC set aside its 15 Sep 2010 findings rejecting the petition to list, and the Pacific fisher is a candidate species for the purposes of CESA. BOVIDAE (sheep and relatives) Ovis canadensis nelsoni desert bighorn sheep 1) Desert bighorn sheep (O. c. nelsoni) in the Peninsular Ranges are tracked as a metapopulation of the subspecies, Peninsular bighorn sheep DPS (O. c. nelsoni pop. 2) Ovis canadensis nelsoni pop. 2 Peninsular bighorn sheep DPS 1) The subspecies peninsular bighorn sheep (O. c. cremnobates) has been synonymized with O. c. nelsoni (Wehausen & Ramey 1993). Peninsular bighorn sheep are now considered to be a metapopulation and are recognized has a federal Distinct Population Segment (DPS). ATTACHMENTS Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and 1SWAPE Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Matt Hagemann Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com January 20, 2016 Amy Minteer Chatten-Brown & Carstens 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Subject: Comments on the Project Specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates Dear Ms. Minteer: We have reviewed the Project Specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates ("Project"). The primary objective of this WQMP is to ensure that the land use approval and permitting process of each local land use authority will prevent or minimize the impact of urban runoff on receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable.' In order to meet this primary objective, a number of conditions need to be met. Our review concludes that the Project's WQMP does not comply with requirements set forth by the City of La Quinta (City) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-152. Until the WQMP is prepared in accordance with the Whitewater River Region's preliminary project -specific WQMP guidelines, and all of the required conditions are met, the Project should not be approved. Failure to Satisfy Section IV, Hydrologic Conditions of Concern, Condition "C" Under Section IV of the project -specific WQMP, "Hydrologic Conditions of Concern," the Project must comply with "Condition C" by demonstrating that the runoff flow rate, volume, velocity and duration for the post -development condition do not exceed the pre -development condition for the 2-year, 24-hour and 10-year 24-hour rainfall events (WQMP, p. 1-8). To attempt to satisfy this condition, the WQMP provides plans and runoff calculations for an underground retention system (a 39 foot -long, 48 inch - diameter pipe) to capture the excess stormwater runoff generated by the Project site, post - development. This system will not satisfy the requirements of Section IV, Condition "C." The ' Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan Guidance Document, January 2015, available at: http://rcflood.org/downloads/NPDES/Documents/WW SWMP WQMP/WWR WQMP Guidance Jan15 2015.pdf, p. 1 underground retention system will be inundated by Project flows that combine with offsite stormwater runoff before being routed to the underground pipe. The hydrologic modeling calculations that attempt to demonstrate compliance with Condition "C" are included in the Hydrology Report for Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 (Appendix F). The calculations in Appendix F show that runoff from just 0.6 acres of the Project site, constituted by 0.5 acres of paving/hardscape and 0.1 acres of landscaping (pp. 208 of 305), are to be routed to the underground retention system. This approach is incorrect because the area that will contribute flow to the proposed retention system is much greater than just the 0.6-acre portion that will be developed. The general topography of the site, as detailed in the WQMP Site plan, shows that runoff from both the undeveloped portion and the developed portion of the site would flow into and be captured by this basin. According to Appendix F, "Based on the existing topography, the site is naturally divided into three tributary areas: "A", "B" and "C" as noted on the hydrology map" (pp. 206 of 305). Area B1 = 1.7ac Area C1 0.7ac i Area Al = 0.6ac� r' r - - _ Area C2 - I. lac Area A2 = 0-lac r Area B2 = 2.Oac • w 36, Legend « We tet 0OV-SRe Tnbucary Area * PrPlec2 Sde 1 inch = 500 feet Appendix F of the WQMP continues on to explain that while stormwater runoff from Tributary Areas A and C will flow directly off -site, runoff from Tributary Area B will flow into the proposed retention basin. Appendix F states, "Tributary Flows — offsite flow from Area B1 and a portion of storm runoff from Area B2 is tributary to the proposed access road. To protect the road, a brow ditch is proposed above the road with a connection to a storm drain inlet and pipe, which will convey the flow directly to an underground retention system. Minor runoff will sheet flow down the access road. Some of the flow may percolate through the pavers. The remainder will be intercepted by a catch basin and piped to the underground retention system" (pp. 207 of 305). 2 The portion that will be developed is located within Area B2. Therefore, 0.6 acres of the 2-acre area would be developed, with approximately 1.4 acres remaining undeveloped. Additionally, all 1.7-acres of Area B1 will remain undeveloped. As stated in the WQMP, runoff from Areas 61 and B2 will flow into the proposed retention basin. Therefore, by designing the retention basin to capture the runoff from just the developed portion of Tributary Area B, runoff from approximately 3.1 acres of undeveloped land is unaccounted for in the design (see figure below). Stormwater runoff from the undeveloped areas within Tributary Area B was not considered in calculating the volume requirements of the retention system. As a result, the retention system, as designed, would be inundated during the design storms, overwhelming the ability of the system to infiltrate, and thereby treat, Project stormwater runoff. To effectively retain, and thereby treat, all Project flows that comingle with offsite runoff before being routed to the retention system, additional onsite retention capacity should be implemented prior to Project approval. To show the impact that runoff from Areas 131 and B2 would have on the proposed retention system, we conducted our own analysis using the same methods utilized in the WQMP and Hydrology Report (Appendix F). Our calculations, attached, demonstrate that the undeveloped areas within Tributary Area 3 B could contribute as much as 10,723 cubic feet of runoff during a 2-year, 24-hour rain event, and could contribute as much as 22,784 cubic feet of runoff during a 10-year, 24-hour rain event (see table below).z Stormwater Volume from Undeveloped Area SWAPE Model 2 Year, 24 Hour 10 Year, 24 Hour Discharge (cfs) 0.49 0.98 Velocity (fps) N/A N/A Required Storage (cubic feet) 10,723 22,784 Flood Volume (cubic feet) 10,813 22,974 Duration (minutes) 1,440 1,440 Our calculations demonstrate that the contribution from the undeveloped areas of Areas 61 and B2 would be significant. The retention system, as planned with a proposed capacity of 490 cubic feet, will be overwhelmed by stormwater runoff from these areas that will exceed the capacity of the system by more than 20 times for the 2-year storm and by more than 45 times for the 10-year storm. Failure to retain the combined flow volume, to include Project flow and the flow from undeveloped areas of 131 and B2, means that treatment though infiltration will not be effectual. Instead, Project flows, combined with 131 and B2 flows, will be routed untreated to the flood control channel at the base of the slope as described in the Hydrology Report: "Should the proposed underground retention system capacity be exceeded, emergency overflow is conveyed out of the grated inlet via a rock -lined swale and into the adjacent flood control channel, following the existing drainage pattern" (pp. 208 of 305). Our calculations show that the capacity for the retention system will be greatly exceeded for the design storms used in the WQMP. Untreated Project runoff will therefore flow to the flood control channel as described above, causing water quality degradation. Therefore, the goal of the WQMP plan — "to prevent or minimize the impact of urban runoff on receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable" — will not be met. A revised WQMP must be prepared to include additional on -site retention capacity, capable of treating all flow from design storms, including from Areas 131 and B2, that combines with flow from the developed 0.6-acre portion of the Project. Alternatively, offsite flow from Areas B1 and B2 could be routed away from the planned retention structure so that offsite flows do not comingle with Project flows and inundate the capacity of the system. Any diversion that is considered would need to incorporate measures to prevent erosion of the ground surface where offsite flows are routed. z Calculation details included as attachment to this letter for reference. 4 Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Jessie Jaeger 10-Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B PHYSICAL DATA [1] CONCENTRATION POINT 1 [2] AREA DESIGNATION 10-YEAR [3] AREA -ACRES 3.1 [4] L-FEET 750 [5] L-MILES 0.142 [6] L,FEET 350 [7) La -MILES 0.066 [8] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 360 [9] ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 52 [10] H-FEET 3US- [ 11 S-FEET/MILE 2168.3 [12] S^0.5 46.57 [13] L"LCA/5^0.5 0 [14] AVERAGE MANNINGS'N' 0.02 [15] LAG TIME -HOURS 0.02 [16] LAG TIME -MINUTES 1.1 [17] 100%OF LAG -MINUTES 1.1 [18] 200%OF LAG -MINUTES 2.3 UNIT TIME -MINUTES (100%-200%OF LAG) 15 b9] 41 TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0 RAINFALL DATA [1] SOURCE [2] FREQUENCY -YEARS 10 [3) DURATION -HOURS 24 [12] POINT RAIN -INCHES (Plate E-5.6) 2.42 [131 AREA -ACRES 3.1 STORM EVENT SUMMARY DURATION -HOURS 24 EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 2.04 FLOOD VOLUME (cu-ft) 22973.54 FLOOD VOLUME (acre-ft) 0.53 REQUIRED STORAGE(cu-ft) 22783.55 REQUIRED STORAGE (acre-ft) 0.52 PEAK FLOW (cfs) 0.98 ADJUSTED LOSS RATE SOIL GROUP [Plate C-1] LAND USE RI NUMBER [Plate E-6.1] PERVIOUS AREA INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) [Plate E-6.2] DECIMAL PERCENT OF AREA IMPERVIOUS [Plate E-6.31 ADJUSTED INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) AREA (acres) AVERAGE ADJUSTED INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) A COMMERCIAL 32 0.74 90% 0.14 0 0 A PAVING/HARDSCAPE 32 0.74 100% 0.07 0 0 A SF - 1 ACRE 32 0.74 20% 0.61 0 0 A SF - 1/2 ACRE 32 0.74 40% 0.47 0 0 A 5F - 1/4 ACRE 32 0.74 50% 0.41 0 0 A MF- CONDOMINIUMS 32 0.74 65% 0.31 0 0 A MF-APARTMENTS 32 0.74 1 80% 1 0.21 0 1 0 A MOBILE HOME PARKS 32 0.74 75% 0.24 0 0 A LANDSCAPING 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 A RETENTION BASINS 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 A GOLF COURSE 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 D MOUNTAINOUS 93 0.09 90% 0.02 3.1 0.0171 sum 3.1 0.0171 EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM DRAINAGE AREA - ACRES 3.1 UNITTIME-MINUTES 15 LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.14 UNITTIME-PERCENT OF LAG 1319.8% TOTALADJUSTED STORM RAIN - INCHES 2.42 CONSTANT LOSS RATE -in/hr N/A VARIABLE LOSS RATE -in/hr 0.0171 MINIMUM LOSS RATE -in/hr 0.009 LOW LOSS RATE - DECIMAL 0 C 0.00016 PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0 Unit Time Period Time Pattern Percent Storm Rain (in/hr) Loss Rate (in/hr) Effective Rain (in/hr) Flood Hydrograph Flow (cfs) Required Storage (cu. ft) Minutes Hours Max Low 1 15 0.25 0.2 0.019 0.030 0.00 0.019 0.06 54.46 2 30 0.50 0.3 0.029 0.030 0.00 0.029 0.09 81.70 3 45 0.75 0.3 0.029 0.029 0.00 0.029 0.09 81.70 4 60 1.00 0.4 0.039 0.029 0.00 0.010 0.03 27.40 5 75 1.25 0.3 0.029 0.029 0.00 0.029 0.09 81.70 6 90 1.50 0.3 0.029 0.028 0.00 0.001 0.00 2.10 7 105 1.75 1 0.3 0.029 0.028 0.00 1 0.001 0.00 3.05 8 120 2.00 0.4 0.039 0.028 0.00 0.011 0.03 31.23 9 135 2.25 0.4 0.039 0.027 0.00 0.011 0.04 32.17 10 150 2.50 0.4 0.039 0.027 0.00 0.012 0.04 33.11 11 165 2.75 0.5 0.048 0.027 0.00 0.022 0.07 61.27 12 180 3.00 0.5 0.048 0.026 0.00 0.022 0.07 62.19 13 195 3.25 0.5 0.048 0.026 0.00 0.022 0.07 63.11 14 210 3.50 0.5 0.048 0.026 0.00 0.023 0.07 64.02 15 225 3.75 0.5 0.048 0.025 0.00 0.023 0.07 64.93 16 240 4.00 0.6 0.058 0.025 0.00 0.033 0.10 93.06 17 255 4.25 0.6 0.058 0.025 0.00 0.033 0.10 93.96 18 270 4.50 0.7 0.068 0.024 0.00 0.043 0.14 122.08 19 285 4.75 0.7 0.068 0.024 0.00 0.044 DA4 122.96 20 300 5.00 0.8 0.077 0.024 0.00 0.054 0.17 151.06 21 315 5.25 0.6 0.058 0.023 0.00 0.035 0.11 97.47 22 330 5.50 0.7 0.068 0.023 0.00 0.045 0.14 125.56 23 345 5.75 0.8 0.077 0.023 0.00 0.055 0.17 153.65 24 1 360 6.00 0.8 0.077 0.023 0.00 0.055 0.17 154.50 25 375 6.25 0.9 0.087 0.022 0.00 0.065 0.20 182.57 26 390 6.50 0.9 0.087 0.022 0.00 0.065 0.20 183.41 27 405 6.75 1.0 0.097 0.022 0.00 0.075 0.23 211.47 28 420 7.00 1.0 0.097 0.021 0.00 0.075 0.24 212.30 29 435 7.25 1.0 0.097 0.021 0.00 0.076 0.24 213.11 30 450 7.50 1.1 0.106 0.021 0.00 0.086 0.27 241.16 31 465 7.75 1.2 0.116 0.020 0.00 0.096 0.30 269.19 32 480 8.00 1.3 0A26 0.02D 0.00 0.106 0.33 297.22 33 1 495 8.25 1.5 0.145 0.020 0.00 0.125 0.39 352.47 34 510 8.50 1.5 DA45 0.020 0.00 0A26 0.39 353.26 35 525 8.75 1.6 0.155 0.019 0.00 0.136 0.42 381.26 36 540 9.00 1.7 0.165 0.019 0.00 0.145 0.45 409.27 37 555 9.25 1.9 0A84 0.019 0.00 0.165 0.52 464.49 38 570 9.50 2.0 0.194 0.019 0.00 0A75 0.55 492.48 39 585 9.75 2.1 0.203 0.018 0.00 0.185 0.58 520.46 40 600 10.00 2.2 0.213 0.018 0.00 0.195 0.61 548.43 41 615 10.25 1.5 0.145 0.018 0.00 0.127 0.40 358.54 42 630 10.50 1.5 0A45 0.017 0.00 0A28 0.40 359.27 43 645 10.75 2.0 0.194 0.017 (Wo 0.176 0.55 496.15 44 660 11.00 2.0 0.194 0.017 0.00 0.177 0.55 496.86 45 675 1125 1.9 0.184 0.017 0.00 0.167 0.52 470.33 46 690 11.50 1.9 0.184 0.016 0.00 0.167 0.52 471.02 47 705 11.75 f 1.7 0.165 0.016 0.00 0.148 0.46 417.25 48 720 12.00 1.8 0.174 0.016 0.00 0.158 0.49 445.16 49 735 12.25 2.5 0.242 0.016 0.00 0.226 0.71 636.46 50 750 12.50 2.6 0.252 0.016 0.00 0.236 0.74 664.36 51 7fi5 12.75 2.8 0.271 0.015 0.00 0.256 0.80 719.48 10-Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B 2-Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B PHYSICAL DATA [1] CONCENTRATION POINT 1 [2] AREA DESIGNATION 2-YEAR [3] AREA -ACRES 3.1 [4] L-FEET 750 [5] L-MILES 0.142 [6] La -FEET 350 [7] La -MILES 0.066 [8] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 360 [9] ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 52 [10] H-FEET 308 [111 S-FEET/MILE 2168.3 [12] 5^0.5 46.57 [131 L`LCA/S^0.5 0 [14] AVERAGE MANNINGS'N' 0.02 [15] LAG TIME -HOURS 0.02 [16] LAG TIME -MINUTES 1.1 [17] 300%OF LAG -MINUTES 1.1 (18] 200%OF tAG-MINUTES 2.3 [19]UNIT TIME -MINUTES (100%-200% OF LAG) 15 [24] TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0 RAINFALL DATA [1] SOURCE [2] FREQUENCY -YEARS 2 [3] DURATION -HOURS 24 [12] POINT RAIN -INCHES (Plate E-5.6) 126 [131 AREA -ACRES 3.1 STORM EVENT SUMMARY DURATION -HOURS 24 EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.96 FLOOD VOLUME (cu-ft) 10812.71 FLOOD VOLUME (acre-ft) 0.25 REQUIRED STORAGE(CU-ft) 10723.29 REQUIRED STORAGE(acre-ft) 0.25 PEAK FLOW (cfs) 0.49 ADJUSTED LOSS RATE _ SOIL GROUP [Plate C-1] LAND USE RI NUMBER (Plate E-6.11 PERVIOUS AREA INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) [Plate E-6.2] DECIMAL PERCENT OF AREA IMPERVIOUS [Plate E-6.3] ADJUSTED INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) AREA (acres) AVERAGE ADJUSTED INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr) A COMMERCIAL 32 0.74 90% 0.14 0 0 A PAVING/HARDSCAPE 32 0.74 100% 0.07 0 0 A SF - 1 ACRE 32 0.74 20% 0.61 0 0 A SF - 112 ACRE 32 0.74 40% 0.47 0 0 A SF - 1/4 ACRE 32 0.74 50% 0.41 0 0 A MF- CONDOMINIUMS 32 0.74 65% 0.31 0 0 A MF-APARTMENTS 32 0.74 80% 0.21 0 0 A MOBILE HOME PARKS 1 32 1 0.74 75% 0.24 0 0 A LANDSCAPING 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 A RETENTION BASINS 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 A GOLF COURSE 32 0.74 0% 0.74 0 0 D MOUNTAINOUS 93 0.09 90% 0.02 3.1 0.0171 SUM 3.1 0.0171 EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM DRAINAGE A - ACRES 3.1 UNITTIME- INUTES 15 LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.14 UNITTIME - PERCENT OF LAG 1319.8% CONSTANT LOSS RATE - in/hr N/A VARIABLE LOSS RATE - m/hr 0.0171 MINIMUM LOSS RATE - in/hr 0.009 LOW LOSS RATE - DECIMAL 0 PERCOLATION RATE r ®��Pattern Peroant ®t) ��Effective 2-Year, 24-Hour Stormwater Runoff Calculations Undeveloped Portion of Tributary Area B J_SWAPE]Ldq@tion Technical Consuitation, Data Analysis and Support for the Environment Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 — present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 — 2104; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001- 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 - 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 - 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990-1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986-1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984-1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed -scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high -levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi -Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy -making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: Supervised year -long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. Conducted aquifer tests. Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 0 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011. 0 JESSIE MARIE JAEGER Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and �SWAPE Litigation Support for the Environment EDUCATION SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Mobile: (530) 867-6202 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: jessie0swape.com UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOSANGELES B.S. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES JUNE2014 PROJECT EXPERIENCE SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE SANTA MONICA, CA AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST SENIOR ANALYST: CEQA ANALYSIS & MODELING • Calculated roadway, stationary source, and cumulative impacts for risk and hazard analyses at proposed land use projects. • Quantified criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions released during construction and operational activities of proposed land use projects using CalEEMod and EMFAC2011 emission factors. • Utilized AERSCREEN, a screening dispersion model, to determine the ambient air concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. • Organized presentations containing figures and tables comparing results of particulate matter analyses to CEQA thresholds. • Prepared reports that discuss results of the health risk analyses conducted for several land use redevelopment projects. SENIOR ANALYST: GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE • Quantified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a "business as usual" scenario for proposed land use projects using CalEEMod. • Determined compliance of proposed projects with AB 32 GHG reduction targets, with measures described in CARB's Scoping Plan for each land use sector, and with GHG significance thresholds recommended by various Air Quality Management Districts in California. • Produced tables and figures that compare the results of the GHG analyses to applicable CEQA thresholds and reduction targets. PROJECT MANAGER: OFF -GASSING OF FORMALDEHYDE FROM FLOORING PRODUCTS • Determined the appropriate standard test methods to effectively measure formaldehyde emissions from flooring products. • Compiled and analyzed laboratory testing data. Produced tables, charts, and graphs to exhibit emission levels. • Compared finalized testing data to Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) and to CARB's Phase 2 Standard. • Prepared a final analytical report and organized supporting data for use as Expert testimony in environmental litigation. • Participated in meetings with clients to discuss project strategy and identify solutions to achieve short and long term goals. PROJECT ANALYST: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINANTS EMITTED BY INCINERATOR • Reviewed and organized sampling data, and determined the maximum levels of arsenic, dioxin, and lead in soil samples. • Determined cumulative and hourly particulate deposition of incinerator and modeled particle dispersion locations using GIS and AERMOD. • Conducted risk assessment using guidance set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). • Utilized LeadSpread8 to evaluate exposure, and the potential adverse health effects from exposure, to lead in the environment. • Compared final results of assessment to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Recipient, Bruins Advantage Scholarship, University of California, Los Angeles SEPT 2010-JUNE2014 • Academic Honoree, Dean's List, University of California, Los Angeles SEPT 2013-JUNE2014 • Academic Wellness Director, UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2013-JUNE2014 • Student Groups Support Committee Member, UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2012 - JUNE2013 ATTACHMENT 7 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AFTER IDR CONFERENCE This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AFTER IDR CONFERENCE ("Agreement") is made as of the dates which appear below, by and between CASE SWENSON and LISA SWENSON (hereinafter, collectively referred to as "Swensons'�, and THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California Non -Profit Mutual Benefit Corporation ("Association') related to a dispute involving the Swenson's Architectural application and submittal dated November 20, 2014, for the development of the residential lot located at 77-210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, California ("Swenson Property'. The Swensons and the Association shall hereinafter collectively referred to as "the parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, the Swensons had submitted various architectural design submittals for the Swenson Property prior to their most recent architectural application and submittal received on November 20, 2014 ("Prior Submittals'; WHEREAS, the Swensons submitted to the Association's Architectural Review Committee a detailed set of architectural design submittals prepared by Prest Vuksic, Architects, the Altum Group Engineering Firm and Hermann Design Group dated November 20, 2014, all as more particularly identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference ("November 20, 2014 Submittal'; WHEREAS, after receipt of the November 201" submittal, the Association made an Architectural Review Committee ruling dated December 31, 2014 ("December 31, 2014 ARC Ruling'), attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof by this reference; WHEREAS, the Swensons in a letter received from their counsel dated January 2, 2015, disputed the December 31, 2014 ARC Ruling and requested Internal Dispute Resolution ("IDR' related to same; WHEREAS, on Friday January 30, 2015, the parties had an IDR conference in which both parties and their consulting architects attended as well as their respective counsel; and WHEREAS, the parties reached a resolution settling all of their pending disputes including but not limited to any Prior Submittals or claims as well as the November 20, 2014 Submittal and hereby resolve all their disputes as set forth below. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals of the parties herein, the parties agree as follows: A. The above -referenced recitals are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement. SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page I of 12 Settlement Agmt. B. This Agreement is intended, consistent with Civil Code §5915 to be a written agreement reached between the parties and is intended to bind the parties and is judicially enforceable; C. In consideration of Swenson's accommodations enumerated below, the Association hereby approves the November 20, 2014 Submittal and modifies the December 31, 2014 ARC Ruling such that the only remaining conditions of approval is compliance with all of the following: 1. DRAINAGE - the drainage plans that are part of the November 20, 2014 Submittal are approved subject, however, to compliance with necessary revisions and/or confirmation of additional information as more particularly identified in the memorandum from the Association's civil engineer, Charles Greely, P.E., of Dudek Engineering ("Dudek', dated January 28, 2015, attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof by this reference ("Drainage Memorandum'. The Swensons shall provide the necessary information and/or revisions to meet the requirements of the Drainage Memorandum and shall provide all such revisions and information to Dudek as soon as possible inclusive of maintenance standards for the on -site drainage facilities located on the Swenson Property ("On -Site Drainage'). Written approval by Dudek as to further revisions/information required under the Drainage Memorandum ("Revised Drainage Memorandum') shall be deemed compliance with this section and no further approvals will be required from the Association's Board of Directors and/or Architectural Review Committee. Swenson and their future successors and assigns shall maintain the On -Site Drainage consistent with the approved Revised Drainage Memorandum. The Swensons further agree to reimburse the Association all costs it incurs as of February 1, 2015, to have Dudek review the information/revisions provided by the Swenson's civil engineer related to the Drainage Memorandum and such reimbursement shall take place within ten (10) days of presentation by the Association to the Swensons of an invoice for same. 2. INDEMNIFICATION - The Swensons shall indemnify for himself/herself/themselves, as well as for his/her/their successors and assigns, and covenants and agrees to hold Association harmless from all claims, demands or liability (collectively "Claims') arising out of or encountered in connection with any failure of the on -site drainage system comprised of a series of area drains connected to a localized storm drain system that terminates in an underground retention system under the driveway, including, but not limited to, the underground retention system, the drywells and all on -site drainage systems on the Swenson Property ("Drainage System', whether such Claims are caused by Swenson, Swenson's agents or employees, or contractors or subcontractors employed on the Swenson project, their agents or employees, or caused by any materials that are part of the Drainage System, excepting only such injury or harm as may be caused solely and exclusively by Association's negligence or wilful misconduct. 3. DRIVEWAY WALL / POOL AREA WALL PLANTERS - i) North Driveway Wall - The height of the wall is acceptable. The Swensons will use cast stone for the north wall with the color to match the material/stone of adjacent hillside. However, the final design plans for the north driveway wall will be submitted to the Association's SwensonSettlementAgmt.Flnal.030415.wpd Page 2 of 12 Settlement Agmt. architect, Brad Hammerstrom of Diehl Group Architects ("Hammerstrom', as part of the working drawing submittal, for review and final approval. Promptly after the commencement of grading, Swenson's contractor and/or design professionals shall make available field samples made of cast stone for review and approval by Hammerstrom. The cast stone wall shall be applied to the hazardous rock wall as such wall is being constructed. The Swensons and their successors and assigns are further obligated to maintain the cast stone wall to ensure that the North Wall matches the material/stone of the adjacent hillside. ii) South Driveway Wall - The Swensons will use a stucco that matches the color as shown by the Color Board prepared by Prest Vuksic and received by the Association on November 20, 2014. In addition, the height of the wall will be reduced as much as possible but still meet La Quinta Building Code and, further, the Swensons will add landscaping to conceal the wall as much as possible to mitigate the aesthetic impact of such wall. The final design plans for the south driveway wall will be submitted to Hammerstrom as part of the working drawing submittal for review and final approval. iii) Pool Area Wall Planters - the pool area wall planters will have an additional natural boulder facade added to such planters with such boulder facade to have a 0 to 5 feet variation from the top of the wall in order to make it appear natural and blend in with the hillside consistent with the schematic attached hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof by this reference. The final design plans for this wall and the natural boulder facade shall be submitted to Hammerstrom as part of the working drawing submittal for review and final approval. The Swensons and their successors and assigns shall maintain the natural boulder facade so that the natural look of the boulder facade is retained. iv) Location and Identification of the Walls - See map attached hereto as Exhibit E and made a part hereof by this reference showing the North Driveway Wall, the South Driveway Wall and the Pool Area Wall Planters. 4. GRADING - Preliminary and final Grading shall be as agreed upon between Dudek and the Swenson's civil engineer. The Swensons shall provide Dudek grading reports as they are prepared during the grading process. 5. LANDSCAPE - The Swensons agree to install, at their cost, up to a total of twenty-one (21) 60" box Palo Brea and Blue Palo Verde trees behind Lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 in locations to be reasonably agreed upon by the Association. The irrigation pipes for these trees will be buried where possible. If it is not possible to bury the pipes, then the irrigation pipes will be hidden/covered as much as possible so that they cannot be seen from any other residential Lot or the common areas. As to the irrigation for all other landscaping on the Swenson Property, all irrigation pipes (but not emitters) must be placed below grade. 6. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND SCHEDULE - Except for drilling as enumerated in Section 10.ii., the construction standards and schedule for all work to be done on the Swenson Property shall be consistent with III. D. denominated as Construction Standards of The Enclave Mountain Estates Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit F, made a part hereof by this reference. SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 3 of 12 Settlement Agmt. 7. VARIANCES - The Association's CC&Rs provides that variances may be granted from compliance with the architectural provisions contained therein "when circumstances such as topography, natural obstructions, hardship, aesthetic and environmental consideration may require." Based on the uniqueness of the Swenson Property which distinguishes it from any other lot within The Enclave Mountain Estates community, any variances that are noted on Hammerstrom's May 16, 2014 Report, which was attached to the December 31, 2014 ARC Ruling, are hereby resolved and, to the extent a variance was required, it is hereby granted; provided, however, that as to any lighting of the front yard landscaping, the Swensons will use shielded LED / low voltage lights and, further, any lighting on the slope areas adjacent to lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, shall be installed with shielded low voltage lights with the light pointing uphill toward the Swenson residence. Written approval by Hammerstrom as to the working drawings shall be deemed in compliance with this Agreement and no further approvals will be required from the Association's Board of Directors and/or Architectural Review Committee. 8. REMEDIAL MEASURES SET FORTH IN VUKSIC'S LETTER DATED JULY 8, 2014 - Hammerstrom has confirmed that all remedial measures stated in said letter have been included in the November 20, 2014 Submittal. 9. COMPLETION BOND - A completion bond will not be required; however, the Swensons agree that once they start construction, they are obligated to complete the retainage / drainage system irrespective of any cessation on the construction of the house. For the purposes of this provision, "cessation" shall mean "stoppage of construction for 2 months or more". . 10. ACCESS AND NOTICE i) ACCESS. - The Association's design professionals (such as their architect and civil engineer) shall have access to the Swenson Property to ensure compliance with the November 20, 2014 Submittal and this Agreement until such time as the proposed residence and all improvements thereon are issued a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of La Quinta. ii) NOTICE - The Swensons shall provide written notice to the Association at least ten (10) days before commencement of any drilling or other heavy grading on the Swenson Property, such notice to include a description of the type of drilling, the time of day and duration (number of days) of the expected drilling. No drilling shall start before 9:00 a.m.. iii) DRIVEWAY - The Association's contractor placed some dirt on the undeveloped area intended to be the Swenson's driveway and the Swensons agree such dirt can remain in place and does not need to be removed by the Association. D. Miscellaneous Provisions. 1. The parties represent and warrant that no portion of any claim, right, demand, cause and/or right of action that the parties have or might have, as herein referenced, has been assigned or transferred to any other person, firm, partnership, entity or corporation, whether by operation of law or otherwise. SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 4 of 12 Settlement Agmt. 2. This Agreement is binding on the successors and assigns to the parties of this Agreement. In this regard, the Swensons and their successors and assigns have an ongoing duty to disclose/provide a copy of this Agreement to any successive Owner of the Swenson Property inclusive of the ongoing obligations related to the Indemnification as well as ongoing maintenance obligations that are contained within this Agreement. 3. It is further understood and agreed that, if any portion of this Agreement must be held null, void or unenforceable, for any reason whatsoever, that the parties may enforce the remaining portions of this Agreement. 4. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the matters herein set forth, and shall not be modified, except in writing, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the.executors, administrators, heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 5. The terms of this Agreement are contractual and not a mere recital. 6. This Agreement has been entered into in the State of California, County of Riverside and shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California and shall be deemed to have been made and/or performed in said State and County. 7. The parties represent and warrant that they have carefully read this Agreement and that the parties have the sole and exclusive power and authority to execute this Agreement and do so of their own free act. 8. As between the parties, in the event of litigation over, regarding or relating to this Agreement, including issues as to its enforceability, interpretation or any alleged breach of same, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to recover his, her or its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 9. Each party to this Agreement shall bear his/her/its own attorney's fees and costs. 10. The parties represent and warrant that they have carefully read this Agreement and had the contents and legal effect hereof fully explained by legal counsel of their choosing. 11. The parties represent and warrant that the undersigned have the sole and exclusive power and authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of all named parties to the action and do so of their own free act. 12. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and when each party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart, each counterpart shall be deemed an original and all counterparts taken together shall constitute one and the same Agreement, which shall be binding in effectiveness to all the parties. SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 5 of 12 Settlement Agmt. Mar 10 2015 06:37PM HP Fax 6262847030 page 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the dates which appear below. The undersigned hereby warrant that they are legally authorized and entitled to settle and to release every claim herein released and to give a valid, full and final acquittance therefor, CASE SWi~tdSQPd and LXSA 5WEN5dN �.-------_-----••-_----- Dated: 1 _gase- w s n Dated:. � CY �..� _ wensan THE 5NCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION A Callfornla NO"• -Profit Mutual £teneflt Corporatlarr Dated: S��ciuonSaulcmcntAgnri.Flna1.03041 S.wpd Pup 6 of 12 ScBlentent Agmt. EXHIBIT A SWENSON NOVEMBER 20, 2014 ARCHITECTURAL SUBMITTAL: I. SHEET INDEX PAGE TITLE DATE C7.0 Technical Site Plan 10/28/2014 C2.0 Overall Preliminary Precise Grading Plan 10/28/2014 C2.1 Enlarged Preliminary Grading Plan 10/28/2014 C3.0 Easements & Utility Plan 10/28/2014 L1.0 Illustrative Site Plan 11/10/2014 L2.0 Illustrative Planting Plan 11/10/2014 L2.0 Illustrative Planting Plan 11/10/2014 L2.1 Planting Plan A 11/06/2014 L2.2 Planting Plan B 11/06/2014 L3.0 Lighting Plan 11/10/2014 L4.0 Construction Details 11/06/2014 A2.02 Enlarged Site Plan 11/06/2014 A2.01 Overall Site Plan 03/17/2014 A2.10 Floor Plan 11/06/2014 A3.10 Exterior Elevations 11/06/2014 A3.11 Exterior Elevations 11/06/2014 A3.20 Colored Elevations 11/06/2014 A3.21 Colored Elevations 11/06/2014 A6.10 Roof Plan 11/06/2014 A6.20 Details 07/23/2013 A6.21 Details 07/23/2013 II. COLOR BOARD - prepared by Prest Vuksic III. RENDERINGS SUBMITTED WITH THE PLANS SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 7 of 12 Settlement Agmt. r:3 SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 8 of 12 Settlement Agmt. Homeowners Association Architectural Review Committee Ruling December 31, 2014 SENT VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL SENT VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Case and Lisa Swenson Case and Lisa Swenson 62 Ellenwood Ave. c/o Barry Swenson Builder Los Gatos, CA 95030 777 N. Ist Street, 5th Floor San Jose, CA 95112 Re: Your Architectural Application for Proposed Development of Your Residential Lot Located at 77210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, California ("Proposed Residence") Dear Mr. and Mrs. Swenson: The Association's Architectural Review Committee ("ARC") has reviewed your Architectural Design Submittal of November 20, 2014 for the Proposed Residence ("Submittal") and provides you with the following conditional approval of your Submittal, as more particularly enumerated below: ASSOCIATION'S GOVERNING DOCUMENTS The Association's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation of Easements ("CC&Rs") provide as follows: Article VIII 8. Architectural Control. 8.2. Review ofPlans and Specifications. ... The ARC may also issue rules or guidelines setting forth procedures for the submission of plans for approval,'... The ARC shall approve plans and specifications submitted for The Association's Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by this reference. AssociaDesert Resort Management, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 346-1161 ♦ (760) 346-9918 fax its approval only if it deems that the installation, construction, alterations or additions contemplated thereby in the locations indicated will not be detrimental to the appearance of the surrounding area of the Properties as a whole, that the appearance of any structure affected thereby will be in harmony with the surrounding structures, and that the installation or construction thereof will not detract from the beauty, wholesomeness and attractiveness of the Common Area and Association Maintenance Areas or the enjoyment thereof by the Members.... 8.7 Scope of Work. The ARC shall review and approve, conditionally approve or disapprove all plans submitted to it for any proposed Improvement, alteration or addition, on the basis of (1) compliance with Specific Plan 121-E and all applicable provisions of this Declaration and the Rules and Regulations, (fi) compatibility with the development within the Santa Rosa Cove community in terms of architecture, mass, height and bulk of structures and landscape design, (iii) consistency of the building architecture, building materials and colors with the design theme of the Santa Rosa Cove community, and (iv) aesthetic considerations and the overall benefit or detriment which would result to the immediate vicinity and the Properties generally. The ARC shall take into consideration the aesthetic aspects of the architectural designs, placement of buildings, landscaping, color schemes, exterior finishes and materials and similar features. The ARC's approval or disapproval shall be based solely on the considerations set forth in this Article VIII .... The Architectural Committee may consider the impact of views from other Dwelling Units or Lots and reasonable privacy right claims as factors in reviewing, approving or disapproving any proposed landscaping, construction or other Improvement. RULING The ARC, in reliance on the recommendations of the consulting architects (Bradley C. Hammerstrom of the Diehl Group Architects, Inc.), hereby CONDITIONALLY APPROVES ,the Submittal provided, however, that the items listed below require further information, plans and/or revisions and will need to be submitted / resubmitted prior to the commencement of any construction: 1. Drainage — The overall drainage.from the hillside lot is still of a concern. How will the on -site drainage flow? Where will it flow? Will there be a percolation trench? What modeling of the proposed drainage plans have occurred since the August 2013 and September 2014 rain storms? Receipt of confirmation that the proposed drainage plans are sufficient to handle any run off and erosion from similar rain storm events, without further taxation of the existing Flood Control Channel. Further drainage plans and how drainage will impact the community and the Association's needs to be provided. DRAINAGE IS NOT APPROVED. 2 AssociaDesert Resort Management, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92211 . (760) 346-1161 4 (760) 346-9918 fax 2. Applicant to be responsible for and/or indemnify the Association or its members for the maintenance and inspection, costs associated with any approved drainage system on Applicant's lot as well as, any modifications, if required, of the existing Flood Control Channel (Applicant's Drainage System). Applicants shall be solely responsible for and shall indemnify the Association for any costs of any maintenance, ,inspection and/or cleanup of any rain run off and/or mud or sediment erosion that may flow from Applicant's lot/Drainage System onto the Association Common Areas, including streets, or any neighboring properties. Applicants agree to follow the maintenance and inspection obligations as set forth in Paragraph 9.2 of the Association's CC&Rs as they apply to Applicant's Drainage System. Applicants to provide to the Association's BOD annual certificates confirming completion of the required maintenance and inspections, including certification by a licensed civil engineer as required in 9.2 as to Applicant's Drainage System. 3. Driveway Wall —Insufficient information provided. NOT APPROVED. 4. Rock Fall Hazard — Note page C.0.2 of the submitted plans has a note that states "rock fall hazard note" and that insufficient information has been provided NOT APPROVED. 5. Grading: Not approved without submission of Final Grading'Plans and proof of compliance with the recommendations of Earth Systems Southwests' Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated March 26, 2013. Applicants further agree, at their sole cost, to allow Mr. Hammerstrom or his (HOA's) designated representative notice of and access to all site clearing, grading, soil compaction and bedrock cuts and shall be provided access to all geotechnical observations ,analysis and testing. 6. Landscape — final landscape plans must be submitted for review / approval. 7. Schedule — in light of the CONDITIONAL APPROVAL and the further information/submission requested herein, the Construction Schedule is NOT APPROVED. 8. VARIANCES — Applicants and their Architectural consultant represents that no variances are sought. To the extent there are any variances required which must be approved by the Board of Directors, it is hereby requested that the Swensons and their architects, Prest-Vuksic, and the Association's architect, Bradley Hammerstrom of Diehl Group Architects, Inc. get together to review the 7 page May 16, 2014 letter from Brad Hammerstrom which references approximately 10 possible variances to determine if actual variances for any of those items will be required and report back to the Architectural Committee for further determination. Any variances must be approved by the Board of Directors. A copy of said letter is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 9. Applicants to submit written confirmation that the remedial measures set forth in Mr. Vuksic's letter dated July, 8, 2014 addressed to the Members of the Architectural Committee are included and incorporated in the present Submittal. AssociaDesert Resort Management, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 346-1161 ® (760) 346-9918 fax 10. Applicant shall post a completion bond in an amount to be negotiated with the Architectural Committee to ensure completion of the Applicant's Drainage System in the event the Applicants are unable to complete Applicant's Drainage System for any reason after the commencement of construction. 11. Applicant to. execute an Architectural Improvement Agreement to be recorded against Applicant's Lot to incorporate the conditions contained herein as well as a Type 1 indemnity/insurance requirements for the benefit of the Assoc iation/BODs/Managing Agent and a deposit requirement equal to the projected amount of architectural/engineering fees that the Association may/will incur to review additional plans and assure completion consistent with the plans submitted and to be submitted to the Association for approval Architectural Review Committee THE ENCLAVE MOUNTAIN ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AssociaDesert Resort Management, Inc. 4 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 346-1161 ♦ (760) 346-9918 fax Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of CCR and Design Guidelines A ZA / \ May 16,2014 DIERL GROUP ARCH IiECrS Purpose and Process The pupose of this report is to advise the Architecutrai Review Commitee of the Enclave Mountain Estates regarding the proposed Swenson home project. The intent of this report is to review the proposed project against the Governing Documents(CC&R and Architecture and Landscape Design Guidelines). Relevant Sections from each have been excerpted here for reference. My judgement regarding whether or not the proposed project complies with each excerpted Section is provided, along with my comments. It should be noted that the proposed project has unique characteristics that set it apart from any other lot in the community: D The lot is combined of two lots, each of which is much larger than any other single lot in the Mountain Estates t' The lot is undeveloped, yet partly disturbed, and not fine -graded, unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates 0- The lot contains areas of native, untouched land and landscape, unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates 0- The lot is the only lot in the Mountain Estates located on the "far side" of the storm channel. Ia The proposed home is elevated roughly two stories above all other homes. � The lot does not have the typical front yard, side yards, rear yard setup like all other homes. P The proposed home faces the rear yards of six homes, like no other home in the Mountain Estates It should also be noted that the Architecture and Landscape Design Guidelines were last revised 5/6199, which post-dates the anexation of the Swenson lots to the Mountain Estates in 6/14/93. In the chart below, 1 have provided a quick means to check the compliance, or not, of the various Sections cited. Some Sections are advisory in nature, rather than prescriptive, and are included due to their relevance to the Swenson project. Those Sections have no relevant Comply response so "Na" is shown. Where additional information or confirmation is needed a "more info" or "Yes, Conditionally" response is entered. Blue highlights indicate my emphasis added. Respectfully, Bradley C. Hammerstrom AIA Complies? Governing Document Section Excerpt Hammerstrom Comments CCR Article Vlll Architectural Gnntrni Yes Yes, conditionally 8.1 Members of Committee "The ARC shall have the right and duty to The design of the home itself "conforms" to the design and promulgate reasonable standards against which to materials of other buildings in the project, which is quite examine any request made pursuant to the Article, diverse. The cast stone walls are intended to "conform in order to ensure that the proposed plans conform harmoniously" to the surrounding hills. Asa side note, i harmoniously to the exterior design and existing would point -out that the Mountain Estates lake, waterfall, materials of the buildings in the Properties." round non -granite boulders do not, in my opinion, "conform harmoniously" with the existing materials. 8.2 Review of Plans and Specifications "The ARC shall approve plans ... only if it deems that Some homeowners certainly feel the project will be the [project] will not be detrimental to the "detrimental to the appearance of the surrounding area", appearance of the surrounding area of the i.e. their back yard views. The Common Area is not Properties as a whole, that the appearance of any affected, except visually, it could be argued. if the cast structure affected thereby will be in harmony with stone is done convincingly, then I believe it will not be the surrounding structures, and that the installation "detrimental'. or construction thereof will not detract from the beauty, wholesomeness and attractiveness of the Common Area and Association Maintenance Areas or the enjoyment thereof by the Members..." Diehl Group Architects, inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 1 of 7 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of CCR and Design Guidelines May 16, 2014 Complies? Governina Document Section Excer t n/a more info more info n/a n/a n/a n/a ALiA RC "Decisions of the ARC and the reasons therefor Advisory re: time limit to respond shall be transmitted by the ARC to the applicant... within forty-five (45) days after receipt by the ARC of all materials required by the ARC." 8.7 Sco a of Review "The ARC shall review and approve, conditionally (I) I am not familiar with "Specific Plan 121•E". approve or disapprove all plans submitted ... on the (1I) The design of the home itself is compatible in terms of basis of: "architecture, mass, height and bulk". (I) compliance with Specific Plan 121-E and all (ill) The project uses consistent materialsand colors. applicable provision of this Declaration and the (Iv) This item is subjective. Rules and Regulations, (it) compatibility with the development within the Santa Rosa Cove community in terms of architecture, mass, height and bulk of the constructions and landscape design, (ill) consistency of the building architecture, building materials and colors with the design theme of the Santa Rosa Cove community, and (iv) aesthetic considerations and the overall benefit or detriment which could result to the immediate vicinity and the Properties generally." "The ARC shall take into consideration the aesthetic This is under consideration still, with the only remaining aspects of the architectural designs, placement of issues being, perhaps, the "placement! of the building on buildings, landscaping, color schemes, exterior the east side and the look of the cast stone with regard to finishes and materials and similar features." "aesthetic aspects". "The ARC's approval or disapproval shall be based Advisory: ARC does not grant building permits solely on the considerations set forth in this Article Vill, and the ARC shall not be responsible for reviewing, nor shall its approval of any plan or design be deemed approval of, any plan or design from the standpoint of structural safety or conformance with building or other codes." "The Architectural Committee may consider the Advisory re: view impacts impact of view from other Dwelling Units or Lots and reasonable privacy right claims as factors in reviewing, approving or disapproving any proposed landscaping, construction or other Improvement." "However, Declarant does not warrant any protected Advisory re: view impacts views within the Properties, and no Dwelling Unit or Lot is guaranteed the existence or unobstructed continuation of any particular view." 8.8 Variance "The ARC may authorize variances from compliance Gives the ARC power to grant variances, which, given the with any of the architectural provisions of this many unique characteristics of the Swenson lot, may be Declaration, including without limitation, restrictions justified for some provisions. upon height, size, floor area or placement of structures, or similar restriction, when circumstances such as topography, natural obstruction, hardship, aesthetic or environmental consideration may require." Diehl Group Architects, inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 2 of 7 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of CCR and Design Guidelines May 16, 2014 Complies? Governing Document Section Excerpt Hammerstrom Comments Article X Use Restnctlons No nta Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes z.aLA GIERL GRUUPIIRCHIiECiS 10.3 Nuisances "No horns, whistles, bells, or other sound devices, The outdoor TV might be considered an"other sound except security devices used exclusively to protect device" and be disallowed. the security of a Dwelling Unit and its contents, shall be placed or used on any Lot" 10.10 Outside Installations "No fence or wall shall be erected, altered or Advisory: walls and fences are in ARCspurview. maintained on any Lot on the Properties, except with the Prior approval of the ARC." 10.15 View Obstructions "...each Owner, by accepting title to a Lot, hereby ARC has no duty to preserve anyone's views. acknowledges that: (a) there are no protected views within the Properties, and no Lot is assured the existence or unobstructed continuation of any particular view, and (b) any construction, landscaping or installation of Improvements by Declarant or other Owners may Impair the view from any Lot, and the Owners hereby consent to such view impairment." "No other Improvement or obstruction shall be The project does not "unreasonably obstruct".the view from constructed, planted or maintained upon any Lot in anyone's lot. such location or of such height as to unreasonably obstruct the view from any other Lot in the vicinity thereof." 10.18 Construction of a Dweilin Unit "No Dwelling Unit or other structures (other than The pad appears to not have been "graded by Deicarant", chimneys) may exceed a height of twenty-two (22) so this provision is, strictly, not applicable; however, the feet above the finished pad as graded by intent is followed in that the Dwelling Unit -including the Declarant " chimney --is less than 22ft high. "All mechanical equipment (including without AC equipment is hidden on garage roof, Pool equipment is limitation pool heaters and motors and air conditions in underground vault. units, wherever located, must be hidden from view from all Lots, Common Area, streets and the golf course adjacent to the Properties:' "The front yard landscaping on each Lot shall Strictly speaking, the project has no "front yard", but contain not less than two (2) lights. Such lights: perhaps the yard areas between the retaining walls and the (i) shall contain a maximum of one hundred fifty storm channel could be considered the "front yard". Those (150) watts, areas have no lighting planned. Assuming the intent of this (ii) shall not cause any glare on any adjoining provision is to require lighting In the publicly visible yard of property or streets, a home, then the project's entire yard area should follow (iii) must be controlled by a photocell, these requirements. I believe, however, that the consensus (iv) may not be colored, but may be incandescent or of adjoining neighbors would prefer no lighting in these fluorescent, and areas. A variance should be considered for this provision. (v) may not be mounted on the Dwelling Unit or any wallsposts orpoles." Architectural and Landscape Desian Guidelines I. Design Philoso h "...a small group of unique homesites.... Their Reasonable differences of opinion are possible on this, but uniqueness requires a sensitive and respectful in my opinion the project meets this goal, integ ration...with the natural environment." Diehl Group Architects, inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 3 of 7 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of CCR and Design Guidelines May 16, 2014 Complies? Yes Yes Yes n1a nta n1a n1a /14 4Juuu" "'.I L;"" CXCu'rpl "The intent...is to encourage and cultivate quality design ... while still allowing an individual expression..:' "A principle concern is the preservation and crea of value." "The character of the architectural design should be expressive of the desert environment. Colors and materials should be composed of tones and shapes responding to the adjacent improved and natural A. Design Review Procedures A L /,a\ DIEHL GROUP ARCHITECTS project meets this goal, in my inly the project will create much more value on the son lot being developed, as compared to its current Reasonable differences of opinion are possible ling the "preservation" of value of the lot and of the neighborhood. in my opinion, the neighborhood's would not be diminished by this project', but ved, by virtue of one less vacant lot, poorly graded isturbed. roject meets this goal, in my opinion. 1. Design -Review Process "The ARC ... may require that changes be made to Advisory: These guidelines are not exhaustive. The ARC comply with the [Governing Documents] and such may use it's discretion and has broad powers. additional requirements as the ARC may, in it's discretion, impose as to structural features of any proposed Improvement, the type of material used, or other features or characteristics thereof not expressly covered by any provisions of this document, including the siting or location of any proposed Improvement with respect to the topography and finished ground elevations." 7. Ot er A ovals "Approval ... by the ARC does not waive the Advisory: ARC does not grant building permits necessity of obtaining the required city and any other public agency ermits and approvals." "Any... approval as given by the ARC refers only to Advisory: ARC does not review for Codes, Engineering or its conformity with these Design Guidelines, the Safety. Declaration and such other rules as may be promulgated by the ARC. The ARC ... makes no representations with respect to plan conformance with governmental codes, engineering or structural design ... or design for structural safety and conformance with building or other codes." 2. Pad Elevation "Each homesite has a finished grade elevation as it appears the project does not have a City approved pad approved by the City of La Quinta. No fill material elevation --or a level "pad" at all. The Swenson lot is unique may be placed on the lot to raise the approved pad in that the lot is raw except for some verycrude grading. elevation." The intent of this provision, in my opinion, is to maintain all pads at their originally designed elevation. Strictly speaking the Swenson lot has no originally designed pad elevation, so this provision does not apply. in my opinion this provision is not meant to address the use of fill, per se. Diehl Group Architects, Inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 4 of 7 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of CCR and Design Guidelines May 16, 2014 Complies? Governing Document Section Excer t Yes No Yes No No n/a Yes Yes, conditionally No No Yes OIEHL GROUP ARCIIJIMS 3. A roved Roof Height & 5to Limitation naunucrsirom uummenis "The highest point of the roof structure must not The highest portion of the roof is 20'-3". Sldctly speaking exceed twenty-two (22) feet from the approved pad the lot appears to have no "approved padelevation", but elevation" 6. Garden Wail Requirements the intent of this provision is met. A. General: "All homesite owners are required to construct A variance should be considered for this provision, since garden walls where their property adjoins another." the lot is unique —it adjoins the property lines of lots 16-21. The property line is along the top of the storm channel retaining wall. it Is unreasonable, impractical and, i believe, undesirable for these owners to have a 6-foot garden wall atop their storm channel retaining wall. "No wall will. be permitted along rear property lines The project conforms with this provision, although defining without ARC approval. Homesites one (1) - five (5) the "rear property line" for the Swenson tot is difficult. No are excluded." property line "garden walls" are proposed.A retaining wall is proposed along the first 144-feet of the left side of the driveway, going up, B. Wall Hei ht and Finish: "Six (6) foot high masonry block walls must be A variance should be considered for this provision, since provided along common residential property lines to the lot is unique --it adjoins the rear property lines of lots 16- enclose side yards." 21 and adjoins no side yards. The Swenson's "side yard" Is "Walls must extend from the front of the residence difficult to define. A variance should be considered for this provision, since to the rear property setback line." the lot is unique --the rear property setback line is 110 ft behind the garage, up the steep mountainwhere nobody, I "All garden walls shall be masonry and at least six believe, wants anything built. This provision does not `apply since no "garden walls" are (6) inches thick and appropriately finished to match proposed or required (if a variance is granted). or compliment the exterior of the house." C. Garden Gates "Shall be substantially construcled .... Sid yyard The projects meets this provision. gates and gates to service areas must be of a solid composition to visually screen such areas." 7. Service Areas and I Itility entrance Locations Electric meters and panels, gas meters, sub- This level of detail is not provided in the materials provided. panels, telephone and television entrance panels, The design team should be made aware of this and similar items must be out of sight when viewed requirement and future inspections should enforce this. from the golf course, street or adjacent homesites." 8. Residential Exteriors B. Materials/Colors: "All exterior materials shall be authentic and It could be reasonably argued that the proposed cast stone genuine." is simulated, not "authentic and genuine". But, I think the consensus of all -concerned is to conceal the required retaining walls with simulated stone. A vadance for this provision should be considered if this is the case. C. Roofs "The slope of all pitched roofs shall be no flatter The plans show the main metal roof is sloped at 3/4:12, in than 3:12 ratio." apparent violation of this provision. i do not understand the intent of this provision. Given the elevated lot the rooftop is not visible In any of the photosims provided. A variance should be considered for this provision. "Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall not be Sheet metal shrouds surround rooftop equipment on the visible from adjacent properties or public areas." garage. This provision Is met. Diehl Group Architects, Inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 5 of 7 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Nome - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of OCR and Design Guidelines May 16, 2014 Complies? Governinct Document Section Excerpt Yes, conditionally Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes, conditionally Yes Yes No No OIEHL GROUP A/CHItEcts E. Roof Gutters: "Roof gutters shall be constructed into the roof The plans show no gutter at the main metal roof, which has structure with downspouts being run within the a slightly curved eave when viewed in planview. Other roof walls. Exposed gutters, downspouts, or scuppers areas have concealed downspouts. If gutters are provided are not acceptable." on the metal roofs, they should be concealed. L. Drfvewa s: "All drives shall be brick, stone, concrete pavers, or Pavers are shown on the plans. concrete either stamped, salt finish or punctuated by the masonry used on the buildings. Asphalt driveways will not be approved." 11. Exterior Lighting. "Exterior lighting shall be low scale and directed Proposed lights in soffits are deeply recessed. downward, recessed, or shielded so that the light source is not visible or obnoxious..:' 1. General Guidelines. "Any portion of the homesite not used for buildings, A variance should be considered for this provision, since patios, driveways, or sidewalks shall be landscaped the lot is unique --much of the lot area is planned to be left in accordance with these guidelines and shall be undisturbed. irrigation and landscaping is not desired provided with an automatic irrigation system." except where screening landscaping is planned to shield the views from adjoining lots. Some adjoining homeowners would prefer no landscaping in the undisturbed areas. 2. Exposed rock surfaces shall be treated with an The lot is unique in that the majority of site is "exposed approved 'desert varnish' (also called an oxidizing or rock surfaces" planned to remain undisturbed. Where any aging agent) such as Ecnite or Permeon. This "grey" disturbed rock surfaces remain after grading and process restores the natural desert coloration to landscaping (whether pre-existing or ne*-created), this disturbed surfaces. The color shall match as nearly provision should be followed. as possible the color of the surrounding rocks/mountains." 4. Li htfn . "Any landscape lighting utilized shall be shielded to No landscape lighting is proposed in the °undisturbed prevent nuisance glare onto adjacent properties or areas" outside of the retaining walls. Driveway lights and the golf course." others shown on sheet L3.0 Lighting Plan are shielded. The project meets this provision, "Lighting shall be automated and controlled by a The plans do not contain this level of detail, but the design timer inside the house or photo -cell electric system, team should be made aware of this requirement and future and shall be active at all time, including those inspections should verify. periods when the house is not occupied." "All outdoor fixtures shall utilize incandescent or The project meets this provision. florescent lamps. No lens, which is colored, shall be permitted." "Walk lights may be used along walkways and The project meets this provision. driveways and shall project downward only," "Fixtures shall not exceed fifteen (15) inches in Sheet L3.0 Lighting Plan shows "path lights" as Vista height." model 2128 at 17-inches tall, in violation of this provision. 6. Maintenance. "The homeowner shall maintain all plantings in a A variance should be considered for this provision, since healthy growing condition." the lot is unique --much of the lot area is planned to be left undisturbed. Irrigation and landscaping is not desired except where screening landscaping Is planned to shield the views from adjoining lots. Diehl Group Architects, inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 6 of 7 Enclave Mountain Estates Proposed Swenson Home - 4th Submittal Preliminary Checklist of OCR and Design Guidelines May 16, 2014 Complies? No n/a n/a n/a END A L 1A\ OiEHE GROOPARCH IFECrS Diehl Group Architects, Inc. -PRELIMINARY- Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT C SwensonSettlementAgmt.Flnal.030415.wpd Page 9 of 12 Settlement Agmt. 40-004 COOK STREET SUM7. 4 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92211 T 760.341.6660 f 760.346.E 113 To: Enclave Mountain Estates HOA — Board or Directors From: Charles Greely, PE, LEED AP, QSD Subject: Swenson Residence @ Mountain Estates Date: January 28, 2015 Please accept this memo as our formal response to your request for engineering review of the precise grading plans associated with the proposed Swenson Residence construction within The Enclave Mountain Estates located in La Quinta, California. Pursuant with you request, Dudek has reviewed the grading and utility plans (with a submittal date of 10/28/2014) associated with the residence primarily for concerns associated with drainage from the site. Dudek understands that the City of La Quinta is reviewing the plans for permitting concurrent with our review. This review in no way intended to supersede or countermand the plan review provided by the City Public Works or Building Department personnel. The following is a list of comments and/or concerns associated with the plans: 1) The drainage system is comprised of a series of area drains connected to a localized storm drain system that terminates in an underground retention system adjacent to the driveway. Though sizes and material specifications are missing from the plans (and should be added in future submittals) the system appears to consist of 4" to 12" storm drain piping with minimum slopes of 0.5%. Hydrology and hydraulic (H&H) calculations should be provided to verify that the system has adequate capacity to convey up to a 100- yr storm event into the downstream retention structure. 2) The underground retention system is comprised of a sloped 48" diameter pipe connected to a drywell to facilitate percolation. The location of the drywell is approximately 1' from the limits of the existing culvert pipes that convey drainage from the channel system underneath Loma Vista to the downstream drainage facilities in the La Quinta Resort. The close proximity of the proposed drywell to the existing culvert pipe causes concern for the following reasons: W`NLN.DUDEK.COM Memorandum Subject: Swenson Residence @ Mountain Estates a. Constructability — Can the drywell be installed while adequately protecting the existing culvert pipe from damage b. The drywell will dispose of storm water through percolation to surrounding soils. The result will be additional lateral pressure on the culvert pipe during times of percolation. The culvert pipe needs to be analyzed to verify that adequate structural capacity exists for this load case. c. Are collapsible soils present around the drywell that could cause structural damage to the culvert in the presence of percolated water? d. Has adequate geotechnical testing occurred to verify that the drywell will completely percolate within 72 hours to satisfy vector control concerns? e. The proposed underground retention system will encroach into the exiting private drainage easement. Will special permission be needed from the HOA for this encroachment? f. What maintenance protocols are (or will be) in place to ensure the system is inspected and maintained? 3) The project proposes to construct an access route from the private driveway to the drainage easement for maintenance equipment access. The proposed route requires tight turning movements that may restrict anything but small equipment from access the channel. Additionally, a 10' wide gate is proposed to restrict access to the channel. The applicant should show justification for the proposed gate and demonstrate that the turning movements will not restrict access for typical maintenance equipment (backhoe, track loader, skid steer, etc.) If a gate is proven to be justified, we recommend a minimum width of 15 to accommodate the full drainage easement width. 4) Based on the quantity of impermeable rock material that currently makes up the lot, we would not expect a significant increase in runoff associated with the building footprint and associated hardscape surfaces. Therefore the proposed construction should have no appreciable impact on the existing flood control channel and no increased risk of exceeding the channel capacity. Please note; this plan review is based on preliminary design documents provided by the applicant. Dudek anticipates that final design documents (precise grading, H&H study, fire department approval, CVWD approval, etc.) would be prepared and submitted to the City and HOA for final approval. 8050 DUDEK 2 January 2014 Memorandum Subject: Swenson Residence @ Mountain Estates Based on our review of the preliminary engineering plans, we recommend that the HOA Board approve the submittal subject to the review and approval of final design documents that address the items noted above. Should the Board have any questions or wish to discuss our review comments, I can be contacted at 760.601.3411 or cgreely@dudek.com. Sincerely, Charles Greely, PE, LEED AP, QSD Senior Project Manager 8050 DUDEK 3 January 2014 EXHIBIT D SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 10 of 12 Settlement Agmt. ■ :Illrz SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 11 of 12 Settlement Agmt. A EXHIBIT F SwensonSettlementAgmt.FInal.030415.wpd Page 12 of 12 Settlement Agmt. • Irrigation systems are to be kept in proper working condition to avoid unnecessary loss of water. Owners shall be responsible for adjusting, repairing, and cleaning such systems on a regular basis. • The irrigation system shall be designed and be checked regularly to ensure that water from emitters or spray heads is not spraying onto walks, or driveways, or off the owner's property causing excessive water loss, staining or irrigating areas not designed to receive water. 7. Modifications to the Landscape. • Any modifications to the landscape, visible to the public, or adjacent properties shall require approval by the ARC prior to the modifications being made. D. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. 1. Owner/Contractor Responsibilities. • Each Homesite Owner and their general contractor will hold both the developer and the homeowners association harmless from actions of the owner, general contractor, sub -contractors, suppliers or any other person connected with the construction of the home. A general liability insurance policy from the owner and/or the. general contractor naming both the developer and the homeowners association as additional insured must be received prior to final approval of working drawings. • Each Owner is responsible for hiring contractors and subcontractors licensed in California. • The Owner is responsible for making certain that all construction personnel are familiar with and obey the rules governing their activities. • Each general contractor or superintendent is responsible for familiarizing their employees, subcontractors and suppliers with all relevant construction requirements and provisions in these design guidelines, and enforcing them. Each general contractor or superintendent is responsible for controlling employee work hours,- and controlling any activities of employees that may be deemed as an annoyance or nuisance to other homeowners. • Each general contractor or superintendent is responsible for providing Security personnel with an up to date listing Revised 5/6/99 25 of names and telephone numbers of all employees, subcontractors and suppliers that shall have access to the construction site. • The Owner and/or general contractor or superintendent is required to construct the Residence and surrounding Improvements according to the plans, specifications and revisions approved in writing by the ARC. • The - use of property adjacent to homesites under construction for vehicular access purposes, parking or material storage will not be permitted without the written consent of the adjacent homesite owner. The written permission must be on file with the ARC prior to use of the adjacent property. All adjacent property must be returned to its original condition at the end of construction. 2. Temporary Construction Facilities • A temporary water riser together with 150' (minimum) of 3/4" heavy-duty rubber water hose irrigation facilities for dust control and a hose stand shall be provided and i nstal I ed. • A metered power outlet shall be provided and installed in accordance with the requirements of Imperial Irrigation, the City of La Quinta, and the ARC. No signage is permitted on the temporary power poles. Pole shall be painted a gray or tan color. • A temporary portable toilet in good condition shall be provided with a bi-weekly chemical maintenance program. These units shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary and odorless condition. Toilet facilities shall be located in such a manner as not to infringe on neighboring homesite owners and shall be placed so the entrance faces toward the house, away from the street. Color shall be gray or tan. • It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure there is no drainage onto adjoining property during construction. • A minimum three'(3) yard steel roll -off dumpster shall be maintained on the homesite irt clean exterior condition and free of graffiti for the duration of the construction phase for adequate containment of.all construction waste. A bi- weekly dumping service shall be maintained so that overflow and unpleasant odors do not occur. Color shall be gray or tan. Revised 5/6/99 26 • Construction Trailers are prohibited. 3. Speed Limit. • The speed limit is 25 miles per hour. 4. Site Signage. • No signs other than an approved builder and site address sign located on the plan box or standard ARC homesite identification signs will be permitted. on homesites under construction. 5. ARC and Association Access to Homesite. • Representatives of the ARC and the Association shall have full access the Homesite and buildings while under construction. • In progress building review inspections will be' required during construction to assure compliance to the approved plans. It is the builders responsibility to notify the Mountain Enclave's management . association representative of builder's readiness for each inspection. Each of the following 4 inspections must be scheduled 10 working days in advance of necessary inspection: Ist Inspection — When forms are up and prior to the pouring of the foundation. 2"d Inspection — Framing Inspection to verify conformance with submitted plans. 3rd Inspection — Landscape Inspection to verify conformance with submitted plans. 4th Inspection — Final Inspection If any irregularities are found, the work must be revised to conform. All homeowners and builders must sign attached "Inspection Form". 6. Site Conduct and Safety Precautions. The general contractor, job superintendent, and their employees, subcontractors and suppliers shall: • Comply with all of the construction provisions established in these Design Guidelines and the Declaration. • Not consume alcoholic beverages. • Playing of Radios, compact disc players and tape decks are prohibited. • Not damage or disturb the work of others Revised 5/6/99 27 • Take all necessary precautions for the safety of all persons, materials, and equipment on or adjacent to the site. Furnish, erect and maintain approved barriers, lights, signs and other safeguards to give adequate warning to everyone on or near the site of dangerous conditions during the work. • Not disturb the residents or guests of the community. • No children, guests or pets are allowed on the job site. 7. Site Maintenance. The general contractor, job superintendent, and their employees, subcontractors and suppliers shall: Maintain the site in a neat. and clean condition, neatly stockpile all materials delivered for or generated by, the work and immediately remove any waste material or debris generated by the work on a continual daily basis. Contain all blowable trash and bottles, cans and lunch debris. , • Remove all equipment, materials, supplies and temporary structure when any phase of the work is complete, leaving the area neat and clean. Equipment not in daily use must be removed from the job site and adjacent homesite if. used. "Equipment may not remain stored or parked over the weekend". • Keep the streets, gutters and adjacent property clean and free of dirt, trash, debris or other material related to or caused by the work and clean up all street spills. • Maintain dust control on the site and adjacent homesite if utilized. • Blocking of mailboxes from normal mail delivery is prohibited. • Parking is prohibited if front of existing homes. 8. Disposal of Site Spoils. • Any spoils generated from the site grading must be placed on the Homesite. No material may be placed on the street, golf course, common areas or adjacent homesites. » Storage of spoils on adjacent property will not be permitted without the written permission of the adjacent homesite Owner. �_. Revised 5/6/99 9. Construction Hours. Construction* hours shall be limited to: • October 1 --April 30 Monday through Friday - 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. • May I through September 30 Monday through Friday - 6:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. No construction -related activities shall be permitted during Saturdays, Sundays or official holidays. Revised 5/6/99 29 ATTACHMENT 8 gUlnn eliienum vial lawyers I les angeles 865 South Figueroa Street, loth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 I TEL (2,13) 443-3000 FAX (Z13) 443-3100 Via Federal Ex a ess January 19, 2016 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Conditional Permit Use Application No. 2013-152 Dear Members of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission: WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL No. (202)538-8168 WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS bil lurquhart@quinnem anueLcom RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2016 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I represent my wife Mary Urquhart and myself. We own a home at 48705 Via Sierra in the Mountain Estates development in the La Quinta resort, in connection with Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2013-152 for Proposed Project at 77-720 Loma Vista (City of La Quinta Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Home at 77-210 Loma Vista). I also represent: Sean McVeigh Joe McVeigh, 77-220 Loma Vista Beverly Hovorka, 77-490 Loma Vista Michael & Patti Mergener, 48-685 Via Sierra Mariane & Tom Nolan, 77-245 Avenida Arteaga John and Shannon Quinn, 77-245 Avenida Arteaga Eugene & Shirley Albertini, 77-270 Loma Vista Stuart McKinney and Nick Karapetian, 48-670 Via Sierra John and Diane Mullins, 49-230 Vista Ventura, 77-298 Vista Flora, 77-420 Vista Rosa I have previously written in opposition to the Swensons' Conditional Use Permit Application 2013-152 and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on Environmental Assessment 2013- 630 permits in a letter to Ms. Criste, Consulting Planner for the City of La Quinta, on March 4, 2014. We have been informed that The Planning Department intends to conduct a de novo review of a new set of building plans that have been submitted in support of these permit won emanuel urauhart a sullluan, up LOS ANGELES I NEW YORK I SAN FRANCISCO I SILICON VALLEY I CHICAGO I WASHINGTON, DC I HOUSTON I SEATTLE LONDON ITOKYO I MANNHEIM I MOSCOW I HAMBURG I PARIS I MUNICH I SYDNEY I HONG KONG I BRUSSELS applications. I write in further the opposition to the approval of these permits and to explain more fully how these applications are inconsistent with controlling La Quinta zoning ordinances. Mr. and Mrs. Urquhart have previously explained in detail how the Swensons' proposed six thousand square foot house, three car garage, swimming pool, and sports court at 77-210 Loma Vista on the hillside overlooking their property, the properties of their neighbors, and (indeed) the entire City of La Quinta would conflict with the purpose of existing zoning requirements and the peaceful beauty of the community. The proposed development would also violate the express terms of La Quinta's contemporary zoning rules; in particular, Sections 9.110.050, 9.110.070, and 9.140.040 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Both the City and my clients agree, the proposed development is located in a hillside "open space" area that is governed by Sections 9.110.050 ("OS Open Space District") and 9.110.070 ("HC Hillside Conservation Regulations"). See also "Notice of intent adopt a Mitigated Negative Delartio, Section 1X (b) at p. 32." Those provisions expressly impose certain delineated requirements upon proposed developments in this region. Further, beyond those regulations articulated in Section 9.110.070 itself, Section 9.110.070(B) ("Development Standards") states that applicants must "[r]efer to Section 9.140.040 for additional details regarding development standards ... and other requirements of the HC [Hillside Conservation] District." Section 9.140.040 in turn establishes a plethora of restrictions on proposed hillside developments, and there can be no serious argument that the current permit application for 77-210 Loma Vista satisfies these articulated — and deliberately stringent — limitations on hillside developments. To put it simply, what the Swensons' plans are not a series of minor departures from the regulatory scheme governing hillside developments. Approval of the current permit applications would be radically and demonstrably inconsistent with not only the purpose and intent of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, but also its express terms. The Purpose and Intent of The Restrictions Purpose of the open space restrictions is as follows: • "To maximize the City's natural topographical features including mountain sides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines.... • "To assure that the development ...will not be obtrusive because of the design and location of the development." • "To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads and fill slopes...." "To maximize the retention of vistas and natural topographical features including mountain sides, ridge lines.... • The building should not be "visible above the ridgeline profile from the valley floor." We also understand the statutes bars the construction of roads that are visible from the valley floor. As will be demonstrated below, the Swenson Project flaunts both the letter and spirit of the 2 hillside conservation and open space ordinances. The planned home will be obtrusive looming over 80 feet above the valley floor —visible from miles away. It will also block the mountain views of numerous residents who live nearby. As will be demonstrated below, it will include major excavation of the mountainside, the creation of huge retaining walls, the use of thousands of tons of land fill, the building of a road wide enough for a truck, and much more. The Huge Scale of the Swenson Project In order to put what follows in context is important to understand that the Swenson Project is a huge undertaking. The term buildable lot is used loosely when describing this project. It is important to note the Swenson property is not buildable in its current state. The City would have to make major departures from its zoning requirements to allow the Swensons to cut into the side of the mountain, build huge retaining walls that replace the natural ridge lines with concrete walls covered by faux rock and deposit hundreds of tons of fill to make it buildable. The current lot consists of a narrow dirt road leading to a flat surface toward the northern part of the property. It is not big enough to build a 1500 square foot house let alone a 6,000 spare foot house, a swimming pool, three car garage and a sports court. The lot is at a substantially higher elevation than all of the homes in Santa Rosa Cove. In fact, is nearly 60 feet higher than any of the hundreds of other home in the La Quinta resort. Because of the high elevations of the Swenson property, there are direct sight lines into the most private parts of neighbor's homes: their living rooms, their bedrooms, their pools and their backyards. To make the existing site "buildable" the Swenson project will require: • The removal of at least 12 feet of the existing mountain face to accommodate the proposed Project (home). • The construction of a "driveway" that is over 400 feet long and 18 feet wide (wide enough to accommodate a large fire engine and sturdy enough to bear the weight) bordered on both sides with retaining walls extending up to six feet high. • The excavation of 10 feet of existing mountain face to widen the road to 18 feet and the replacement of that mountain face with a six foot high retaining rock fall protection wall. The existing natural rock will be replaced by faux rock. i Expansion of the building pad southward over 300 feet toward the property of existing homes. In all the existing building pad will be expanded by 75 per cent or over 18 thousand square feet. ■ The expansion of the pad will require the use of hundreds of tons of land fill and carving into the existing mountain side. * The roofline of the proposed home will peak at 18 feet. It will be at the southern end of the property and will destroy the views of many residents of both Mountain Estates and the Enclave. The Swenson's Property Is not "grandfathered in" The use of faux rock in gaps of the existing ridgeline to accommodate a retaining wall that is hundreds of feet long and faces the homes of many neighbors in the Mountain Estates and destroys their views of the untouched ancient ridgelines. It could perhaps be argued that the current development application might not have been categorically impermissible prior to the enactment of the existing Hillside Conservation zoning requirements in La Quinta. (Of course, the City could nonetheless still have permissibly refused to approve the CUP even in the "old days" before the City decided to expressly regulate hillside development, and, indeed, would rightly have done so.) But the fact that the lots existed even before the enactment of existing zoning regulations is of absolutely no moment. Zoning regulations are, by their nature, constantly in a state of change, and permissibly so, and rightly adapt both to ongoing developments as well as changing mores. The HC regulations currently articulated in the La Quinta Municipal Code undeniably govern the existing permit applications; indeed, Section 9.140.040(C)(2) expressly exempts from its reach only those "tracts and specific plans already approved," and there is no dispute that the existing application was not previously approved by the City prior to the passage of this statute. Further, even beyond this express textual mandate, zoning regulations inherently look to the future and regulate future use. Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. Los Angeles County (1954) 34 Cal. 2d 121, 127. Even if an existing application had already been approved, the enactment of the La Quinta HC ordinances could still permissibly regulate the future use of this property. Id. And in the present case, there has not even been approval, much less has the proposed home already been built. Accordingly, there is no doubt that the existing provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code, including the contemporary Hillside Conservation zoning requirements, apply. See also Petit v, City of Fresno (1973) 343 Cal.App.3d 813, 815-24 (currently existing zoning requirements apply even when owner previously expended $21,000 on alterations authorized by prior building permit); Consaul v. City of San Diego (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1781, 1785-1801 (development previously permitted by then -existing zoning requirements was properly denied based upon subsequent passage of municipal ordinance). Specific Damage to the Urquharts Invasion of orivacv: The proposed Swenson residence will have direct sight lines into the Urquhart's (a) back yard, (b) pool area, (c) master bedroom, (d) the kitchen and (e) the family room from both the deck of the Swenson's pool and the "lookout" they propose to build. There will also be direct views into the back yards of at least eight other homes. I should note that the Swenson Property also provides direct sight lines into the Urquharts' neighbors to the right and left thus invading their privacy as well. Both have objected to the project. 11 Reduction of the value of their home The Urquhart home is about 100 feet from the border of the Swenson property. One of the primary reasons the Urquharts purchased their home was the completely unobstructed views of the ridge line, the rock formations and the mountain above them. If the Swenson home is built the views from the Urquhart's home will be substantially compromised. Perhaps the most glaring example are the retaining walls that are necessary to support hundreds of tons of rock the Swenson's must construct the Swenson's substantially expanded building pad. Attached as Exhibit B are photos showing the views from the Urquhart property now and an artist rendition of how it will look after the construction. Note the faux rock walls that will be between the natural rock outcropping. The Swensons should be required to erect story poles before the project is approved. Finally, we request that the City order the Swensons install "story poles" so that the city officials can fully appreciate the extent to which the proposed Swenson residence will destroy the views of many of their neighbors. Conclusion The current applications should be denied. The proposed development is simply inconsistent with the purpose of land use in La Quinta and the reasonable expectations of those who have built and own homes in the sightlines of this proposed hillside development. The applications at issue are also governed by, and inconsistent with, the requirements of the La Quinta Municipal Code; in particular, Sections 9.110.050, 9.110.070, and 9.140.040. These ordinances properly and validly constrain the proposed project, and represent the will and wisdom of the representatives of the voters of La Quinta. The applications at issue should thus be denied. Very truly ; otjrs, ,�,� A. William Urquhart AWU:wpc 99998-0005 7/759 8002.2 cc: Frank J. Spevacek, La Quinta City Manager 5 Joseph McVeigh 77220 Loma Vista La Quinta, CA 92253 February 5, 2016 Les Johnson Community Development Director City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 FEB 0 8 2016 CITY OF LA QUINI A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Swenson Project CUP Application NO. 2013-152 Dear Les: It is my understanding that the Swenson project CUP Application NO. 2013-152 may be scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on either the 2°d or 4th Tuesday in March, 2016. In this connection we hereby request the hearing not be scheduled until story poles are installed on the site to assist commission members, as decision makers, and the public in the review of this one of a kind project in the City of La Quinta. The purpose of this letter is to set forth reasons why the City should require installation of story poles for the benefit of everyone. The story pole presentation will provide the necessary visual aids and will assist in making findings regarding appropriate mass, bulk and scale, neighborhood compatibility, and impacts on important public scenic view. The accuracy, readability and articulation of story poles are important to fully understand the proposed project. In consideration of the sensitive nature of the area of the Swenson property (the "Site") and the structures proposed to be built on the hillside it is imperative from the perspective of adjacent homeowners, the entire Mountain Estates and Santa Rosa Cove communities that residents have the best opportunity available to visualize elements of the proposed development. This mountain/hillside site, together with the contiguous mountain area serve as a scenic backdrop for the level area of the Mountain Estates community. The Site is 3.16 acres of an unspoiled expanse of mountain ridgelines and hillside containing large boulders and rock formations. The placement of huge, man-made structures on this vacant, unspoiled hillside will undoubtedly have major visual impacts (including aesthetic quality of ridgelines) on not only adjacent residences but the entire community. For this reason, among others, residents and City officials should be able to have the capability to have a physical graphic illustration of the elements of the improvements proposed to be built at an elevation forty (40) feet above the street level of the rest of the community. This is the one and only proposed development in our community that has such a significant impact on the topography of the unspoiled mountain areas. Without story poles how else can we be able to comprehend privacy matters, visual impacts, etc.? The parcel has never been developed and the project, because of its physical location and the proposed structures will be significantly different than adjacent neighboring residential areas. There is no question this project is "different". Consider the following statement regarding the project from the HOA architect, Brad Hammerstrom, Diehl Group Architects, (Report dated May 16, 2014 to Mountain Estates HOA ...) • It should be noted that the proposed project has utlique characteristics that set it apart from any other lot in the communi . • The lot is undeveloped, yet partially disturbed and not fine -graded. unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates • 'The lot contains areas of native, untouched land and landscape,. unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates. • The lot is the only lot in the Mountain_ Estates located on the "far side" of the storm channel. • The proposed home is elevated rou hl two stories above all other homes. • The lot does not have the Typical front yard, side yards, rear yard setup like all other homes. • The proposed home faces the rear yards of six homes like no other home in the Mountain Estates. Two previous story pole presentations by the Applicant for the benefit of neighbors were totally inadequate. There were a few vertical pipes placed on the proposed building site and a few pipes nearby the building site. There was no typical pole construction to give a perspective of height, bulk and mass for the proposed residence. There was no physical depiction at all of the structures for several hundred feet of rock fall walls and the 500-600 feet of retaining walls. Therefore it was not possible to visibly understand the mass of these structures on the hillside and effect on the ridgelines. Photo simulations are inadequate and misleading. Residents have been provided with many of these simulations in the last two (2) years. They have been inappropriate for the intended purpose because of their inaccuracies. They do not give proper perspective from all angles and consequently are ineffective. Story poles installed properly provide a perspective for everyone to understand height, mass and aesthetics for the entire project. In order to fully serve the purpose of a visual aid to assist all interested persons in the review process and to determine consistency with the General Plan Land Use and Conservation elements it is essential that the story pole installation is accomplished in an appropriate and typical manner. If the City agrees to install story poles I would like to see a presentation that is in accordance with the specifications required in many communities in California, such as Rancho Santa Fe, Los Gatos, Hillsborough, Los Altos Hills, Santa Barbara, Half Moon Bay and Solana Beach to name a few. In this connection I have prepared and enclosed (Attachment 1) specifications which are a composite of the story pole specifications of the aforementioned communities. Attachment 2 has photos which illustrate a typical set of story poles. There are a number of contractors in California who specialize in story pole installation. See Attachment 3 identifying a website as an example of such a contractor. The Contractor's web site also mentions that the installation can be completed in three (3) days. Structural elements (non -residence) involved for this project are the 355 lineal foot driveway on the hillside, the rock fall walls on each side of the driveway and the retaining walls up to a height of a minimum of twenty (20) feet in one location (See May 7, 2015 letter report from Earth Systems) with a total of more than five hundred (500) lineal feet in the entire project. These hillside structures are why the project is significantly different and unusual compared to adjacent communities. Presentation of relevant physical visualization depicting the walls will assist in making findings regarding appropriate mass, bulk and scale, neighborhood compatibility and visualization of view corridors and public scenic views. For example, in the location of the 20 foot high wall there should be material (such as canvas) attached to posts so the effect of such a wall can be seen. All of this is extremely important to fully understand the installation and presence of over eight hundred (800) lineal feet of walls on the hillside and mountainside for this proposed project. As mentioned above, the primary purpose of story poles is to allow visualization of the bulk, mass and height of the structures on the Site and their related impacts. I suppose people in the architectural and engineering professions can easily visualize proposed structures, etc. However, for those of us who don't have those skills or experience we have more difficulty with these situations. The residents who are adjacent to the Swenson property need to have a visual tool so they can determine what they are going to see looking upwards from their backyards, patios and windows facing the hillside. They also want to see what the people on the Swenson site are going to be able to see looking down from the Swenson home site. This is essentially what we want to visualize, not only for the location of the proposed residence, but perhaps more importantly the other structures such as the rock fall walls, retaining walls and the gate structure to be installed for access to the storm channel. In conclusion, the use of the physical story poles will be an extremely valuable tool for the community and the Planning Commission in their evaluation of the project. Please let me know whether or not you will be able to grant us our request. Thank you very much in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, os ph cVeigh Cc: Nicole Sauviat Criste ATTACHMENT I STORY POLE PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS SUGGESTED FOR PROPOSED SWENSON PROJECT — 3.16 ACRE PARCEL Stoll pole plan: The plan should be an 8.5"x 11"copy of the roof plan located on the site plan (or a portion of the site plan). The locations and heights above existing grade of the proposed poles must be clearly indicated. Ridges and perimeters that will be represented with netting should also be shown on the plan. (This includes other structures, walls, etc.) Do not use color, as the plans will be reproduced in black and white for the ARC members and homeowners. See attached example. Sto1y poles shad be installed as follows: 1. The portions of the proposed building shall be staked with poles that reach from the foundation to the roof at an adequate number of locations to be able to determine the bulk and mass of the building. It may be necessary to stake more than just the four corners of the building. Additionally, story poles are to be erected at key roof peak ridge locations (including the highest), to visually demonstrate the different roof heights, and the maximum roof heights. 2. For other structures (walls, etc.) the same construction requirements for story poles apply as set forth in number 1 above. 3. All story poles shall represent the final height of the building and other structures, with grading accounted for in the height of the poles. 4. All story poles shall be painted with 12" high stripes, alternately black and white, to assist with the visual verification of indicated heights above grade. 5. Netting at least two feet (2') wide of woven plastic fencing, or another equally suited material (in "international orange", yellow, red, or other contrasting color), shall be assembled to represent the proposed structure. Netting must be supported by height poles that are strong enough to accurately outline and maintain the building mass and height. (See attached diagram and samples below.) 6. All story poles and netting shall be installed so as to withstand weather (and remain standing and correctly reflective of the plans) until removal. 7. For driveway location, it shall be outlined at accepted intervals with white stakes (minimum 3 feet in height) and ribbon at ground level adjacent to the mountain and on the non -mountain side, including the turnaround at terminus of driveway. 8. The location of the swimming pool shall be outlined with white stakes (minimum 3 feet in height) and ribbon at ground level. 9. The location of the "Lookout/Retreat" shall be outlined with white stakes (minimum 3 feet high) and ribbon at ground level. 10. For all buildings and all retaining walls and rock fall wall structures, wooden posts are to be erected at all corners of proposed structures. Their purpose is to show the structures' outline. Orange/red ribbon is then strung between these posts to indicate location and heights and to facilitate accurate viewing of the proposed building and structures. Story poles must show the building and structures as they will appear from proposed grade. Blue tape must be used to show the pad height on the story poles. 11.One of the height poles on each elevation must be clearly marked and labeled in 5 foot increments measured from existing or finished grade which ever creates a higher profile. The above specifications represent the minimum requirements for the story pole installation. A copy of the story pole plan and a reduced set of plans should be made available at the site to help those looking at the poles understand what they represent. Cef fication Required: By no later than ten (10) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant shall submit certification by an independent licensed surveyor or civil engineer that the poles have been installed as per the approved plan. Cost of surveyor/civil engineer to be paid for by Applicant. The approved plan (showing locations and heights of the poles) shall be attached to the certification. The certification shall bear the professional stamp and signature of the licensed professional. CERTIFICATION BY THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT/ENGINEER WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Failure to install and verify the story poles as required will necessitate a continuance of the Planning Commission meeting. Height Pole and Netting Instructions Netting at least two feet (2') wide and made of woven plastic snow fencing must be erected to represent the roofline of the proposed structure/addition. Netting must be supported by height poles strong enough to accurately maintain the outline and height as shown below (plastic piping is not acceptable): Roof Plan Post locations Story Poles r" �r n• -to cover proposedi h- The height of story poles should indicate the final height of the building (grading should be acc-ounted for in the height of the poles). Wimple. of story p6le plan • Pay. pale •A ATTACHMENT 2 � it r s jif �~ fr ,rr s •"a 4" . 7 r.. �i — — -- � �M I"Air Il , A COASTLINE STORY POLES OaF!PRWFORNIA CA License #993041 Locations Recent Projects Contact Us CGAS'T:L!'NE Stoi, y Poles rxuv,'.J��- and accui-ate story Pole service thrcughlou4t SoO. hff C'-! C S 408-899-8519 WHY INSTALL STORY POLES? ice - (800) 470-5142 coastlinestorypoles@gmaiI.com OUR GOAL COASTLINE Story Poles will professionally handle all phases of your building project from story pole surveying, plan preparation, installation, removal, and certification. Your project will be completed accurately and on time. We are licensed, bonded, and insured. No job is too big or too small. We will beat any written Story poles are typically required by Planning Departments to depict the elevations and silhouette of a proposed new structure, a second story addition to an existing building, or any addition which may cause concerns about inappropriate bulk and mass. They are intended to aid neighbors and members of the decision -making bodies in many California cities in regard to their evaluation of a building application. Story poles are required by planning departments in many coastal areas and locations within view corridors. Story -poles are installed on the project site to represent the size and scale of the proposed structure to follow. The silhouette provided bythe story poles helps to assess potential visual impact and neighborhood compatibility. If there are concerns or objections to the building outline, adjustments and modifications to the story poles may be necessary. The story poles are removed upon review and approval of the planning commission. Once the story poles have been installed, COASTLINE Story Poles will make sure that everything remains in good condition until they are removed. We stand behind everything that we do and guarantee that we will provide experienced and skilled craftsmanship. We want our clients to be happy and satisfied and will make sure that your hard earned money is well spent. "The most gratifying aspect of our business has been the repeat business and referrals that we receive from our existing clients." Dustin Rutherford -Owner WE WILL BEAT ANY WRITTEN BID SERVICES OFFERED Story Pole Installation Story Pole Surveys Story Pole Design Review Story Pole Plans Story Pole Adjustments e` City Planning Department Review Story Pole Maintenance Community Review Story Pale Removal View Corridors/Scenic Corridors Story Pole Certification Zip' Homeowner's Association Board of Architectural Review Board (ARB) DEMETRIOU, DEL GUERCIO, SPRINGER & FRANCIS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 915 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE" 2000 LOS ANGELES, GAI_IFORNIA 90017 JEFFREY Z. B. SPRINGER STEPHEN A. DEL GUERCIO MICHAEL A. FRANCIS BRIAN D. LANGA JENNIFER T. TAGGART LESLIE M. DEL GUERCIO TAMMY M. J. HONG Nicole Sauviat Criste (21 3) 624.8407 FAX (21 3) 624-01 74 WWW.DDSFFIRM.COM March 3, 2016 Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 CHRIS G. DEMETRIOU (1915- 1989) RONALD J. DEL GUERCIO (RETIRED) RICHARD A. DEL GUERCIO (RETIRED) SENDER'S EMAILADDRESS JSPRI NGE RODDSFFIRM.COM SENDER'S DIRECT LINE (21 3) 624.8407 ExT, 148 Re: Response to Comments on Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 77-210 Loma Vista, within The Enclave Mountain Estates Dear Ms. Criste: This letter is sent on behalf of Lisa and Case Swenson, the owners of the property located at 77-210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, California (the "Property") in partial response to comments on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("NOI"). On May 16, 2013, the Swensons applied for a conditional use permit ("CUP") and submitted plans for the construction of a single-family residence. For the last several years, the Swensons have worked assiduously to respond to the comments of their neighbors and The Enclave Mountain Estates Homeowner Association ("HOA" ). The Swensons have provided construction details, design details, responded to comments, and made numerous changes. The City has followed a very conservative approach. The City could have processed the Swensons' application by way of a categorical exemption for a single-family residence. An almost identical fact pattern was the subject of Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 CalAth 1086 and Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, (2015) 241 Cal.AppAth 943. In these cases, the applicants proposed to build a large home on a large lot in the Berkeley Hills. The city concluded that notwithstanding the steep slope, a heavily wooded area, and plans to build a 6,478 square foot house with an attached 3,394 square foot garage, the categorical exemption for one single-family residence properly Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department March 3, 2016 Page 2 applied and there were no "unusual circumstances." (60 CalAth at 1093 and 241 Cal.AppAth at 947-948) The City of La Quinta could have applied the same categorical exemption here. Instead, the City has proceeded by way of a mitigated negative declaration, an approach which is even more protective of the environment than could have been utilized. No EIR is equired. No EIR is required here because there is an absence of substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that any of the conditions cited by the opponents would result in a significant effect on the environment. Under the "fair argument" standard, "speculative possibilities" are not substantial evidence. (Citizens Committee to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 Cal.AppAth 1157, 1171.) Nor do clearly erroneous or incredible statements amount to substantial evidence. (San Joaquin Raptor/ Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Cal.AppAth 606, 617.) I. Biological Impacts Based on the response of James Cornett, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be a significant impact on special status species or wildlife corridors after mitigation. 2. Aesthetic Impacts The circumstances here are similar to those present in Association for Protection of Environmental Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.AppAth 720. There, an owner sought to build a single-family residence which was the last to be developed in a neighborhood of single-family residences. There, as here, the immediate neighbors objected and raised height, view, and privacy objections. The court held that, under CEQA, "the issue is not whether [the project] will adversely affect particular persons but whether [the project] will adversely affect the environment of persons in general ... The height, view and privacy objections ... impacted only a few of the neighbors and were properly considered by City in connection with its site development permit approval, along Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department March 3, 2016 Page 3 with other aesthetic concerns. These concerns did not affect the environment of persons generally ..." (Id. at 734) Photographs of the existing community show that the Swenson's neighbors, and the community typically, have outdoor areas that may be viewed from other neighbors' outdoor areas. In other words, as one moves to the outside edge of one's outdoor area, a person becomes visible to his or her neighbors. Thus, there is no reasonable expectation of total privacy. The line of sight diagrams prepared by John Vuksic demonstrate that the residence has been thoughtfully designed to preclude viewing of the neighbors from secluded vantage points. The project opponents claim that the photo simulations are misleading. Yet, as fully documented by John Vuksic, story poles were installed on the property and the photo simulations were carefully matched to the story poles. These photo simulations convincingly demonstrate that the proposed Swenson residence has been designed to blend with the hillside environment much more carefully than any of its neighbors. 3. Air Quality Impacts As demonstrated by the NOI, and taking into account the mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project will result in significant air quality impacts. 4. Haul Trips As demonstrated by the NOI, and taking into account the mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project will result in significant traffic impacts. 5. Construction Noise and Vibration As demonstrated by the NOI, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be significant adverse noise or vibration impacts after mitigation. Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department March 3, 2016 Page 4 6. Operational Noise Impacts The existing homes and outdoor areas of the Swenson's neighbors all face one another a short distance away. By comparison, the proposed Swenson residence and outdoor area are located much further from the neighbors' homes and outdoor areas. Because noise attenuates with distance there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be significant adverse noise impacts after mitigation. 7. Hydrological Impacts Project opponents have submitted a hydrological report authored by SWAPE. The project civil engineer has reviewed the report and agrees that a portion of the off - site storm flow and on -site undeveloped storm flow were inadvertently comingled with the on -site developed storm flow. A final hydrology report and water quality management plan will be prepared so that these flows are routed away from the proposed retention structure, allowing the proposed retention structure to function as designed and meeting the water quality management plan requirements. Accordingly, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be a significant adverse impact to hydrology or water quality after mitigation. 8. Geotechnical Impacts Although project opponents contend that the project will increase hazards to residents below the site after construction, this assertion is simply unsupported. The project's geotechnical expert has demonstrated that the driveway wall will actually reduce the potential for rockfall damage to the McVeigh residence. There is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be significant adverse geotechnical impacts after mitigation. 9. Land Use Impacts As demonstrated by the Proposed Land Use Plan, Exhibit 10 to the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, the driveway and building pad areas on the Swensons' property are actually located within Planning Area 111, and planned for low density residential use. This is confirmed by the text of the Specific Plan which notes that many homes remain to be built within The Enclave / Mountain Estates. The text also notes there are no changes in the home owner association open space common areas as a result of the Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department March 3, 2016 Page 5 Specific Plan, and the existing sub -community of The Enclave Mountain Estates remains governed by the La Quinta Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be significant adverse land use impacts after mitigation. 10. Cumulative Impacts Opponents claim that the project would be the first residence allowed in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains and would open the door to more development. However, the project is actually allowed under the Specific Plan, does not change the Specific Plan, and merely involves the approval of a single-family residence. There are no other projects identified by project opponents which have cumulative impacts. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the project consists of construction on one of the existing residential lots in The Enclave Mountain Estates. Accordingly, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that there will be significant adverse cumulative impacts after mitigation. The Swensons have literally worked for years to respond to the comments and material concerns of their neighbors. Having received HOA approval, we now look forward to approval of this project by the City of La Quinta. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Tery truly you iI JZBS/lp )AMES W. CORNETT - ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS March 2, 20161 Nicole Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Swenson Residence Project Site Biological issues raised by Amy Minteer of Chatten-Brown & Carstens, LLP Dear Ms. Criste: I have reviewed the comments regarding biological issues raised by Amy Minteer with respect to the Swenson Residence Project. Apparently, Ms. Minteer has no biological expertise, no knowledge of the biological resources on or near the site and only provides information provided by an opponent of the Swenson Residence Project. It appears she intends to intimidate officials by attaching long lists of irrelevant species to her letter in the hope that something sticks. With these facts in mind, the remainder of my written response focuses on those species mentioned in the Minteer letter. Peninsular Population of Bighorn Sheep As stated in my original biological assessment dated May 14, 2013, "the project area is considered suitable habitat for the Peninsular population of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) and evidence of bighorn sheep was found within 200 yards of the project site."' However, I concluded the Swenson Residence would not have a significant impact on Peninsular Bighorn Sheep for the following reasons. (1) Extensive field surveys failed to yield any evidence of bighorn presence on or within 150 yards of the site. (2) There were no records of bighorn on or near the site in the California Natural Diversity Database program established by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. (3) The lack of bighorn presence on the project site as well as proximity to an existing residential area are two of the reasons the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Wildlife and Coachella Valley Association of Governments purposely did not include the site in a Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. In short, the site was not considered significant to the survival and recovery of bighorn sheep. My findings are, therefore, in complete agreement with the Plan and there is no justification for a finding of significance. ' Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Swenson Residence located within the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California, pages 3 and 17. In spite of the fact that all knowledgeable parties agree the site does not have potential to reduce the number or restrict the range of bighorn sheep, measures were described in the report that provided additional safeguards for bighorn sheep. (1) A biological monitor must be onsite during earth disturbance activities to halt work immediately in the unlikely event that sheep wander near the site.2 (2) An extensive list of plants, such as oleander, that cannot be used in landscaping has been included in the biological assessment.3 Species of Special Concern Minteer's letter implies that the Rosy Boa is a state Species of Special Concern by listing it under that same heading in her letter.4 In fact, the Rosy Boa is a common and widespread snake whose capture or "take" is allowed under existing rules and regulations of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. It is not now, and never has been, a state Species of Special Concern. Minteer does correct herself a paragraph later by listing the Rosy Boa as a U.S. Forest Service sensitive species. However, Minteer apparently does not realize that Forest Service lands are nowhere near the project site which, by the way, is situated in a desert not a forest. Costa's Hummingbird was observed within the project site boundaries as restated in Minteer's letter. She writes that Costa's Hummingbird is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern. This is true. But Minteer then implies the State of California considers the hummingbird a sensitive species which is untrue. In spite of Minteer's confusion with agencies and terminology, Costa's Hummingbirds occur in the vicinity of the project site because of the presence of water and food resources provided by existing residential area. If mitigation for this species were required, which it is not, then the Swenson Residence and its landscaping may be considered mitigation. Minteer contends the biological assessment did not adequately address the bat issuea subject regularly brought up by persons opposed to a given project. For the record and as indicated in the biological assessment, no evidence of Pallid, Spotted or Hoary bats was found during night or day field surveys and no records exist on or near the site in the California Natural Diversity Database. There is no information in the literature to suggest that the project site is important or significant habitat for any of these three bat species. Therefore, I did not specifically address these species in my report and, correctly, did not propose mitigation. Extensive live trapping for small rodents, such as the Southern Grasshopper Mouse mentioned in Minteer's letter, was conducted. No Southern Grasshopper Mice were captured. This species is rarely taken in exceedingly and habitat such as the project site and is never associated with residential areas. As with most other sensitive species in the desert regions of California, it was not discussed because it was neither found nor expected on or near the project site. 2 Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Swenson Residence located within the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California, pages 3 and 19. 3 Ibid., page 37. 4 Minteer letter, page 5. Finally, Minteer contends that "wildlife movement will be restricted by the project." She asserts that "the installation of walls along the length of the driveway would serve as a barrier, inhibiting movement of bighorn sheep and the many other species that use this site, including coyotes, mountain lions, rattlesnakes, chuckwalla, several species of squirrels, salamanders, rabbits, eagles, iguana, lizards and quail." Does Minteer really believe that a wall is a barrier to an eagle? The last time a salamander was found in the desert was almost a half century ago and chuckwallas regularly crawl over walls and vertical rocks. The project boundaries are a continuation of an existing residential development and neither the wall nor the project is a barrier to any species. Where is the bifurcation? I suggest Minteer confine her comments to those subjects in which she has expertise.. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require additional information. Sincerely, �X r --- ZX4 4 James W. Cornett P.O. BOX 846 PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA 92263 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Nicole Criste, Consultant Principal Planner DATE: March 8, 2016 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 SWENSON RESIDENCE Attached as part of this memorandum, please find additional correspondence received regarding the proposed environmental assessment and conditional use permit applications for the Swenson residence: OPPOSITION: 1. Mr. Joseph McVeigh, La Quinta, California (March 8, 2016) SUPPORT: 1. Robert and Mary Lou Alfini, La Quinta, California (March 4, 2016) 2. Jon Harnish, La Quinta, California (March 8, 2016) This correspondence was received by the Design and Development Department after the staff report was completed and the agenda packet was delivered to the Planning Commission. R- E IVED CITY � ' LA QUINTA 20I6 MA - 8 PM 3: l Joseph McVeigh 77220 Loma Vista La Quinta, CA 92253 March 8, 2016 Planning Commission Members c/o Community Development Department City of La Quints 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Conditional Use Application 2013-152 3.16 Acres - Tract No. 28335-R Dear Commissioners: This letter concerns Conditional Use Application 2013-052 ("CUP"), also known as the Swenson Application ("Applicant"). The Applicant has submitted an application for approval to develop a 3.16 acre parcel ("the Parcel") with construction of a 5,929 foot house, pool, spa, patio area, retreat area and multiple rock fall walls and retaining walls. The current land use is designated under La Quinta General Plan as Open Space - Natural. The underlying zoning designation is Open Space (OS) with a Hillside Conservation Overlay (HC). The property is within Residential Land Use of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan (SP. 121-E Amendments) Within the Open Space zone, "single family residential" is permitted with approval of a conditional use permit. Within the Hillside Conservation Overlay, "single family residential" is permitted with approval of a conditional use permit, allowed only if permitted in the underlying base district, and only if the additional requirements of LQMC 9.140.040 are met. The site for the proposed development is a large expanse of hillside outcroppings and mountain ridges that overlook the 54 homesite Enclave Mountain Estates community ("Estates"). The mountainous area of the Parcel is a part of the continuous section of the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. Our home at 77220 Loma Vista is adjacent to and contiguous to the 3.16 Acre Parcel. H We oppose the development primarily (a) because the City of La Quinta general plan, ordinances and specific plan provisions place restraints on this type of development (b) the proposed development is oversized for the developable land, necessitating significant cuts and fills to generate lot space and access, (c) the construction of driveway, fire apparatus turnaround, over 800 lineal feet of walls and removal of mountain all of which result in permanent scarring and damage to the Santa Rosa Mountain and (d) project is detrimental to and not in character with property in the neighborhood. Development of the Parcel will create a situation whereby the proposed facilities look down on and interfere with the privacy of the homes below the mountainous area. It will impose noise. It will put lights on the hillside that is now dark and tranquil. Huge walls up to 20 feet high and over 800 feet in total length will be installed on the hillside after removal of sections of the mountain. A 355 lineal foot driveway is proposed. The parcel currently has a wealth of wildlife that lives on it, traverses it, and hunts on it, all precisely because it is a large open space, which provides a critical habitat for nature to thrive, particularly the endangered Peninsular Bighorn sheep. Details of reasons for our opposition and relevant references are set forth in this letter, exhibits and attachments. La Qpinta General Plan - Open Space General Plan and La Quintg _Municipal ode (LQMC) Policies The Application is in conflict and not compatible with numerous policies and goals of the City's General Plan and LQMC. The language contained in these policies is crucial because it describes, in clear terms, the fundamental values of the City of La Quinta which have been endorsed in many publications of the City and on its website. The relevant City documents are as follows: ® General Plan LQMC 9.110.050 • LQMC 9.110.070 a LQMC 9.140.040 • LQMC 9.110.070 (B) Some examples of the policy and goal conflicts are set forth below. These are only a representative few of the many policies and goals where there are conflicts. Please refer to the above mentioned documents for a complete list of the policy provisions. 4 General Plan Goals - OS-3 Goals OS-3 Preservation of scenic resources of vital contributions to the City's economic health and overall quality of life. Policy OS-3.1 To the greatest extent possible, prohibit development on lands designated as open space which are elevated and visually prominent from adjacent developed areas or are located within close proximity to areas identified as critical wildlife habitat. Program OS-3.1.a: Continue to implement the Hillside Preservation Ordinance. 9.110.050 OS open space district. A. Purpose and Intent. To provide for the protection and preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as areas with significant cultural resources, threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species habitat, scenic resources and significant topographical constraints. 9.110.070 HC hillside conservation overlay district A. Purpose and Intent 2. For those hillside areas which are developable, to ensure the safety of the public, and to ensure that the placement, density and type of all hillside development within the city is suitable to the topography of the existing terrain, that proposed developments will provide for minimal disturbance of the existing terrain and natural habitat, and that the natural hillside characteristics will be retained wherever practicable; S. To maximize the retention of the city's natural topographic features, including, but not limited to, mountainsides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines, ridgecrests, hilltops, hillsides, slopes, arroyos, ravines, canyons, prominent vegetation, rock outcroppings, view corridors, and scenic vistas through the careful limitation and selection of building sites and building pads on said topographic features, thereby enhancing the beauty of the city's landscape; b. To assure that developmental use of said topographic features will relate to the surrounding topography and will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of the design and location of the developmental use; Planning ommission 9.21 0.020 Conditional use permits and minor use permits In addition to our references to policy and goal conflicts and inconsistencies related to the project and CUP approval request we include below reference to the review of the conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. F. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the decision -making authority prior to the approval of either a conditional use permit or a minor use permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The land use is consistent with the general plan. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The use is consistent with the provisions of this zoning code. 3. Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Surrounding Uses. Approval of the application will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. DRIVEWAY The proposed 355 foot long driveway will require a significant cut in the hillside as it traverses the slope from the Loma Vista curbside to its termination forty (40) feet above street level. There will be an approximately 1,900 square foot hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles, including fire aparatus at the termination point of the driveway. The driveway and turnaround area will be visible to homes adjacent to the parcel and other Mountain Estates residents. The mass and height of planned wall structures on both sides of the driveway will severely scar the hillside for a distance of 355 feet. The driveway traverses natural sloping terrain and walls will become more visible as they increase in height at a higher elevation. This area has never had an approved, engineered grading plan. Any proposed installation will require major earth movement, excavation, cut and fill to prepare the ground for the driveway per City requirements. It will be necessary for the driveway to be designed to withstand the weight of 60 thousand pounds over 2 axels. The placement and construction of the motor court area will require the use of a D-9 or D-10 tractor to split the boulders and rip mountain rocks in the process of digging twenty (20) to forty (40) feet into the mountainside. The proposed driveway will create a permanent major scar on the hillside and the landscape. L, WALLS - The rockfall and retaining walls proposed to be placed throughout the hillside and mountain will be a substantially incongruous feature and a major visual blight to many in the nearby communities. Rack Fall/ Retaining Walls The Application includes rock fall walls along much of the length of the driveway. a) North Driveway Wall Adjacent to Mountain Lineal Feet 190 b) South Driveway Wall (includes retaining wall 240 section adjacent to proposed house) Subtotal 430 These walls range in height from three (3) feet to eight (8) feet. Retaining_ Walls Lineal Feet a) Rear of Garage and Turnaround 100 b) Tranformer Area 40 c) South Area - adjacent to Boulder wall 40 d) South East Area of House 70 e) Pool/Patio area 40 Subtotal 390 Total lineal feet - Walls 820 These walls range in height from three (3) feet to a minimum of twenty (20) feet. The 100 foot long wall to the rear of the garage is eighteen (18) feet high plus a minimum free board of two (2) feet for a total of a minimum twenty (20) feet high. Boulder Walls 0 Installation of boulders (wall) along the southeast of house four (4) to five (5) feet high and one hundred sixty feet (160) feet in total length. It is unclear what the intent of these boulder piles would be, but their stability is clearly marginal in any, even moderate seismic shaking scenario. We don't know where these "natural boulders" will come from. If they are generated by excavations as proposed they will have a totally different color profile than the otherwise weathered and desert varnished boulders that comprise the area. The northeastern wall of the proposed house is twelve (12) to thirteen (13) feet lower than the ridgelines, necessitating another vertical cut and retaining wall. In addition to the walls mentioned above there are walls lower in height and guard rails around the pool area. There are no similar structures such as described above in any area of the Mountain Estates. It is one concept to have party walls at street level of the 54 lot estates community. It is a totally different concept to create over 800 feet of walls on the hillside and Santa Rosa Mountains at an elevation of up to 40 to 50 feet above street level. The result of such proposed walls would be an unalterable visual blight to surrounding communities. Cuts into the mountainside will be extremely visible and their grey color will contrast sharply with the natural varnished patina of the current exposures. Many of these natural outcrops and boulders display a varnish that is thousands, if not tens of thousands of years old. The 1:1 cut slope and upper brow ditch along the entry road would be particular offenders of this scarring. Cast stone or any other faux rock placed on the proposed walls can not possibly be integrated with a mountain side that has been in existence for thousands of years. The walls have not been engineered as of this date. The following quote is from the Applicant's Architect related to the proposed Precise Grading Plan: ROCKFALL HAZARDS NOTE "The actual rockfall hazard mitigation has not been formally designed. Preliminary designs include a structural barrier wall or a standard retaining wall with sloping backfill towards the ascending slope. Issues with a barrier wall are impact loads and associated structural design, the expense to construct, and need for repair after a rockfall event. Issues with a standard retaining wall with sloping backfill is the need for additional space either offsite or within the current easement. The sloping backfill is intended to cushion the wall and absorb the impact shock. The rockfall hazard mitigation needs to be evaluated from costs, space and aesthetics standpoint. This work will be performed during final design." 6 The mountain adjacent to the proposed driveway has been here for thousands of years and except for some human minor disturbance there has not been any significant movement from the mountain. There is no specific evidence related to this parcel that there is a hazard to the adjacent homeowners based on the current condition of the mountain/hillside. The only reason for a rock fall wall is the proposed driveway with the resulting excavation, earthwork, fill import and paver installation. There is no advantage to the homeowner from all the related construction and installation of walls. No development - no need for rock fall walls. Drainage The following are some, but not all of the major considerations related to the drainage situation. We have been informed by City staff that the 100 year flood standard was used for evaluation of drainage conditions for this project. The Applicant's engineers have provided design plans for drainage and water flow in connection with all the proposed construction on the hillside. Drainage plans are based on the 100 year storm standard. The Applicant and staff have not addressed circumstances as to what would happen in the event of another major storm (greater than 100 year standard) similar to the 2013 and 2014 events. As all of us are aware there were two major storms in August, 2013 and September, 2014 that resulted in several million dollars of damage to Mountain Estate homeowners. Because of this damage the Mountain Estates HOA and affected homeowners brought a lawsuit against Waldorf-Astoria Management, LLC., et al ("the Hotel") Case NO. PSC. 1402611, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District. As an indication of the effects of another major storm comments by the Hotel's expert related to the mountainside in the Mountain Estates are relevant: "...The runoff from the mountainside adjacent in the 2014 Storm was thus so great, that it necessarily caused an overflow of water from the EME Channel, even considering any extra capacity found in the EME Channel beyond the 100 year water surface elevation..." "The rainfall that occurred at the Mountain Estates during the 2014 storm was 52 to 69 percent greater in quantity than would be expected to occur at the Mountain Estates, according to NO AA Atlas 14 statistics as applied to the Lower Bear Creek ALERT rain gage (296) data." (Page 6 `Declaration of Theodore V. Hromaka II, Case No. PSC 1402611, Superior Court of Los Angeles) 7 Drainage from the mountain presents a major problem. Impact from activities and construction on the hillside would exacerbate impacts on the storm channel. Additionally, our Hydrology expert does not agree with the conclusions of the Applicant's Hydrology Engineer. Please refer to report dated January 20, 2016 by Matt Hagemann, P.G.C.Hg (McVeigh Expert), included as part of January 20, 2016 letter to City of La Quinta from Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP Re: Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for Swenson Project, 77210 Loma Vista, La Quinta. Mr. Hageman's review concludes that the Project's WQMP does not comply with requirements set forth by the City of La Quinta (City) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2013- 152. The WQMP is not prepared in accordance with the White water River Region's Preliminary Project -Specific WQMP Guidelines. We just learned the Applicant's Hydrology expert has acknowledged that Mr. Hageman's conclusion is accurate and the Applicant's Hydrology expert's report was in error. Therefore any decision involving this CUP request should be delayed until Mr. Hagemen can review a revised drainage evaluation as prepared by the Applicant's expert. This is an example of the complexities involved with the drainage situation on the mountainside. These complexities should be seriously considered by the Planning Commission in its evaluation of the CUP. We believe the CUP should be denied because of the drainage situation, among other reasons. As an adjacent homeowner, our family has many serious concerns with the drainage situations related to the CUP Application. * The Applicant and City Planning Staff did not take into consideration the effects (past and future) of the 2013 and 2014 storm events. * Earth movement, excavation and grading adjacent to the Estates Mountain Estates storm channel constitute potential damage to the integrity of the channel and the existing culvert pipe. * Proposed retention system poses potential damage to Estates Mountain Estates existing storm channel. * Proposed depressed planter area near our property poses potential damage to culvert pipes in storm channel. * Together with the HOA, our family, as an owner in the Estates has easement rights to the storm channel. The proposed gate for access channel will interfere with our easement rights as dominant tenant. The gate is not required by CVWD as we were informed by Nicole Criste. The proposed gate should not be approved and included in the CUP. * As of this date Applicant has not complied with its obligations to HOA regarding drainage requirements. Habitat - Wild Life Any and all construction and development activities will have adverse impacts on the habitat of wildlife, including threatened or endangered species which live in the 3.16 acre parcel. a) Endangered Peninsular Bighorn sheep b) Coyotes, Mountain Lions, Rattlesnakes, chuckwalla, several species of squirrels, salamanders, rabbits, eagles, Iguana, lizards and quail, falcons and road runners. PhQtQ Simulations and Story Poles The Planning staff wrote that Story Poles were not necessary because the Applicant had provided photo simulations which showed what the project would look like regarding views and screening. Staff report also wrote that photo simulations were done at the request of Homeowners. This is not so. Photo simulations were initiated by the Swenson project team and from the outset homeowners pointed out the misrepresentations of the photo simulations. I am not aware of any homeowner who requested a photo simulation. Because of the complexities involved with the Swenson hillside project the photo simulations do not accurately describe existing conditions. These are the mass, bulk, height and scale of the project. In a large way the photo simulations are misleading, and create a false impression and scenario. The Swenson hillside project has complex geology (statements by Earth Sciences and County geologist). The project has multiple unusual aspects because of its location, topography, proposed structures, etc. Photo simulations do not work for this project based on our experience in the last 2 years. The "Story Poles" presented by the Swenson team on a previous occasion were not what a story pole presentation is. There were some pipes placed in the area of the proposed house and the scenario was totally inadequate. There was nothing presented to show the physical aspects of the structures and the visual impression of the project. The story pole presentation specifications that I submitted to the City would show the appropriate mass, bulk and scale, neighborhood compatibility and/or the effect of the degree (or not) of important public scenic views. The accuracy, readability and articulation of story poles are important to fully understand the proposed project. In this situation they are an essential tool to assist the decision makers and the public in the review of the project. 9 View All Estates homeowners have routine everyday opportunities to view the Santa Rosa Mountains that are the scenic backdrop for the Mountain Estates. One can view the mountains from the La Quinta Resort Hotel area and driving into and around the Estates property. As many residents walk the Estates property, the mountains add to their walking enjoyment or exercise, as the case may be. There are several homeowners whose homes are contiguous to the mountain area and its ridgelines. These owners typically have an undisturbed view from the rear of their homes. The particular view and quality of view of the mountain is dependent on the location of the home, the rock formations and the ridgelines visible from the home. The structures proposed to be built for the project would have a significant negative impact on the view of owners whose homes are contiguous to the affected hillside. Other neighbors would also be affected. Owners views should be protected because of the selected orientation of their house toward the mountains and rock outcrops. This also applies to the orientation of room and window locations in the homes as they relate to the open space of the Santa Rosa Mountain area. These owners are harmed because they are deprived of a valuable amenity contemplated by them when they purchased and/or built their home. Diminution of Value The proposed project, if completed, will cause a view impairment for a number of residents, especially for those contiguous to the Parcel. This in turn will result in a diminution of value after completion and a real economic loss to affected homeowners. The value effect would vary with each house, depending on location and degree of view amenity. The economic harm could be as high as several hundred thousand dollars and/or higher to an individual homeowner. See Exhibit A for my hypothesis and reasoning for diminution of value. Excavation The proposed project does not have an existing building pad. Any assertion that part of the Parcel (site) has been "previously graded" is a misnomer. Any movement of dirt was simply a function of pushing aside existing rocks and other surface material. This work was done without permission from the City or the HOA (perhaps an illegal event?) No grading permit for Tract 28335- or Tract 26251 is on 10 file with the City of La Quinta (March 10, 2014 E-mail to Joe McVeigh from Teresa Thompson, Deputy City Clerk) On page 22 of staff report, Staff response 5 states: "Whether the grading was done with or without permits is irrelevant to the description of the current conditions on the site." The aforementioned statement conflicts with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code as set forth below: La Quinta Municipal Code Title 9 ZONING Chapter 9.140_SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIAL PURPOSE REGULATIONS 9.140.040 HC hillside conservation regulations 1. Grading, Grubbing and Scarring Control. 3. Any person who fails to protect the natural terrain, defaces, grades, grubs, scars or otherwise disrupts the natural terrain in the HC district without prior city approval of plans for such work subject to this section shall have created a public nuisance which shall be abated. Abatement may include the property owner undertaking the restoration (under city supervision and monitoring), or that failing, city -contracted restoration of the disrupted area. The property owner may be charged the cost of the restoration together with the direct costs of supevision and monitoring of the restoration. If the property owner fails to reimburse the city for the costs incurred, a lien against the property for payment may be instituted. 4. Any plans which are considered by the city for development shall, at the time of discovery of the creation of the public nuisance, be denied by the decision -making authority. After such time as the public nuisance has been completely abated, the plans may be resubmitted upon payment of all fees. S. The provisions of this section shall be in addition to other municipal code titles and regulations applicable to grading activities within the city. Nograding shall be conducted, nor shall any grading permit be issued forgrading in the HC district until grading plans and special drawings showing grading and topography as viewed from critical locations within the neighborhood or community have been approved by the planning commission. The development is proposed to cover about 13,000 square feet of area of the hillside parcel. This will require substantial excavation and grading of this area including export of rocks and dirt and import of fill. The excavation and grading process will be massive. There will be extensive and extreme jackhammering to prepare the rocky, mountainous earth necessary for the footings for over 800 feet of walls. This work will result in major disturbances to natural rock formations which 11 have never before been disturbed. This process will have a significant adverse effect on the environment for this area of the Santa Rosa Mountain rang IUlOLIntain Removal At the termination of the driveway approximately 3,000 square feet of original, natural mountain rock outcrop and up to 16.5 feet high of mountain ridge will be removed (on a permanent basis) related to the construction of a turnaround area for fire department apparatus and the outlook/retreat area. Seismic Issues - Ge►ieral Please refer to March 31, 2013, geotechnical engineering report authored by Earth Systems Southwest for a description and analysis of rock and soil conditions and seismic hazards. The engineering report recommends procedures to mitigate the risks involved resulting from future earthquakes. However these mitigation efforts would not be necessary if there were no property related substantial earth movement and disturbance of the mountainside. The risks are always there in the future, despite the engineer's recommendations. Any potential damage from seismic activity will involve existing residences. Cut & Fill - Seismic lsstle The Applicant's architect has informed us that the geotechnical engineer estimates that about 1/3 of the cut material from cutting into the bedrock may be used for engineered fill. Approximately 2500 cubic yards of cut and 1600 cubic yards of fill are required for the grading and pad preparation. Approximately 1100 cubic yards of fill must be imported. Per the Architect, "field conditions during construction will determine the actual import/export quantities." Thus it is not known before construction starts what the final quantities of fill import/export are that will be required. The magnitude of the construction work planned for this hillside results in substantial environmental effects related to the extensive excavations, cut and fill, removal of part of the mountain and ridge line, all of which have severe damaging effects to the earth's crust of the hillside. The human induced seismicity will be a major contributing factor for the damaging effects on this hillside and nearby residences from potential future earthquakes in the region. The proposed development also poses conditions which could result in landslides that can occur in the future related to hillside development with proposed substantial earth movement activities. There have been such major landslides in recent year at locations adjacent to Highway 5 and in Carlsbad, CA (The City of 12 Carlsbad and its co—defendants agreed to pay approximately $12.5 million in damages). Our concern relates to INDUCED SEISMICITY involved with the proposed development including, but not limited to, a) Removal of 2,700 square feet of mountain about 40 (more or less) feet above street level b) Hundreds of hours of jack hammering on the hillside and mountains for footings for walls that have not yet been engineered c) D-9's working on the hillside for days and months in excavating areas of thousands of square feet on the hillside and d) cut and fill throughout the hillside. This is substantial human activity in moving the earth, rocks and mountain and will have a lasting effect on the condition of the earth's crust on the mountainside. With regard to the rock fall walls we don't agree with the architect's assertion that the conditions as they affect our property will be safer after development than under present conditions, especially with all the proposed construction, etc. Of all the issues involved with this proposed project a major concern is the potential damage from earthquakes because of increased risks attributable to the substantial human activity planned in any permitted construction on the hillside. I assume other adjacent homeowners have a similar concern. Pool and Patio Area The area for the proposed pool and patio area requires substantial earth moving and import of fill material. A pool containing approximately 20,000 gallons of water at an elevation of forty (40) feet above street level presents a hazardous seismic situation which could result in substantial consequences to public health and safety. Engineers have determined that structures built on man made fill areas have been observed to be more prone to distress from earthquakes than structures built on cut areas. The pool proposed for this project is to be located in an area where imported fill is required. Fill materials have more tendencies to settle than natural soil found in cut areas. Construction on sites with a varying depth of fill are subject to differential settlement as the amount of settlement tends to increase with greater depth of fill. Construction of the pool will involve substantial work. Compressible sediments will need to be removed from under pool and supporting slope areas. The depth of this removal is unstated but will presumably be quite deep to get through the old cut spoil fill, plus the alluvial and colluvial deposits in the swale and along the channel. With all this work dangerously close to the channel there is possibility of damage to the Channel especially with large equipment. This potential must be prohibited. 13 Water trucks will probably not be able to access this area so watering will probably have to be done with hoses. The work proposed in this lower area presents a very real possibility for excess dust, causing damage to existing adjacent homes. If the depths are 10+ feet, which is possible this will be a difficult area within which to work. Also it should be considered that all of the removed material will need to be stored on site for possible later re -use and compaction to make the structural fill and retaining wall footings necessary to support the pool. If the soil needs to be exported truck access will be very difficult. All of this construction will be slow and difficult with substantial dust. This will not bode well for adjacent homes and neighbors. Privacy The house and pool site involved in the project are proposed to be built on an unspoiled expanse of the hillside that would not only look down on the private spaces of homes adjacent to the mountain lot but would also be visible to residents of the fifty four (54) homesite nearby community. Where the view looks down it will interfere with the privacy of owners of homes nearest to the mountain. Noise There will also be noise emanating from the hillside as compared to the existing situation where peace and serenity are the amenities enjoyed by owners. A major source of noise from the hillside site that doesn't happen now will be from outdoor television and speakers and cars on the driveway, especially in early morning and at night. Invasion of privacy and noise impact are detrimental to Estates residents. Li l_ting If the project is approved it will be necessary to have lighting inside and outside the house and on the driveway. At present, the mountain area is dark at night which offers the community a peaceful, tranquil setting. Notwithstanding that the driveway lighting may be faced downward and designed to lessen glare, the lights from the house and its exterior patio, pool area and the driveway will be visible to the entire neighborhood. Instead of a peaceful setting the neighborhood would be subjected to a visible variety of lights on the mountainside. Landscaping The Applicant's plans include planting of a substantial number of trees and other plants on the Mountainside. This will result in an appearance substantially different from the rest of the Santa Rosa Mountainside. This is contrary to the look 14 contemplated in City of La Quinta hillside ordinances which emphasize preservation of the natural appearance of the mountain. Compatibility and Har•ninny The proposed project is not compatible and is not in harmony with the fifty-four homesite Mountain Estate community ("Estates"). All fifty-four homesites (custom homes and vacant lots) have a finished grade at street level. See Exhibit D for a comparative chart of the elements of the proposed hillside application and the fifty- four homesite estates. Also, consider the following comments by Bradley Hammerstrom, AIA, consulting architect for the Mountain Estates Homeowners Association in his May 16, 2014 report to the HOA. • It should be noted that the proposed project has unique characteristics that set it apart from any other lot in the community. • The lot is undeveloped, yet partially disturbed, and not fine -graded, unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates. • The lot contains areas of native, untouched land and landscape, unlike any other lot in the Mountain Estates. • The lot is the only lot in the Mountain Estates located on the "far side" of the storm channel. • The proposed home is elevated roughly two stories above all other homes. • The lot does not have the typical front yard, side yards, rear yard setup like all other homes. is The proposed home faces the rear yards of six homes, like no other home in the Mountain Estates. Outlook] Retreat Area Construction for this use will involve an operation similar to wall construction. Part of the lower mountain rock outcrop going into about forty (40) feet of the mountain will have to be removed for access and use of the Retreat location. This use is not mentioned in the permitted uses of the relevant zoning section, especially because of removal of such a great quantity of rock outcrop. Destroying the natural environment of rock outcrop so that someone can gain a view of distant mountains and at the same time deprive existing residents of their view, all in the name of an individual project, defies logic. 15 Construction Pad The earthwork proposed for this project will have a huge impact on adjacent homes. See Applicant's geotechnical and grading reports for description of the earth moving work. The driveway construction will necessitate extensive excavation, earth movement and movement of natural hillside rocks. The earth material of the existing surface and below surface in the location of the proposed driveway and other areas is soft dirt and find sand. Windy conditions in this area can be severe and will cause the loose dirt and sand to blow over and into nearby homes in this neighborhood. Water trucks used during the day may allow some mitigation in daylight hours but this area has frequent wind storms and windy conditions from 6 pm to 7 am. Obviously, there are no water trucks operating during nighttime hours. The sand, dust and dirt can blow over into all areas of homes. The only preventative method is to cover the entire area of the homes. This scenario would result in owners being deprived of the use of their homes for an undetermined number of months (perhaps 12-24) thereby causing homeowners economic loss and significant loss of enjoyment of their property. Conservation I have seen a number of articles in recent months regarding intense efforts by various individuals and groups to preserve open space land, particularly desert and desert mountains. The purpose is two -fold: (1) to set aside land for Habitat Conservation and (2) preservation of open space and mountains. Examples:. • Caltrans has proposed (January 2016) to commit $7,000,00 over time to preserve the desert's natural environment and protect animal species including Bighorn sheep. a Senator Dianne Feinstein's efforts for legislation for desert protection and the establishment of national monuments to protect the desert mountains and animal species. • US Fish and Wildlife Service made a $2,000,000 grant in 2015 to buy undeveloped desert land to preserve the threatened species including Peninsular Bighorn sheep. • The Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) has been awarded grants in 2015 to be used to protect desert land (mountain areas) and threatened species. 4 Santa Rosa Mountains National Monument is a non-profit agency with a goal of preserving desert mountains as open space. 16 ® Friends of Palm Springs Mountains is a non-profit agency whose mission is to preserve and protect the habitat, scenic vista, alluvial fans of Palm Springs for the enduring benefit of people and wildlife. My question is: In addition to other reasons for denial shouldn't the Planning Commission deny the CUP so the City of La Quinta complies with its expressed policies and goals for conservation, preservation of its natural mountain area and protection of wildlife habitat as the above mentioned groups are doing? hardship If this matter arises City Officials should give consideration to all aspects involved with the purchase and the Applicant's professional real estate background. Our take on this issue is as follows: Any consideration for a hardship factor for the Applicant should not be recognized. Any suggested hardship is self-imposed and for this reason any claim for hardship is not valid. The Applicant has over twenty-five (25) years in real estate development, building construction and other real estate activities. Case Swenson is president of Barry Swenson Builder (the "Company"). The Company's website states, "Barry Swenson Builder has been one of the top real estate development and construction firms in Northern California for over 100 years." Based on his occupational background as a real estate and construction professional he had knowledge or should have had knowledge when he purchased the property of the risks involved in the development of the Parcel. He also had knowledge of restraints related to zoning conditions and requirements of the City's General Plan. The Applicant closed escrow for purchase of the Parcel on February 1, 2013. On February 15, 2013, fourteen (14) days after close of escrow Applicant submitted preliminary review and plans to the City of La Quinta planning staff. On March 14, 2013 Jay Wuu, Associate Planner for the City, provided the Applicant with a letter with preliminary comments and review of the Applicant's submittal. This letter included Application requirements, including those associated with the Conditional Use Permit and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processes. The Applicant was aware from the outset, of the processing issues involved with this one of a kind project. In a May 27, 2014 letter to Mountain Estates membership, Case and Lisa Swenson stated, "...at the outset, we knew that the unique aspect of our elevated lot meant that we would need to listen carefully to everyone's input and be open to redesigning our plans..." 17 Jay Wuu's letter stated in part, "...Within the Open Space zone, "single family residential "is permitted with approval of a conditional use permit, allowed only if permitted in the underlying base district, and only if the additional requirements of LQMC Section 9.140.040 are met (Attachment 1)..." The Applicant's purchase of the Parcel and proposed development was their personal choice. They chose to take the risk they could proceed to apply for and obtain a Conditional Use Permit notwithstanding the proposed construction of walls, structures, removal of sections of mountain and other development activities on the hillside that contradict and violate the City's General Plan and conflict with other City ordinances and regulations. It is not as if there was no other opportunities to locate a property (either existing house or developable lot) in the Mountain Estates community where such issues were not present. There have been vacant buildable final graded lots in the Mountain Estates available for years. Currently, in the Mountain Estates there are seven (7) custom homes and six (6) buildable, final graded, finished lots for sale. Any perceived hardship associated with ownership of the 3.16 acre parcel was self created by Applicant. CONCLUSION We hereby request the Planning Commission to deny Applicant's request to adopt resolution to approve a conditional use permit for a 5,929 square foot single family home on a 3.16 acre parcel of land - Tract NO. 28335-R in the City of La Quinta. A summary of the reasons for denial is set forth below: 1. Consistency with the City of La Quinta General Plan Policies and Goals Goal OS-3 - Preservation of scenic resources as vital contributions to the City's economic health and overall quality of life. Policy OS - 3.1 To the greatest extent possible, prohibit development on lands designated as open space which are elevated and visually prominent from adjacent developed areas or are located within or in close proximity to areas identified as critical wildlife habitat. Program OS-3.1.a: Continue to implement the Hillside Preservation Ordinance 2. The Applicant's plans for the drainage situation for the mountainside are flawed and incomplete. The drainage related consequences from allowing the CUP would be detrimental to the health and safety of residents in adjacent properties. The problems related to drainage are sufficient enough reason to deny the CUP request. WV 3. The project is not consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan and Specific Plan. Additionally, the Application is in conflict in numerous instances with the policies of the LQMC Hillside Regulations. 4. The mass on the hillside created by all proposed structures is too large for the proposed building area. S. Construction and installation of proposed structures will not be in character with surrounding communities. The hillside and mountainside will be permanently scarred if this project is allowed to proceed. 6. Interests of many residents of the Mountain Estates and other nearby neighbors should not be compromised for the benefit of a one of a kind project which is objectionable and incompatible with the character of surrounding communities and the entire City of La Quinta. 7. This project would be the most broadly visible development in La Quinta. Beauty aspects inherent in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the peaceful, wholesome ambiance of the community will be negatively impacted on a permanent basis. 8. Photo simulations for this project are entirely inadequate and misleading. Staff has rejected our request for a story pole installation presentation. In order to properly depict all aspects of the proposed project, Story Poles should be installed for the benefit of residents, the public and city officials. This proposed project reflects significant disrespect and insult to the Santa Rosa Mountain, a prominent scenic feature of the City of La Quinta, Gem of the Desert. Sincerely, r p J s h cVeigh 20 Lama Vista La Quinta CA 92253 19 EXHIBIT A Diminution of Value Re: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 The hypothesis for diminution of value is as follows: It is generally accepted in the world of real estate that the "View Attribute", where applicable, is an essential component of value for a property. I am submitting the following comments to illustrate that "view" impact and related effect on value should be considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the Application for the proposed project. The reason is that if there is consensus that there is a loss and/or impairment of view for owners of homes adjacent to the Parcel it follows then that there is depreciation in the value of these homes. In the real estate development industry, when a developer has a subdivision which includes home sites (vacant lots) with and without a view, the developer assigns a price to each lot based on lot size, subdivision location and view. The view lots, whether mountain, ocean, lake, golf course fairway, will command a price that is a premium over the non -view lots. The premium for the higher value lots carries over to the entire home after completion. Subsequent to completion and occupancy if for any reason the view is impaired or obstructed the view premium (higher value) will be diluted and the value of the home is diminished. To significantly obstruct or remove homeowners view of the Santa Rosa Mountains, including certain boulder formations and ridgelines is to depreciate their property's economic worth as well as dramatically reduce the enjoyment of their home they bought to reside in. Homeowners will have been severely harmed by the view impairment/obstruction based on economic loss incurred and loss of enjoyment of the current natural state of the mountains is detrimental to surrounding homeowners. E am a of Diminution o lue Assume the seven (7) homes adjacent to and closest to the Parcel are impacted by the loss and/or impairment of their view. Some homes are more impacted than others but we will assume equal impact for this example. 20 Average current value $2,000,000 Per home Economic result of impact % of Value Loss 5% 20% Amount of Impact $100,000 $400,000 Loss per home # of owners x7 x7 Total Impact $700,000 $2,800,000 Loss Appraiser Perspective of View Component in Value The view is one of the elements considered by an appraiser in appraising residential property. There is a separate line for view on Page 2 of Freddie Mac Form 70, for the purpose of an adjustment (up or down) in the appraisal procedure regarding comparable sales. Set forth below are several brief quotes about the value of a view as written by appraisal specialists. These quotes refer to a "value" involved with a view and are taken from an article by Patrick Brown, MAI, MBA, RPA and Beverly McCabe, RPA. The purpose of my reciting these quotes is to illustrate the value of the view component from the Appraiser's perspective. Definition of a "View": the scene visible from a specific location, which may affect the value of the site or property." (Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 5th Edition (Chicago, Illinois, Appraisal Institute, 2010), 207,) "Market Studies furthermore support the premise, with one study concluding that - as at its Lake Erie submarket - "In addition to square footage and lot size, view is the most significant determinant of home value." (Michael T. Bond, Vicky L. Seiler and Michael J. Seiler, "Residential Real Estate Prices: A Room with a View," Journal of Real Estate Research, 2002, 23:1/2, 129-137) • "The amenity afforded by a view is not only characterized in terms of the vista's object (lake, building, bridge) but also by how well the object is seen. A panoramic view (breadth and/or depth in aspect) tends to command the 21 intimate ,pr,?mium. In some contradiction, a near view of a prized view object is preferred over a far view, while the ability to see a far distance is prized over a vista that is foreshortened." • A damaged view (a mountain view marred by overhead power lines or a junkyard in the foreground) will likely invoke a lesser premium." • "View orientation can influence value. It is said that the view from the hack" of a residence (where family rooms and patios are often located) is significant, while the view from the front door is less significant." • "Numerous studies have shown that qualification of view attributes improves market analysis. Hierarchical view rankings might consider: the market importance of the view object (water body, Capital dome, golf course, CBD skyline, hill country landscape), how well it can be seen (panorama, proximity, partial view), and the constancy/permanence of the view. A study of "Earl D. Benson, Julia L. Hansen, and Arthur L. Schwartz, Jr., "Water Views and Residential Property Values, " The Appraisal Journal, July 2000: 260- 271." of 1984-1993 data from Bellingham, Washington, found that a view tended to add a 25.9% premium to home value. When the views were differentiated, however, the study finders were more informative: poor partial ocean views (8% premium), good partial ocean views (29% premium), unobstructed ocean view (59% premium), and lake frontage (127% premium)." 22 EXHIBIT B Re: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS GOAL OS-i Preservation, conservation and management of the City's open space lands and scenic resources for enhanced recreational, environmental and economic purposes. ❖ Policy OS-1.1 Identify and map lands suitable for preservation as passive and active open space. ❑Program OS-i.i.a: Identify lands suitable for preservation as natural open space on the General Plan Land Use map. ❑Program OS-i.i.b: Confer with adjoining communities and other responsible agencies to periodically review and update information on regional open space, and to coordinate preservation efforts. •'• Policy OS-1.2. Continue to develop a comprehensive multi -purpose trails network to link open space areas. Program OS-1.2.0: Coordinate with, and obtain approval from, local utility providers, including the Coachella Valley Water District, to use flood control and utility easements as a trails network which links open space and recreation areas. Program OS-1.2.b: Continue to coordinate with neighboring communities and other appropriate agencies in developing local and regional trail connections across open space lands. Program OS-1.2.c: Explore opportunities for additional trails connectivity adjacent to and along watercourses, irrigation canals, and flood control improvements ❖ Policy OS-1.3 The City shall encourage community involvement and volunteerism in open space maintenance and improvement as a means to leverage local funds, improve open space, and increase public awareness of the City's Open Space areas. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION I11-72 23 GOAL OS-2 Good stewardship of natural open space and preservation of open space areas. *:* POlicy OS-2.1 Unique and valuable biological resources should be preserved as open space, to the greatest extent practical. • ❑Program 05-2.1.a: Continue to implement the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. • []Program OS-2.0: In conjunction with the entitlement process, the City shall require the preparation of a biological resource survey by a qualified biologist for all development proposed within designated open space land. + POlicy OS-2.2 Where appropriate, geological hazard zones, including but not limited to earthquake fault lines, areas susceptible to liquefaction, floodways, and unstable slopes should be preserved as open space. *:* POlicy OS-2-3 Encourage the preservation of open space in privately owned development projects. Program OS-2.3.0: Utilize flexible development standards, density incentives, and/or other means to encourage the provision of open space in new planned developments. GOAL OS-3 Preservation of scenic resources as vital contributions to the City's economic health and overall quality of life. *:* Policy OS-3.1 To the greatest extent possible, prohibit development on lands designated as open space which are elevated and visually prominent from adjacent developed areas or are located within or in close proximity to areas identified as critical wildlife habitat. Program OS-3.1.a: Continue to implement the Hillside Preservation Ordinance. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION III-73 Program 05-3.1.b. Minimize the loss of open space resources. 24 ❖ Policy OS-3.2 Any development that is permitted within areas designated as Open Space should minimize grading for structures and access and should be visually subordinate to and compatible with surrounding landscape features. ❖ POlicy OS-3.3 Explore and utilize a variety of measures to preserve privately owned properties within hillside and alluvial fan areas, including private covenants, deed restrictions, and land transfers. Program OS-3.3.0: Identify agencies and property owners which hold fee simple title to properties located in hillside and alluvial fan areas, and encourage agreements which assure that such lands remain undeveloped in perpetuity. RELATED GOALS As described above, this Element relates to others in this General Plan. The following goals and their associated policies and programs are closely related to those of this Element. GOAL PR-1: A comprehensive system of parks, and recreation facilities and services that meet the active and passive needs of all residents and visitors. GOAL SC-1: A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. GOAL FH-1: Protection of the health, safety and welfare of the community from flooding and hydrological hazards. 25 EXHIBIT C Re: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT V REQUIREMENTS Section 2 PLANS, PROGRAMS AND GUIDELINES Section 2.61 CONSERVATION Topography/Hillside Areas Approximately 211 acres or 30 percent of the Specific Plan area is comprised of the undeveloped Santa Rosa Mountains, which are located in the south and western central region of the plan area. These mountains contribute to the city's visual, wildlife and archeological resources. The mountains provide a dramatic framing element for the La Quinta resort as a result of their close proximity, steep topography and varied vegetation. 2.8.1 GENERAL ARCHITECTURE AND SITING GUIDELIN�� 2.41 Building Massing and Scale: The general character of residential Planning areas shall reflect a neighborhood scale in which the building massing does not overwhelm the street scene. 2.84 RESIDENTIAL SITE PLANNING CRITERIA 2.84 Single Family Detached: The street layouts within residential neighborhood shall provide view corridors to the Open Space and other special community features and landmarks, where feasible. Residential dwelling units shall be sited to maximize view opportunities of the mountains in the La Quinta region where feasible. SECTION 4 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY 4.1 LAND USE ELEMENT MR • Page 4.1 The City enjoys a reputation as a desirable local. The City's unique and attractive character stems from a combination of its environmental setting near the mountains (and) its resort image. • Page 4.2 Development should not be allowed on hillsides nor alluvial fan areas to protect the scenic resources of the City. • Page 4.2 Open space areas should be inclusive of hillside areas, watercourses, golf courses and improved and natural park areas. 4.3 OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Development on Hillsides and alluvial fan areas should be restricted to protect the scenic, topographical and cultural resources of the City. Open space shall be defined to included hillside areas/alluvial fans, water courses, golf courses and natural park areas. Natural, improved and unimproved types of open space should be included within the definition 4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ELEMENT Development on Hillsides and alluvial fan areas should be restricted to protect the scenic, topographical and cultural resources of the City. Scenic corridors, vistas and view sheds of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef mountains, as well as view towards the San Gorgonio pass, should be preserved and enhanced. The City should be protected form the adverse impacts of storm water runoff including property damage as well as water quality. 4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT • The standards for development should be carefully regulated to minimize structural damage and loss of life (from earthquakes) even though the City is located in a low intensity ground - shaking zone. • The future development on hillsides and alluvial fan areas should be restricted to protect the loss of life and minimize damage to property resulting from geologic instability during seismic events. • The development of areas located within 100 - year flood plane boundaries and not protected by existing storm water facilities should be addressed. • Noise mitigation should be considered with all development near our arterial streets. 27 EXHIBIT D Re: Cvnditional_Use Permit 2013-152 Comparison of Elements Element 3.16 Acre Parcel -- Proposed Project 54 Homesite Community Pad Elevation 37 feet Street Level Pad and House Elevation Total 59 feet 22 feet Pad status Unfinished --no approval Finished pads approved by City Driveway Length 355 feet Average -- approximately 30 feet Driveway Grade 15% Street level Jackhammer Turnaround 1860 square feet None Rock Fall Wall (West Side of Driveway) Length 165 linear feet None Rock Fall Wall (West Side of Driveway) - Height 4 ft. to 7 ft. None Retaining Walls (Approximate Total) -- Length 575 linear feet None Retaining Walls -- Height Up to 16.5 feet None Mountain Removal --Height 2 feet to 16.5 feet None Mountain Removal -- Area 2700 square feet None Excavation and Grading -- Overall Site Disturbance 26,000 square feet None Fill Import Up to 1600 cubic yards None allowed Storm Drain Pipes -- Lot Site 225 linear feet None Storm Drain Pipe Size 12 inch to 48 inch diameter None Walls - Cast Stone Facing - on site Approximately 800 linear feet None Walls -Cast Stone Facing - Bordering Mountains Surrounding Estate Community Approximately 800 linear feet None Elevated Driveway Lights Dusk to 9:30 PM None Exhibit E Re: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Set forth below is a list of references, reports and other documents which are made a part of and incorporated in my letter of opposition dated March 7, 2016 to the City of La Quinta Planning Commission members regarding CUP 2013-152. 1. All plans, reports and any and all documents submitted to the City by Applicant. 2. All correspondence by and between City and Applicant. 3. All reports and letters regarding the CUP from other agencies. 4. City of La Quinta General Plan. S. City of La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, SP 121-E 6. City of La Quinta Relevant Municipal Code Ordinances. 7. All City of La Quinta Hillside Regulations and Ordinances. 8. Settlement Agreement Case Swenson & Lisa Swenson and the Enclave Mountain Estates Homeowners Association executed by HOA on March 10, 2015. 9. Notice of Addition of Territory and Supplemental Declaration of Covenants, Codes and Restrictions for the Enclave Mountain Estates recorded June 14, 1993. 10. Declaration of Theodore V. Hromaka II, Los Angeles Superior Court Case NO. PSC1402611. 11. Agreement dated July 1,1996 by and between Enclave Mountain Estates Homeowners Association and Robert R. Taylor and Mary K. Taylor. 12. Letter dated March 14, 2013 from Jay Wuu to Case & Lisa Swenson. 13. E-mail date March 2, 2016 to J McVeigh from Kelly Esmeralda of Coachella Valley Water District. 29 EXHIBIT F-1 Prest-Vuksic April 18. 2014 letter to HOA 1. Existing Flat Area 91 feet 2. Proposed pad height 87 feet 3. Removal of Mountain 2 ft. to 16.5 ft. 4. Length Driveway 390 ft. 5. Rock fall wall - west side (mtn. side) 165 ft in length 6. Minimum depth of footing for walls 18" below surface 7. Rock fall walls 5 feet to 7 feet above grade 8. Distance from rockfall wall to our property (Lot 21) 29 ft. to 60 ft. 9. Lineal feet retaining walls approx. 562 lineal feet 10. Garage and electrical transformer 128 lineal feet 11. Pool Size 20,000 gallons 12. Proposed area of excavation 4,300 square feet 13. Proposed overall site disturbance 26,000 square feet 14. Rock quantity to be excavated raw cut 2500 cubic yards raw fill 1600 cubic yards 30 EXHIBIT F-2 Prest-Vuksic May 7 2014 letter to H A 1. Area of building pad, pool, patio 2. Vertical driveway Loma Vista street to proposed building pad 3. Removal of mountain behind proposed garage 4. Cut area into mountain behind garage 5. Import fill required 6. Rock fall wall 5 ft to 7 ft high 7. Drainage Pipe 8. Horizontal distance - North edge of proposed building pad to Lookout/Retreat 12,700 square feet 30.4 feet 16.5 feet of mountain height 2700 square feet 1067 cubic yards 48 inch diameter pipe 39 feet long 43 feet 31 IVED CITY 0, F LA 0 U I N'TA CON 1�--nqNIA 2016 MAP) -4 PH 3: 33 6,e-47 -00, 00 Ile 6 e4lol/-7- Ybloellll-2,� 774: < 6f% eve -4 R E ('* E D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 MAR 0 8 1016 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON LOCATION: 77210 LOMA VISTA CITY Oqi- ,ATA COMNIlUN17Y -LOPMENT WRITTEN COMMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION PROGRAM AND GRANTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM: JON HARNISH, 77205 LOMA VISTA BACKGROUND: We live directly across from the applicant's driveway. I was on the HOA Board of Directors for a couple of years, Chairman for one year, when the application was filed with the HOA. I also served on the Architectural Review Committee for the HOA. I am an attorney for a real estate company in Oregon and have served on the local planning commission there. Extensive professional review by architects, lengthy homeowner written comments and numerous homeowner hearings were held during my tenure on the HOA board. The Board, consultants and homeowners had numerous site visits and the applicants erected story poles and strings more than once. A majority of the homeowners are in favor of, or apathetic about, the application. Negative comments came primarily from the 8-10 contiguous property owners to the subject property two of whom became board members. During the hearing and review process it became clear that while the HOA's professional consultants recommended some conditions of approval, they did not recommend that the application be denied, but on the contrary believed it should be approved and reviewed to the City. In my opinion, this applicant has gone way beyond what may be required by law or regulation to be good neighbors, satisfy concerned homeowners, and comply with concerns of the contiguous property owners which mostly were not related to CC&Rs or regulations, but personal aesthetic desires. The Applicants offered extensive changes beyond the CC&Rs to reduce the size of the home, the location of the home on the lot, the location of windows and particular rooms, the location of the pool and barbecue, movement of rocks, color and nature of the rocks and walls, erosion or run off concerns, lighting, height, size and scale. As some contiguous owners wanted to look at rocks and others landscaping, the Applicants offered to taylor each homeowners particular view to their own special desires. In short, they have been accommodating beyond reason and done everything reasonably possible to satisfy concerns. Frankly, it appears that some owner's concerns are totally irrational as they don't want any home built regardless of whether it is in compliance with all rules and regulations. Conclusion: The application should be approved as recommended. This is a high quality, exceptionally well designed home, as they designed it, it is not excessive in size or height and will be an aesthetic and financial asset to our community. Sincerely, Jon Harnish PH 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 8, 2016 CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015-0006 APPLICANT: PGA WEST II RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: PGA WEST II RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, INC. REQUEST: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR STORAGE AND PARKING AREAS FOR PGA WEST ON APPROXIMATELY 0.5 ACRES CEQA: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS IN -FILL DEVELOPMENT. THE LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THIS DETERMINATION AT THE HEARING. LOCATION: SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF INTERLACHEN AT HERMITAGE, NORTH OF AVENUE 58 RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt a resolution to approve a Site Development Permit for storage and parking areas for PGA West, and deem the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The applicant requests Site Development Permit approval for a storage and parking area within PGA West (Attachment 1). • The proposed plans conform to the development standards of the La Quinta General Plan, Municipal Code, and PGA West Specific Plan. BACKGROUND PGA West is an existing golf course resort community. The Specific Plan for the community consists of residential uses of varying densities, as well as golf course and related uses (Specific Plan 1983-002 Amendment 4). Page 1 of 3 The project area is identified for residential development; however, for over a decade the site has been utilized as an unpermitted storage and parking area for the landscape maintenance staff (Attachment 2). More recently, temporary fencing was erected and the storage area expanded to encroach into the City's Avenue 58 right-of- way. Subsequent interactions with the City's Code Compliance Department concluded that permanent improvements are required for operations of a maintenance area to continue at the location. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS Site Design: The approximately half -acre project site encompasses two existing parcels and emergency vehicle access currently used by maintenance vehicles at the southern terminus of Interlachen. The site is primarily comprised of unutilized landscaped areas. Located near the site are existing single-family homes to the north and east and vacant areas to the south and west. The proposal includes the construction of a permanent parking lot, storage area, walls, and landscaping improvements (Attachment 3). No more than thirty-five employee vehicles will be parked on the western parcel during the daytime hours, and eight maintenance vehicles will be stored during the evening hours. Two storage containers will be located on the eastern parcel. These containers hold materials such as cement, light bulbs, paper goods, wire, and tools. An emergency vehicle access bisects the site, with access gates replacing the four existing gates. A Type 2 Base (typically crushed stone, concrete or gravel) will be utilized. Hours of operation are anticipated to be 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. in the summer and 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in the winter, with no use on Sunday and holidays. The design of the site is generally acceptable. All Municipal Code and Specific Plan development standards have been met. Although the Municipal Code prohibits the use of temporary storage containers as a permanent facility, the Specific Plan permits "golf -supporting maintenance" uses as well as "relocatable buildings" as temporary uses (Attachment 4). Landscaping and Lighting: The proposal includes removal of approximately 5,000 square feet of turf, which will be replaced by the new proposed parking area. Three palm trees will also be removed. A series of Bougainvillea will be planted within a bed of crushed rock on the exterior of the proposed wall, along the Avenue 58 perimeter. All remaining landscaped areas will remain as is. The area outside of the project boundary along Avenue 58 will be impacted by the future realignment of Avenue 58 and comprehensive landscape improvements will be reviewed and submitted near the date of the street realignment construction. No on -site lighting is proposed. Page 2 of 3 COMMISSIONS/BOARD/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS On March 2, 2016, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposal. AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW Public Agency Review: This request was sent to all applicable City departments and affected public agencies. All written comments received are on file and available for review with the Design and Development Department. All applicable comments have been adequately addressed and/or incorporated in the recommended Conditions of Approval. Public Notice: This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 26, 2016, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. To date, no comments have been received. Any written comments received will be handed out at the Planning Commission Hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Design and Development Department has determined that this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed project can be characterized as in -fill development. The La Quinta Planning Commission will consider this determination at the Hearing. Prepared by: Jay S. Wuu, AICP, Principal Planner Approved by: Gabriel Perez, Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Project Information 2. Project Area Map 3. PGA West Site Development Permit Plan Set 4. PGA West Specific Plan excerpt Page 3 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR STORAGE AND PARKING AREAS FOR PGA WEST ON APPROXIMATELY 0.5 ACRES CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015-0006 APPLICANT: PGA WEST II RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 8th day of March, 2016, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by PGA West II Residential Association, Inc. for approval of storage and parking areas for PGA West on approximately 0.5 acres, generally located on the southern terminus of Interlachen at Hermitage, north of Avenue 58, more particularly described as: APN:762230016,762230020,762230019 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 26, 2016 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. The City's General Plan policies relating to Low Density Residential include country club developments or master -planned communities and associated amenities. The proposed storage and parking areas for an established community maintains those policies. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code and PGA West Specific Plan The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code and the PGA West Specific Plan, in terms of site plan and landscaping. The site development permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the zoning standards of the Low Density Residential zoning district and other supplemental standards as established in Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and the PGA West Specific Plan. Planning Commission Resolution 2016- Site Development Permit 2015-0006 Applicant: PGA West Avenue 58 Maintenance Yard (PGA West II HOA) Adopted: March 8, 2016 Page 1 of 7 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act The Design and Development Department has determined that this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed project can be characterized as in -fill development. 4. Architectural Design No buildings are proposed as part of this proposal. 5. Site Design The site design of the project, including project entries, circulation, screening, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. 6. Landscape Design The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed perimeter wall along with landscape improvements are designed and sized to provide visual appeal while adequately screening the storage and parking areas from public view. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case. SECTION 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2015-0006, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 8th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Planning Commission Resolution 2016- Site Development Permit 2015-0006 Applicant: PGA West Avenue 58 Maintenance Yard (PGA West II HOA) Adopted: March 8, 2016 Page 1 of 7 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT WILKINSON, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: GABRIEL PEREZ, Planning Manager City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015-0006 APPLICANT: PGA WEST AVENUE 58 MAINTENANCE YARD (PGA WEST II HOA) ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 1of6 GENERAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. Site Development Permit 2015-0006 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approval: Tentative Tract Map 25499 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Planning Manager shall adjudicate the conflict by determining the precedence. The Site Development Permit shall expire two years from Planning Commission approval (March 8, 2018) and shall become null and void in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.200.080, unless a building permit has been issued. A time extension may be requested per LQMC Section 9.200.080. 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When these requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. Page 1 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015-0006 APPLICANT: PGA WEST AVENUE 58 MAINTENANCE YARD (PGA WEST II HOA) ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 2of6 5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ. A. The applicant shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. 6. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. 7. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 8. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include approvals from the HOA over Page 2 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015-0006 APPLICANT: PGA WEST AVENUE 58 MAINTENANCE YARD (PGA WEST II HOA) ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 3of6 easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 9. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 10. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Design and Development Department - Development Services Division. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Precise Grading Plan 1" = 20' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. Grading plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top of Wall & Top of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 11. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and Design Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 12. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer (currently mylars). Page 3 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015-0006 APPLICANT: PGA WEST AVENUE 58 MAINTENANCE YARD (PGA WEST II HOA) ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 4of6 13. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. GRADING 14. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 15. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 16. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California, and B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by an engineer registered in the State of California. All grading shall conform with the recommendations contained in the Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by soils engineer, or engineering geologist registered in the State of California. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. Additionally, the applicant shall replenish said security if expended by the City of La Quinta to comply with the Plan as required by the City Engineer. 17. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind Page 4 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015-0006 APPLICANT: PGA WEST AVENUE 58 MAINTENANCE YARD (PGA WEST II HOA) ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 5of6 and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with other erosion control measures. 18. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. DRAINAGE 19. Stormwater handling shall conform to the approved hydrology and drainage report for Tract Map No. 25499. 20. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. 21. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 22. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 23. The applicant shall provide landscaping and irrigation in the required setbacks and common lots. 24. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" or latest edition, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. MAINTENANCE 25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). Page 5 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015-0006 APPLICANT: PGA WEST AVENUE 58 MAINTENANCE YARD (PGA WEST II HOA) ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 6of6 26. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of perimeter landscaping, common areas, access drives, driveway, and stormwater BMPs. FEES AND DEPOSITS 27. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT 1 Proiect Information CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015-0006 APPLICANT: PGA WEST II RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: PGA WEST II RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: SUNSHINE LANDSCAPE REQUEST: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR STORAGE AND PARKING AREAS FOR PGA WEST ON APPROXIMATELY 0.5 ACRES LOCATION: SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF INTERLACHEN AT HERMITAGE, NORTH OF AVENUE 58 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN: PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES SOUTH: PARKS AND RECREATION VACANT PARK LAND EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WEST: GOLF COURSE EXISTING GOLF COURSE a yy r ' u ^�, N q; T , * fi� , _• nip � - �. � � � - �� � � �; - --- �q, r ire k' w i- j � � • 5 � - � trlb'�, f r`. is r • of 1�. M. "� • F •ji l r - t 97.�% I °R � � w RMITAGE HE rt■ 22 d' - Irk i — 1 AVENUE 58 I� ow t r' k - :y+� - - . va 04 I , f err. c " �r " i" C• - ' "'f,,. d � •�' p .r, f e � �:, ' .fi' n.• t .�tl 7jr 0 — r 17 41 IL r 11aa�1 ' It. • y,*d f {'Y r•- -`�.'QI; 6 2 F I. 'w``.r y " t w .e,4 •- 4 ' - - 'ram 'I_� + �6' i ^ ��.�. � 1; ,�} � y{. t � � �� N .. �� � 4 � S :_ `�� � k � J XI•M . n� �,Y � i F r r� t � 01At tj c. n x 4t . �; F : 3 -�' a �" tit, 'r �N � ''n r +� �,�„ ,.� • '• ., , _ - ,a.. ,a `�,�, ;k - s • y.aIlk .- . 4, r ^., _ - • 1 T -PrL�' g�yyfr,, ;. Ip . - � ..•fsr .. p� 'r� t - _ bm,a = - .. y uW - ,� `re C �•. 'il• „ ^. 44€ L •, _ ' . a� 9f' d 7 - � , � .r f P• F + �r .�, 'Y` � - � ° .. '�r,�, 5� #. _i.... ? ���° � � - ` �1PR�i..� - 1. As f ROr" ;r` t "Q 'la * A . - 1 . , r s • �. y� 5}jj • {� r1 RX r _ y N 4 f 1 �► e - - J ¢� or _ +1�k -° , -,iy— � � * t _"� # i.. •� .. .• '� � � f� ,. 3 .� �;' � �, � . �6 _fP•.- �` NF` �F' •B L,. ;�J._ ..-- • �+`` '. T r M w � -•. - �aF � a s- �r' .. a } _ �11 •s �, sn. � � � _ '1 •�e. - � r z s e �f r 's IF 4°- If•'„ -a .; J9'-- e T - &,. +Li` r% ' 4w i �r F �. Avenue 58 Maintenance ProjectArea Site Map ATTACHMENT 2 D D n m z February 16, 2016 � N �—��.wa� C it y of La Quinta ,C(,Qw,K& Planning Division — GEM gj'ihc.DESE:I — Community Development Departmen ATTACHMENT 3 ns ine 0 n s c n, PGA West Res. II 5 8th Avenue Yard r 1, Sunshine Landscape Alex Enriguez Cell: 760 912 1540 PO Box 12860, Palm Desert, CA 92255 alexenriquez02@yahoo.com Phone: 760 346-3999 SunshineLandscapeCV.com Fax: 760 346-5632 Lic. #408804 Important Note: The following renderings are created with the intention of helping our customers visualize the proposed design, and or to back up a submitted application. They do not reflect exact dimentions, colors, or sizes. For further detail on materials, plant sizes, and other specifications, please see proposal or contact the supervisor at the above contact information. ^Op �aE � f . c8 x t a b ti; 7 G d N > 3 a r a l � a PGA West II Residential Association, Inc. 58th Avenue Yard �f� Project Information Owner PGA West Redential II Applicant PGA West Redential II Project Description Property to be enclosed graded to level and converted into storage and parking area. Zoning Residetial Area Data 50% Parking Area 20% Access Area 30% Storage Area Parking Data Employee Parking Approx. 1 Space per 200 SF Not to exceed 35 vehicles Bulding Data No Building on site. Consultants Boundary and Topographic Surveys Burkett & Wong 9449 Balboa Ave, Suite 270, San Diego, CA 92123 Landscape and Planning. 72-203 Adelaid St, Thousand Palms, CA 92276 Index 1 of 13 Cover Sheet 2 of 13 Index] Vicinity Map 3 of 13 1 Gate Plan 4 of 13 1 Wall Plan 5 of 13 I Site Plan 6 of 13 Landscape Plan '-13 of 13 Renderings 111L.(kte Plan Note: 58th Avenue Maintenance Yard. Both manually and power operated gates are to match the existing ones throughout the PGA West Community. The proposed gates will be made and installed to meet the quality standards of materials and colors of PGA West. The size of the gates will comply with the latest fire department requirements for fire access. (20' Wide), and one manually operated gate for IID access in case of an electrical outage. <20 Ft.> Post AFL� Gate Operator 6" Wheel Box 6" Wheel PGA West Res. 3-13 ((,ns ne Sunshine 128W L� Tan�sna P O. Box 12988 1. � 58th Avenue Palm N.K C 92255 a _ I <20'> <313 Ln. Ft.> - - A. c � J J V M V 1 m V I E' II xiM ng to remain wa Type 2 base -- Proposed wall Existing to be demo Proposed gates NOTE: Construct a 6ft (by various different lengths a indicated on surveys) slump stone wall as per the City of La Quinta Specifications. Area will be graded followed by the installation of type 2 base. FOOTNGOPTION ��' ' w e N� a®+ ns�pne .e ei.�a sw�..wwEe �.orsmuov. .w�nis PGA West Res. II 4, Sunshine WnCscape _ �,\4` 13 - a 58th Avenue Yard v-cUo�scGpe Palm Desert, CA 92255 �� Site Plan a Vehicles �a Type 2 Base i� Fire Access iJ I I A`• ° Existing to Remain t Electical Box Containers PGA West Res. 11 5 �j i y,Os ne Sunshine Landscape _ J 58th Avenue Lan�scape peim o een, CA 92256 ���� Plant Legend Symbol Common Botanical Size Existing to be removed palm Existing Palm Existing to remain Tree Existing Tree Existing toremain Palm Existing Palm 'rs St. Bougainvillea Bougainvillea spectabilis 5 gal ExistingTurf Area lv Dirt Area Existing Landscape Area Type 2 Base Cart Path �A Note -.PGA West II 58th Avenue Perimeter Wall Approx 5,037 square feet of turf will be removed in this sections. Project to be part of CVWD rebate program. Note: Total turf removal approx 5,037 square feet, (Sod cut Removal) Remove all existing turf starting from inside peimeter wall towards cart path. Approx 69 linear feet. No installation of shrubs will take place since this willl be a storage area. All existing trees will be watered with 3 microsprays installed in a triangular pattern arround the tree. Rock will be installled along the outside of wall and extended 5 feet out. Plastic edging will be installed to retain it. �z Gate rn U U a 47 Y Gates , 24" Grey Cresta Chrushed Rock Perimeter Wall Plastic Edging 58th Avenue AV •,� �ns ape PGA West Residential Il 58th Avenue Yard Renderings Before _ t After ed a. PGA West Res. II 8 of 13 - S�unsl�inexcape SuP.Onshine. Box 1 Landscape860 an A 9 ,�„�.— sam n��..e ae.�meier Wall Palm Desert, CA 2255 Before PGA Wes[ Res. II After R i Of onqp6 Sunshine Lantlscape P.O. Dax 126fi0 Palm D inBrt, CA 92pe Before After Sr. �',,,j PGA West Res. 11 i,, ns{,m6 Sunshine Larkscape _ 010013�� Landsmpe P.O. Box 12860 Nth n.emus Peemeler wen Palm OesegC M55 Before After PGA West Res. II Of FOR Sunshine Landscape 0 oof� P.D. Sox CA 92 1 smenmerer nnrenue rwmi Palm DeemCA , 92255 Before N After 4 h PGA West Res. 11 Oof� vof In! Sunshine Lendsceve - -� P.O. Box 12660 sem 4v "e Pe"mWwaa Palm Desert, CA 92266 4OR ATTACHMENT 4 3.1.1 Planning Area RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN RL-(RSP) USES AND STANDARDS Description of Uses in Planning Area I Within the overall plan boundary, Planning Area I encompasses development uses and standards for the PGA WEST existing and proposed residential grounds as well as ancillary PGA WEST supporting recreational uses. This 940 acre Planning Area addresses low density residential development parcels and grounds within the PGA WEST plan area as well as supporting golf and open space uses. Planning Area I of the Land Use Plan has, within its boundaries, the underlying zone - Low Density Residential (RL). A Residential Specific Plan (RSP) overlay for Planning Area I addresses residential land use within Planning Area I with development regulation and criteria presented herein. The development criteria for open space, passive, and active recreation areas and other uses coexist with residential uses within Planning Area 1. The Golf /Open Space within the residential zone allows the overlapping use of golf amenities within the residential areas of the plan however is not the primary land use focus of Planning Area I. An example of this land use overlay at PGA WEST is the 19th Hole of the Tom Weiskopf Course situated within the residential area of the plan. It is intended that any graphic depiction of Planning Area I presented herein is generally intended to represent all low density residential development parcels within the PGA WEST (Amendment IV) plan area. Residential Specific Plan (RSP) Uses and Standards The following section delineates the permitted land use and development standards for property, designated as Residential Specific Plan (RSP) on the Land Use Plan (Exhibit 5), within Planning Area I. PGA WEST - Amendment IV 3.3 A. Purpose. To provide for the continuing development of low density neighborhoods (two - to -four units per acre) with open space and minor uses supporting golf. B. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses for lands designated as Residential Specific Plan (RSP) include single family detached dwellings, single family attached dwellings, town homes, condominiums, and includes residential and golf supporting maintenance and office uses. Golf supporting building criteria is listed in detail in Planning Area II table labeled GOLF COURSE / OPEN SPACE ANCILLARY BUILDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Guest houses and shall be allowed in both attached and detached residential tracts. Any determination on a proposed use weather listed or unlisted herein may be either internally reviewed by the Community Development Director or Planning Manager or referred to the Planning Commission as a non -hearing item if the Community Development Director or Planning Manager determines on a case -by -case basis that the public interest would be better served by such referral. C. Temporary & Interim Uses. Temporary outdoor event staging facilities and on -site construction and site guard offices including relocatable buildings. D. Development Standards. All residential structures within 100 feet of specific plan perimeter shall be limited to a one story building criteria with a height limitation of 28 feet. The following development standards apply to property within Planning Area I. SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS QUANTITYITEM Minimum Lot Size 6500 sq/ft Minimum Golf Course Lot Frontage (street side) 50 ft.4 Minimum Off -Golf Lot Frontage (street side) 55 ft.4 Maximum Structure Height 28 ft. Maximum No. of Stories 11 Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 ft.* Minimum Garage Setback 15 ft.2 Minimum Interior/Exterior Side Yard Setbacks 5110 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 ft.**3 Minimum Livable Floor Area Excluding Garage 1400 sq/ft * Projects with ten or more dwelling units shall incorporate front setbacks varying between 15 ft. and 25 ft. in order to avoid streetscape monotony, where feasible. "Swimming pools are allowed to be constructed to rear yard property lines subject to approval by golf course owner or operator. ' Existing buildings may be more than one story. z 20 ft. if "roll -up" type garage door is used facing street. Units with side entry garages shall have a minimum setback of 15 ft. 3 Patio covers may be located five feet from rear property line. Flag lots require a minimum of 20 ft. frontage. 3.4 PGA WEST - Amendment IV ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ITEM QUANTITY Minimum Lot Size 6500 sq/ft Maximum Structure Height 28 ft. Maximum No. of Stories 1' Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 ft.* Minimum Garage Setback 15 ft.2 Minimum Interior/Exterior Side Yard Setbacks 5110 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 15 ft.3* * Minimum Livable Floor Area Excluding Garage 1400 sq/ft * Projects with ten or more dwelling units shall incorporate front setbacks varying between 15 ft. and 25 ft. in order to avoid streetscape monotony, where feasible. **Swimming pools are allowed to be constructed to rear yard property lines subject to approval by golf course owner or operator. Projects with 30 or more dwelling units shall incorporate common area pools including ancillary rest room facilities at a ratio of not less than 1 pool per 30 units. ' Existing buildings may be more than one story. z 20 ft. if "roll -up" type garage door is used facing street. Units with side entry garages shall have a minimum setback of 15 ft. 2 Units with Golf / Open Space frontage shall allow architectural projections no closer to the rear yard line than the 10' min. rear yard in any case subject to approval by golf course owner or operator. GOLF COURSE/OPEN SPACE ANCILLARY BUILDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ITEM QUANnTY Maximum Structure Height 28 ft. Maximum Number of Stories 1 Minimum Perimeter Building Setbacks from: Perimeter Residentially Zoned Property 20 ft.' Abutting Commercial/Other Non -residentially Zoned Property 10 ft.' Minimum Setback from Interior Property Lines within Same Project 0 'Minimum perimeter building setback shall be 5 ft. from abutting property with approval of Community Development Director given adequate buffer and screening. Description of Golf / Open Space Use in Planning Area I Within the overall plan boundary, Planning Area I development includes uses and standards for Private and Public Golf and County Club facilities as well as ancillary PGA West supporting recreational uses. A typical example of this secondary allowable golf use would be the 19th hole of the Tom Weiskopf Course. Golf Course / Open Space (GC) Uses and Standards A. Purpose and Intent To provide for golf course open space areas within the PGA West community. B. Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the areas designated as Golf Course Open Space on the Land Use Plan. PGA WEST - Amendment IV 15 Open Space and Recreation Uses Open Space Golf courses and other customary accessory uses including fairways, greens, tees, and golf -cart paths 2. Accessory Uses Signs, subject to this Specific Plan Document and /or Chapter 9.160 of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code Fences and walls, subject to this Specific Plan Document and /or Section 9.100.030 of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code 3. Temporary Uses & Interim Uses Temporary outdoor event staging facilities Onsite Construction and site guard offices Relocatable buildings 3.1.2 Planning Area II GOLF COURSE / OPEN SPACE II (GC) PASSIVE AND ACTIVE RECREATION AREA Description of Uses in Planning Area II Within the overall plan boundary, Planning Area II encompasses development uses and standards for the PGA WEST Private and Public Golf and County Club facilities as well as ancillary PGA WEST supporting recreational uses. This area is located plan area wide. Planning Area II of the Land Use Plan presently has, within its boundaries, one underlying zone - Golf Course / Open Space (GC). 3.6 PGA WEST - Amendment IV STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 8, 2016 CASE NO: SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT 2015-0004 APPLICANT: 3 AMIGOS PROP PROPERTY OWNER: 3 AMIGOS PROP REQUEST: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR THE POINT HAPPY SHOPPING CENTER, AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311 (a) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), IN THAT THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ON -PREMISE SIGNS. 1191sy_111181,13 RECOMMENDED ACTION Deem the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approve Sign Program Amendment 2015-0004. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The applicant proposes to amend the Point Happy Shopping Center Sign Program for a commercial center on 9.5 acres at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. • The Point Happy Sign Program was approved on October 1, 2002 by the City Council. • The proposed amendment would allow 4 existing buildings with single tenants to have up to 3 wall signs under certain parameters. BACKGROUND In 2002, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a sign program for the shopping center. The sign program permits wall signs consisting of individual illuminated channel letters, reverse channel letters and/or neon tubing. Sign lengths are not to exceed 80% of the leasehold business frontage width and/or 50 square feet. In addition, the approved sign program allows for non -illuminated awning and canopy signs with limitations on locations and size. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant requests an amendment to the existing sign program be approved for Point Happy Commercial Center (Attachment 2). The proposed amendment to the sign program is to allow pad buildings 1, 2, 3, and 7 to have a third building -mounted sign. The existing occupants of the buildings are as follows: • Building 1- Del Taco (2 existing signs) • Building 2- Pro Circuit Chiropractic, ProCircuit, and Synergy (3 existing signs) • Building 3- Las Casuelas Nuevas Quinta restaurant (2 existing signs) • Building 7- Circle K (1 existing sign) The existing sign program does not include restrictions on the number of building - mounted signs and therefore the total sign count is subject to the Municipal Code (Chapter 9.160.050) requirements, which permits one building -mounted sign per tenant frontage along a street or along a common -use parking lot with no direct street frontage. The applicant proposes a sign program amendment that is consistent with the CC&R language for tenant signs at the Point Happy Shopping Center, which permits three building -mounted signs for buildings with the following characteristics: • The building is located on a parcel that is immediately adjacent to a public right-of-way (Highway 111 or Washington Street). • A traffic signal is located anywhere within the length of the public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the parcel. • The building is occupied by only one tenant. Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 7 are on parcels consistent with these characteristics. The proposed sign program amendment will not substantially alter the aesthetics of the commercial center and will provide increased visibility to businesses in Building 1, 2, 3, and 7. Additionally, the businesses in buildings subject to the proposed amendment are not advertised on monument signs at the center with the exception of Circle K. Future signs for each tenant will be submitted under the general sign permit process as they are identified, and reviewed against the parameters of this Sign Program as approved. AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW Public Notice: This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 26, 2016, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. To date, no comments have been received. Any written comments received will be handed out at the Planning Commission hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Design and Development Department has determined that this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed project can be characterized as an existing facility. Report prepared and approved for submission by: Gabriel Perez, Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Project Information 2. Location Map 3. Sign Program Amendment and Site Plan 4. Applicant Sign Program Amendment Justification 5. Photos of Existing Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR THE POINT HAPPY SHOPPING CENTER ON 7.83 ACRES AT 78-468 HIGHWAY 111 CASE NUMBER: SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT 2015-0004 APPLICANT: 3 AMIGOS PROP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 8th day of March, 2016, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by 3 Amigos Prop, for approval of a sign program amendment on a 9.5 acre site, more particularly described as: APN: 604-050-040, -041, -042, -043,-044,-045, -046, -068 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 26, 2016 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Sign Program Amendment: 1. Consistency with General Plan The project site is designated General Commercial on the General Plan land use map and the proposed sign program amendment further promotes general commercial uses at the shopping center. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code and Point Happy Shopping Center Specific Plan Sign program amendments are authorized by the Zoning Code and the proposed sign program amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Point Happy Shopping Center Specific Plan. The sign program amendment is consistent with the original approved sign program design elements such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type and sign shape. 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The Design and Development Department has determined that the proposed sign program amendment is categorically exempt from further Planning Commission Resolution 2016 - Sign Program Amendment 2015-0004 Applicant: Point Happy Shopping Center Adopted: March 8, 2016 Page 2of3 environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), Review for Exemptions - General Rule, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for this action to have a significant effect on the environment, and individual development plans will be reviewed under CEQA as they are proposed. 4. Surrounding Uses As conditioned, approval of the application will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. The proposed sign program amendment design elements are consistent in size and scale with the existing signage in surrounding commercial centers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. SECTION 2. That it does hereby approve Sign Program Amendment 2015-0004, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 8th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Resolution 2016 - Sign Program Amendment 2015-0004 Applicant: Point Happy Shopping Center Adopted: March 8, 2016 Page 3of3 ROBERT WILKINSON, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: GABRIEL PEREZ, Planning Manager City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIG PROGRAM AMENDEMENT 2015-0004 POINT HAPPY SHOPPING CENTER SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 1 of 1 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Any changes to the sign program, including sign size, sign placement and/or sign design, will require a sign program amendment application to be filed with the Design and Development Department. Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Proiect Information CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015-0004 APPLICANT: 3 AMIGOS PROP PROPERTY OWNER: 3 AMIGOS PROP DESIGNER: CNP SIGNS AND GRAPHICS REQUEST: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR THE POINT HAPPY SHOPPING CENTER, AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ON APPROXIMATELY 9.5 ACRES LOCATION: 78-468 HIGHWAY 111 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN: POINT HAPPY SHOPPING CENTER SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: WHITEWATER STORM CHANNEL SOUTH: PLAZA LA QUINTA EAST: ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER WEST: THE CLIFFHOUSE ATTACHMENT 2 �e% w E VIA==-T=-USCANY o C� Q w M I L-ES-AVE Q z- w U J U � 8 CLARKE-CT HERITAGE WAY ti YAVAPA-RD � m ATTACHMENT 3 Exhibit "B-3" POINT HAPPY SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT February 10, 2016 This sign program has been prepared for Point Happy, located in the City of La Quinta, California. A site plan ofthe project is attached. This signprogram contains provisions for type, size, location anddesign ofall signs for this commercial center. The purpose ofthese criteria is to establish the sign standards necessary to insure coordinated proportional exposure for all tenants while maintaining integrated compatibility with the proj ect's architectural design. The program is intended to allow each business room for creativity within limits of their storefront width. The attached figures illustrate special concepts, sign locations, letter styles andinstallation details that might be utilized. GENERAL CRITERIA 1. All signs and their installation must comply with all local building and electrical codes. 2. No exposed lamps shall be permitted except as listed herein. 3. All tenants must have sign installed prior to opening for business and must maintain one or more ofthe following signs: a. Individual metal Channel Letters with Plexiglas faces, interior illuminated. Recommended colors are: Red, Blue, Yellow and White or other color with Landlord/Developer approval. b. Individual back -lit "halo" letters. c. The detailed sign plans specific to each tenant and/or owner must be submitted and approved before issuance ofa sign permit. d. Company logos inavarietyof forms, subj ectto the approval ofthe Developer. e. Lighted box with architectural elements matching building design. 4. Upon removal ofany sign by tenant, any damage to the sign band fa will be repaired by tenant or by Landlord/Developer at tenant cost. Detailed sign plan shall be submitted for each tenant or building consistent with this Sign Program. 6. Acceptable signage on doors andwindows is as follows: a. Window signs: Any graphics applied to the glass of Pad or Shop buildings, unless otherwise noted with this Sign Program, shall not exceed 25% of window area and shall be subject to Landlord/Developer's total discretion and approval. Any window sign displaying hours of operation, credit cards accepted, and other such items shall not exceed a cumulative square footage of two (2) square. b. Illuminated signs are permitted with the express written approval of the Landlord/Developer when in compliance with City regulations. c. Numbers identifying the address of the premises. d. A sign listing the store business hours. e. A sign or signs displaying the credit card(s) accepted by the merchant. f. All signs must be prepared in a professional manner. g. Signs may not be hand lettered or scripted presenting an unprofessional appearance. 7. All signing shall be of materials compatible with exterior building colors, materials, finishes, and of a high quality of fabrication. 8. Except as noted in this Sign Program, no signing is permitted which does not directly relate to the primary service or function of the tenant's activity. 9. All signs shall be kept in a "like new" condition. On notice by the Landlord/Developer, a tenant will be required to refurbish any signing which does not qualify as being an acceptable standard. 10. All signs and installation of signs will conform to the appropriate building and electrical codes and bear the U.L. Label. 11. Electrical service to tenant signs shall be the responsibility of each tenant. 12. Exceptions to these criteria must receive written approval. 13. Wording of signs shall not include the product sold except as part of Tenant's trade name or insignia. No slogans or catchphrases are permitted as storefront signage. 14. Storefront signs may only list the Tenant's name as shown on his/her lease. No product names are permitted. 15. Tenants are encouraged to have signs designed as an integral part of the storefront design with letter size and location appropriately scaled and proportioned to the overall storefront design. The design of all signs, including style and placement of lettering, size, color, material and method of illumination, shall be subject to prior approval of the Landlord/Developer. 16. Service door sign: If Tenant has a non -customer service door for receiving merchandise, Tenant may have uniformly applied on said door in a location as directed by the Landlord/Developer, in 2" high block letters, Tenant's name, address and suite number. Where more than one tenant use the same door, each name and address may be indicated. 17. No Occupant shall place, display or permit the placement or display of any Sign on the Occupant's Parcel, unless and then only for so long as the Sign conforms to the sign program. The Sign shall be located on the exterior ofthe Building, on the first or second level. Second level Tenants are limited to utilizing awnings on the north elevation only. However, a Tenant could be allowed a second exterior sign on the north elevation ofthe parking structure as shown on the attached exhibit. Only three (3) signs will be allowed on the parking structure and must conform to all ofthe following: No letter shall exceed 16" in height One line ofcopyonly Letters mustbe back -lit "halo" letters SPECIFICATIONS FOR TENANT SIGNS Individual Illuminated Letters: 1. Individual illuminated letters will be channel metal letters or reverse backlit "halo" letters. 2. Neon, neon tubing (exposed/non-exposed) is permitted subject to the approval of the Landlord/Developer and the City ofLa Quinta. 3. Letter faces will be Plexiglas with a W' Trim Cap molding for securing the Plexiglas fa to the metal channel letter. 4. Illumination ofthe letters willbe with L.E.D., neontubingorlowvoltage lamps mountedinside or behindthe letter. The letters are to be mounted onto the building face. A metal raceway that will accommodate the wiring and the transformers required for the illumination ofthe letters shall be mounted on the inside ofwalls. Awning Signs: In some instances an awning may be used as signage. Copy will be centered on the front ofthe awning occupying only 70% oflineal width. Monument Signs: Previously approved by the City of La Quinta under S.A. 2002-610. Letter Sizes: 1. In -Line shops: Tenant signs maybe amaximum letterheight of 16"butno less than 9" ifone line ofcopy is to be used. For Parcel 9, the Plaza atPoint Happy, lettering height may also be subject to additional Landlord/Developer and the City ofLa Quinta approval. 2. Freestanding Pads: Tenant signs maybe amaximum letterheight ofl 6 " butno less than 9" ifone line ofcopy is to be used. These height limitations apply to Highway I I I and Washington Street frontages. In -line shops and Freestanding Pads: Inthe eventofthe double line signagebeing necessary, total height tobe 25" top to bottom, or 1 O" character height, double line. 4. Sign length not to exceed 80% of Leasehold width on both in -line and freestanding pad's shops and/or 50 square feet in maximum size. Letter Styles and Configurations: Letter styles are subject to Landlord/Developer and City of La Quinta approval. Quantity if Signs: Only building numbers 1, 2, 3 and 7 (as shown on site plan herein) are entitled to a third building -mounted sign if the building is occupied by a single occupant. Under Canopy Signs: 1. Under canopy signs are to be 12 inches high by 36 inches Jong double faced sandblasted signs. 2. These under canopy signs are to be hung in the breezeway in front of the store entrance. 3. Various colors are allowed subject to their compatibility with the building colors. All colors are subject to Landlord/Developer approval. TEMPORARY SIGNAGE Banners and temporary signs may be permitted for a limited time to announce the Grand Opening of a business, special promotions, sales, and outdoor exhibitions or performances on the premises are subject to the following: 1. 32 square feet maximum in total size. 2. Banners must be attached to buildings, and are permitted for no more than 30 days per calendar year. 3. No signs or posters may be placed outside the demised or leased line of the premises. 4. Advertising banners attached to the outside of the store area are not permitted without express written permission by the Landlord/Developer and the City. 5. Banners located within the store must be silk-screened or professionally printed. Handmade painted banners, paper, cardboard, stenciled, or hand -lettered banners will not be allowed. No banners shall be used without the prior approval of the Landlord/Developer. 6. New tenants, or existing tenants undergoing a significant remodel will be permitted to announce their store and opening with graphics painted on their temporary construction walls, or a temporary hanging banner. 4 7. Tenants are encouraged to have unique and graphic signs. Verbiage will be limited to the name of the store and the opening date. Special opening promotions will be allowed as a minor graphic solution on the temporary wall. a. Store Name and Opening Date Maximum letter height: Capitals - 18" Lower case - 12" b. Special Opening Promotions Maximum letter height: Capitals - 8' Lower case - 6" NON -CONFORMING SIGNS 1. No sign shall be allowed to project over the roofline. 2. Animated, flashing or audible signs shall not be permitted. 3. Portable signs, including vehicle signs, human signs, sidewalk signs (with the exception of approved menu boards), shall not be permitted. 4. Signs painted directly on the building shall not be permitted. 5. Signs constituting a traffic hazard, imitating in size, color, lettering or design any traffic sign, shall not be permitted. 6. Immoral or unlawful advertising shall not be permitted. 7. Sign not related to the premises upon which said sign is located shall not be permitted. 8. No canopy contain illuminated lettering. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 1. Labels or other identification will be applied in an inconspicuous location. 2. 3/ 16" drain holes required at the bottom of each cabinet for proper drainage. ENFORCEMENT The design of all signs in the complex shall conform to this Sign Program. Sign plans shall be prepared by a licensed and insured sign contractor. Sign plans for all signs, shall be submitted to the Landlord/Developer for approval prior to submitting to the City application for a sign permit. Only signs approved by the Landlord/Developer shall be submitted for approval to the City of La Quinta. The Community Development Director may approve signs for the City of La Quinta. All signs shall be subject to the Landlord/Developer's discretionary approval, architecturally compatible and in conformance to applicable governmental requirements. Send sign drawings to the following for approval: L. Richard Wilkerson Madison/PTM La Quinta, LLC 71361 San Gorgonio Road Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 INSTALLATION 1. Tenant's sign contractor shall completely install and connect sign display and primary wiring at sign location approved Landlord/Developer. 2. Landlord/Developer reserves the right to hire an independent electrical engineer (at tenant's sole expense) to inspect the installation of all tenant's signs and to require the tenant to have any discrepancies and/or code violations corrected at the tenant's expense. MISCELLANEOUS This sign Program shall not expire and shall remain in continuous force and effect. As sued herein, the term "Landlord/Developer" shall mean Madison/PTM La Quinta, LLC, or its successors -in -interest, or any manager so designated by the Declaration. Painted to Match 'he rack II DI h HAggy , I =-� a u �xye rut to inmared in heri 51b h.ns am gee e a o 3 3 3 ass s l Sign Program CITY OF LA QUANTA PRESTI d RGME Na VUKSIC ARCHITECTS 6�ASSOCTA7'L�S maesaa,w eanawiav 18 r.d,..d T -. k- c-#6. 11 W. ,f MADISON NOT TO SCALE DEVELOPMENT - - - - - UPDATED SITE PLAN 1 uil ing 11 ' 1 Building #1 ` ♦ 1 � Buil in # 2 I 1 1 1 I Building #7 1 � 1 i IBuilding #2 I `11 E:::D I I 1 Building #6 I — _ Building #5 1 I ♦ Building #4 1 • /` ♦ Building #3 I G ♦ y � 1 Y 1 a n SITE PLAN SCALE 1" = 100' QloLren Cu(: Acrlrc 112' Icturh,g sprayed to deolmd color-. 61ourded flat: I:o AltiminurTI earrlcr rl,el:e xlth n,achanical faoCening (add Belo 9:) Vedical 51On euppport:s eupplied by oThero AM manUFacCUling of canopy e@§N OW alUluinunl CUOta111 C0I0I'I!0 match carnory maunCed 'e"), -Ld no'enr Lhry eanory (Grrnm,cl'o) IIrL'4 Veai'rcdl 111ET'Jl 6{%f A7 9lmm k: ecliod of af.c.ni1mcrll: rAptaCnturti ocrc •w I.hxvN:ing jp,I.M:e � N'&r I-It11:__t �t 6htdd al'C:ICT1cd •'x. Tt.FIA1 K.r`d to maccks5.11111)y 6w.ilnnu� "--Lctl.e r^3 aP F;Ac hc;l Foil II I1P.Pl,Y MOUI fill IG TFCI It II011175 .+.I IP FI.FCTRIC DETSII. FOP CI IPA II IF_L LP I EP, ORAWNG TITLE: Sign Program Detail 1 CITY OF LA QUINTA J rm fr I 7.lpUrftrllO iEElilil.'SUC-3 At N7l f.l=MO MIAIL FOR Cr1 1 gITC LF1 TFR I ..w,.. r g»,u � 14 41r n,l P01111 hlr`:FPY LIOUI IIIhIG IFCHI IIOUF.S htl[? FLFCTFJC DFi L•.II. A FOR CIFIr.III IF.LI.FT'I'M �,� r-ASaua �.- 4 . � •ran VUKSI MCI FIGURE P7Q,. ARCHITECTS ASAS80ATIS RWu1wiJ Trau [w C�.plw Hd�.v APPLICANT. � 9 MADISON NOT TO SCALE DEVELOPMENT I CONCEPTUAL HALO / REVERSE CHANNEL .Dorm UIVA::QN 46-120 Calhoun St. Indio, CA 92201 t 760.347.3566 f 760.347.0343 info@)impedalsigncompany.com z Q� L� 0 rrej ct Okura Data: 07/18/05 Drawing No. MAD-5330 Drawn By: lose Acosta r_A■up, MIA19L1IC� November 10, 2016 - Justifications for amendment. Project narrative: The sign program is being updated to reflect the language within the site's CUR. The property owner requests that the master sign program be amended to allow tenants within building numbers 1, 2, 3 & 7 have the right to install a maximum of three exterior tenant wall signs rather than the current maximum of two exterior tenant wall signs. The right to install the third sign for the specific four buildings will not interfere with the existing design elements of the shopping center, nor the neighboring land uses. Any stated materials, styles, methods of illumination, sizes or shape remain unaltered in the existing sign program. The proposed amendment will result in a modest change to the program. The CUR language specifically reads: "If a Building is located on a Parcel which is immediately adjacent to a public right-of-way, there is a traffic signa 1 anywhere with in the length of the public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the Parcel, and the Building is occupied by only one Occupant; then with the prior consent of the Manager, such Occupant shall be permitted to have three signs on the exterior of the Building in locations approved by the Manager. If a Building fronts on more than one public road, one sign shall be on the exterior of each side of the Building fronting a public road, and one sign shall face the interior of the Shopping Center Site." Additionally, the applicant proposes that a third tenant wall sign on the 78468 State Highway 111 building is in appropriate for the site and falls within the goals of the sign program. Drivers traveling southbound on Washington Blvd are able to see a third located on the north elevation, making it useful to the public and useful for the shopping center. any Sign on the Occupant's Parcel, unless and then only for so long as the Sign conforms with the sign program which are attached to the First Amendment of this Declaration as Exhibit "E" and all applicab€e Law. 10.02. Subsection 13.03(c) of the Original Declaration, is hereby deleted and the following subsection substituted in its place and stead: (c) No Signs shall identify the name of any Occupant unless the Sign is: (i) located on the exterior of the Building or Store the Occupant physically occupies,. or (ii) is a monument Sign authorized by Law, or (iii) is in a location approved by the Manager on the exterior of a Building or structure immediately adjacent to the Building the Occupant physically occupies. Each Occupant shall be permitted to have two signs on the exterior of the Building or Store the Occupant physically occupies. One Sign shall face the interior of the Shopping Center Site and one Sign shall face the exterior of the Shopping Center Site. If a Building fronts more than one public road and the Building is occupied by only one Occupant, then such Occupant shall be permitted to have three signs on the exterior of the Building. If a Building is located on a Parcel which is immediately adjacent to a public right-of-way, there is a traffic signal anywhere within the length of the public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the Parcel, and the Building is occupied by only one Occupant; then with the prior consent of the Manager, such Occupant shall be permitted to have three signs on the exterior of the Building in locations approved by the Manager. If a Building fronts on more than one public road, one sign shall be on the exterior of each side of the Building fronting a public road, and one sign shall face the interior of the Shopping Center S ite. 11. Exclusive Use: 11.01. Subsection 13.04(a) of the Original Declaration, is hereby modified by deleting the following provisions: In Subsection (a)(ii), deleting the following text only: "(i) unless an Occupant of Parcel 1, opens an entire Building on Parcel 1 for business as a Quick -Service Drive - Through Mexican Restaurant, adequately fixtured, signed, stocked and staffed, no later than the first year anniversary o" the date title to the Parcel is conveyed by Madison to another Owner; and/or (it)" In Subsection (c)(ii), deleting the following text only: "(i) unless an Occupant of Parcel 7 opens an entire Building on Parcel 7 for business as a convenience store, adequately fixtured, signed, stocked and staffed, no later than the second year anniversary of the date title to the Parcel is conveyed by Madison to another Owner; and/or (ii)" HAPPYOLCLARATION. 1:IRS1 AMENDMENT 120302.00C FIRST AMENDMENT OF DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS - 8 C [InCJMENTS AND SETTINGS%A0WN1STRAT0RWY DOCUMENTSIIOINT DNS OOWflien; suoa ror recaruing c; STEWART TITLE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. IPII_A"ID EMPIRE DIVISION as an =rnmWaban only. It has not been exanaineO as to its �!xecutron or as to Its 0W upon the br, - I e rrTCnrda71l+ty W." Building 3 (Las Casuelas Quinta restaurant): PH 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 8, 2016 CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 23, 2016 CASE NUMBER: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2016-0001 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TITLES 2, 7, 8, 9, AND 13 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATED TO STREAMLINING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. 1111o1_A 101! 41619VIM 1111 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER CEQA, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3), REVIEW FOR EXEMPTIONS - GENERAL RULE RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2016-0001 approving amendments to Titles 2, 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and finding of an exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), Review for Exemptions - General Rule. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • City Council has requested review of the City's development code (Code) to identify measures to modernize and improve the development review process. • A Project Action Team (PAT) and an Ad -hoc Committee (Committee) were formed to solicit community input for the Development Code Tune Up and recommend improvements to the development review process. • Final recommendations include amendments to Titles 2 (Administration Personnel), 7 (Historic Preservation), 8 (Buildings and Construction), 9 (Zoning), and 13 (Subdivision Regulations). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City Council provided direction to staff on July 21, 2015 to proceed with a Page 1 of 4 Development Code Tune Up to evaluate the current code and identify ways to streamline the review of development applications. The code establishes the development approval procedures, and identifies standards and permitted land uses. It also identifies the required level of approvals by the Community Development Director, Planning Commission, and/or City Council. A PAT was formed to assemble key staff, including representatives from the Building, Public Works and Planning Divisions, to inventory current permitting procedures and define key issues and concerns relevant to improving the permitting process. A Committee consisting of two Councilmembers, two Planning Commissioners, and one Architectural and Landscaping Review Board Member was established to assist staff in identifying issues, receiving feedback and providing recommendations. The objective of the Code review was to allow greater flexibility and reduce the time and costs associated with the development review process. The review focused on the following Titles of the La Quinta Municipal Code: • Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) • Title 8 (Buildings and Construction) • Title 9 (Zoning) • Title 13 (Subdivision Regulations) The following summarizes the significant changes to each Title: CHAPTER 2.35 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION The Development Code Tune Up effort included a review of the City's Boards and Commissions to identify ways to streamline their roles in the development review process. The PAT and Committee recommend the elimination of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), as its role to monitor and protect cultural resources is largely accomplished by the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and new state tribal consultation laws (AB 52 and SB 18) that did not exist when the Commission was established. The procedures to protect historic resources in Title 7 (Historic Preservation) will remain in place. TITLE 8 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION • Remove the City's landscape review function from single-family home sites when turf reduction is proposed. TITLE 9 ZONING Substantial changes are proposed in the Permitted Uses Table, Review Authority Table, and the General Permitting of Title 9. The proposed code changes modify the Review Authority Table and assign more responsibility for project decisions at the administrative level that will result in significant savings to project applicants in time Page 2 of 4 and money. New streamlined development review processes are recommended that include the following: • Modify 61 use categories in the Permitted Uses Table that allows for a faster development review process and reduced fees. • Create an administrative level site development permit for smaller development projects that reduces current processing times and fees. • Create a new Planned Unit Development permit option for residential projects that allows for greater flexibility from the residential development standards. This is an alternative to the preparation of a Specific Plan, which requires longer processing times and costly plan preparation. • Modify the minor adjustment process to allow up to three deviations of up to 10 percent of a numerical development standard. The current process only allows for one deviation of a numerical development standard. TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS • Eliminate the Director's Hearing for Tentative Parcel Maps • Allow for longer terms and flexibility in the granting of time extensions for tentative maps • Create new procedures for revisions to tentative maps DUE PROCESS The Committee identified the due process procedures for development review as a high priority to accompany the recommended code changes. The proposed code changes modify the Review Authority Table and assign more project decision authority at the administrative level. The current process does not have a reporting mechanism for staff level decisions to the City Council, Planning Commission and the general public that allow for the opportunity for the appeal and call-up review process to be effective. Therefore, new due process procedures have been developed, which include: • Clearly defined call-up review procedures • Weekly reporting of staff level decisions for permits and development projects available to the Planning Commission, City Council, and the general public It is expected that the proposed Development Code Tune Up will stimulate new development and attract new businesses. As the City approaches full build out, there will be significant limitations to new development that will require greater development code flexibility that allows creative development approaches that are compatible with the City's expectations for high quality development. Following Planning Commission consideration, the schedule to establish the Development Code Tune Up includes a public hearing before City Council on March 22, 2016. If approved by City Council, the Development Code Tune Up is expected to Page 3 of 4 become effective mid -May 2016. AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW Public Notice: This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 12, 2016. To date, one comment letter was received from Historic Preservation Commissioner Peggy Redmon (Attachment 3). Comments were not requested from any public agencies or other City Departments, given the limited scope of the amendment. Staff presented the Development Code Tune Up recommendation to eliminate the Historic Preservation Commission at the March 1, 2016 HPC meeting for discussion and comment. Commissioners expressed concern with the recommended action and stated that the elimination of the HPC would have minimal impact on the streamlining of the development review process relative to any cost and time savings. Further, Commissioners expressed the desire to maintain the City's Certified Local Government (CLG) status through the National Park Service for opportunities available to cities such as historic preservation grants. The Commissioners expressed interest in the City exploring alternatives for preserving the Historic Preservation Commission, which may include consolidation with another existing commission. Other alternatives presented included minimizing the role of the Historic Preservation Commission in the development review process and to refocus efforts on other powers and duties of the Commission such as the designation of historic landmarks and districts, updates of the historic resource survey, and promoting historic resource preservation in the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Design and Development Department has determined that the proposed zone text amendment is exempt from environmental review under CEQA, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), Review for Exemptions - General Rule, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for this action to have a significant effect on the environment, and individual development plans will be reviewed under CEQA as they are proposed. Prepared by: Gabriel Perez, Planning Manager Approved by: Timothy R. Jonasson, Design and Development Director Attachments: 1. Development Code Tune Up Recommendations Analysis (Title 8, 9, and 13) 2. Historic Preservation Commission Draft Minutes date March 1, 2016 3. Comment Letter- Peggy Redmon, Historic Preservation Commission Page 4of4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TITLES 2, 7, 8, 9, AND 13 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATED TO STREAMLINING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS CASE NUMBER: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2016-0001 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23rd day of February, 2016, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend several chapters of the La Quinta Municipal Code, as identified by Title of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, said Zoning Ordinance Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (CEQA) as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Design and Development Department has determined that the proposed amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), Review for Exemptions - General Rule, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for this action to have a significant effect on the environment, and individual development plans will be reviewed under CEQA as they are proposed; and WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice for this request in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 12, 2016, as prescribed by the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are the result of the Development Code Tune Up effort requested by the City Council at their regular meeting on July 21, 2015 to streamline the development review process; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to recommend approval of said Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Council: 1. Consistency with General Plan The code amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed amendments are supported by Program LU-3.3.0, to provide incentives in the Zoning Ordinance for creative and high quality Planning Commission Resolution 2016- Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2016-0001 Applicant: City of La Quinto Adopted: March 8, 2016 Page 2 of 3 development; Policy LU-5.2, Consider changes in market demand in residential product type to meet the needs of current and future residents. 2. Public Welfare Approval of the code amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. The amendment streamlines the development review process and does not incorporate any changes that affect the regulation and/or provision of public services, utility systems, or other foreseeable health, safety and welfare considerations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2016-0001, as set forth in attached Exhibit A, to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held this 8th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT WILKINSON, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California Planning Commission Resolution 2016- Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2016-0001 Applicant: City of La Quinta Adopted: March 8, 2016 Page 3 of 3 ATTEST: GABRIEL PEREZ, Planning Manager City of La Quinta, California EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016 - DRAFT AMENDMENTS 1 � � AN 111IM-1111-Mr. Mvmlili . rAN 1 AN AN-- ■ 2 ..IN........... 1 IWIN . R 1AN AN 2 AN AN M. INA1,110 Rift, ".1 OPEN ...AN . rAN AN.-IMMM1111111 lei MiT� .. r • 11MISI 1 • . . . • _ r • . the PFOGedures 1. Cooperating local, outlined Chapt federal • in the Assuming1. with 12. Gounty, state and- governments the state the Gertified IOGal ef the Nato under 13. Providing fer government direGt provisions epportunities publiG partiGipatien _ r Title 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION 7.02.040 Definitions. Whenever the following words or terms are used in this title they shall have the meaning established by this section: A."Alteration" means any change or modification, through public or private action, of any historic resource or of any property located within a historic district, including, but not limited to, exterior changes to or modifications of a structure or any of its architectural details or visual characteristics, including paint color and surface texture, grading, surface paving, new structures, cutting or removal of trees and other natural features, disturbances of archaeological sites or areas, and the placement or removal of any objects such as signs, plaques, light fixtures, street furniture, walls, fences, steps, plantings and landscape accessories affecting the historic qualities of the property. B."Archaeological site" means an area where remains of man or his activities prior to keeping of history are still evident. C. "Certificate of appropriateness" means a certificate issued by the city council approving such plans, specifications, design or statements of work for any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to any historic resource or to any improvement within a historic district. D. "Commission" means the hiGteF;^ preseNa+,^r planning_commission established by this title. E."Contributing structure" means a structure within a designated historic district which has a special character, special historic or aesthetic interest or value, and is incorporated into the district for that reason. F. "Exterior architectural feature" means the architectural style, design, general arrangement, components and natural features and all the outer surfaces of the improvement, including, but not limited to, the kind and texture of the building material, the type and style of all windows, doors, lights, signs, walls, fences, and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement, and the natural form and appearance of any grade, rock, body of water, stream, tree, plant, shrub, road, path, walkway, plaza, fountain, sculpture, or other form of natural or artificial landscaping. G. "Historic district" means any area which contains one or more historic resources or landmarks which has a special character or special historical value, along with other structural, cultural, architectural, archaeological, agricultural, community or aesthetic value, or which represents one or more architectural periods or styles typical to the history of the city, that has been designated a historic district pursuant to this title. H. "Historic resource" means improvements, including, but not necessarily limited to, buildings, landscape, structures, signs, features, sites, places, areas, or other objects of scientific, aesthetic, educational, cultural, architectural, agricultural or historic significance to the citizens of the city. I. "Historic resources inventory" means the historic resources inventory adopted and maintained by council pursuant to Chapter 7.06 of this title. J. "Improvement" means any building, structure, place, site, structural work of art, landscape feature, plant life, life -form, scenic condition, parking facility, fence, gate, wall or other object constituting a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such betterment. K."Landmark" means any property or improvement, manmade or natural, which has special historic, cultural, architectural, archaeological, community interest or value as part of the development, heritage or history of the city, the state of California, or the nation, and that has been designated as a landmark pursuant to this title. L. "Ordinary maintenance" means any cleaning, painting, and/or other restoration which does not result in the alteration of an improvement or landmark. M. "Paleontological site" means an area where fossilized or otherwise preserved remains of plants or animals which generally predate man's emergence on the earth are still evident. N. "Person" means any individual, association, partnership, firm, corporation, public agency, or political subdivision. O. "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" means the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings by the U.S. Department of the Interior, or the National Park Service. P."Site" means any parcel or portion of real property which has special character or special historic, cultural, archaeological, architectural, community or aesthetic value. (Ord. 238 § 2, 1993; Ord. 207 § 1, 1992) .......... ................. ... ..... - ....... r....,........ 1-2 .,.........� .. \ ........ .... `) Chapter 7.06 HISTORIC RESOURCES, HISTORIC LANDMARKS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS 7.06.010 Establishment of historic resources inventory. The city council shall establish and maintain a historic resources inventory according to the requirements of the State Historic Preservation Office. (Ord. 238 § 2, 1993; Ord. 207 § 1, 1992) 7.06.020 Criteria for historic resources inventory. A historic resource may be considered for inclusion in the historic resource inventory based on one or more of the following: A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history; or B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; or C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship or is representative of a notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer or architect; or D. It is an archaeological, paleontological, botanical, geological, topographical, ecological or geographical site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value; or E. It is a geographically definable area possessing concentration of site, buildings, structures, improvements or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement. (Ord. 238 § 2, 1993; Ord. 207 § 1, 1992) 7.06.030 Landmark designation procedures. Landmarks shall be established by the city council in the following manner: A. Any person may request the designation of an improvement as a landmark by submitting a written request for such designation to the hist^vncal nrnconrotion nnmmiccinn Planning Commission. The hic+nrinal nreserya+inn r+nmm.- -.en planning commission, or city council may also initiate such proceedings by motion. B. Any such request shall be filed with the planning and development department upon prescribed forms and shall include the following data: 1. Name and address of property owner and assessor's parcel number and address of site; 2. Description of the proposed landmark, including special aesthetic, cultural, architectural or engineering interest or value of a historic nature, including information about the architecture, notable features, construction and other information indicating the historical significance of the site; 3. Sketches, photographs or drawings; 4. Statement of condition of the improvement; 5. Explanation of any known threats to the improvement of the site; 6. Additional information: a. Site plan in appropriate scale, b. Legal description of the property, C. Photographs, old and recent, d. Proposed use, e. Existing zoning, Bibliography and references, g. Chain of title, if available. C. Within forty-five days of the date of the request, the commission shall hold a public hearing to review the landmark application according to the criteria of Section 7.06.020. D. Notice of the public hearing shall be published in a paper of local circulation at least ten days prior to the hearing date. In addition, notice of the date, place, time and purpose of the hearing shall be mailed, return receipt requested, to the owner of the proposed landmark property as shown on the last equalized assessment role at least fourteen days prior to the date of the public hearing. Failure to send notice by mail to any property owner when the address of such owner is not on the latest equalized assessment role shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with the proposed designation. E. A notice of the request for designation as a landmark shall be forwarded to the building and safety department and no building or demolition permits for any alteration to any exterior architectural features of the proposed landmark shall be issued while the matter is pending final decision. F. After the public hearing, the commission shall, by resolution, make a report and recommendation to the city council. If the commission determines that the improvement does not meet landmark criteria, the process shall terminate and the commission shall notify the property owner and applicant of such termination in writing within ten days of the commission's determination. If the commission determines that the historical resource warrants landmark designation and the property owner has consented to same in writing, then the commission shall submit a written recommendation to the city council incorporating its reasons in support of the proposed landmark designation. Without the property owner's consent to the proposed designation, the proposal shall terminate. G. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed historic landmark designation within thirty days of the receipt of the recommendation from the commission. H. At the conclusion of the public hearing on the proposed designation, the city council shall, by resolution, designate, conditionally designate, or disapprove the designation of the landmark. Written notice of the city council action shall be mailed to the property owner. (Ord. 238 § 2, 1993; Ord. 207 § 1, 1992) 7.06.040 Historic district designation procedures. Historic districts shall be established by the city council in the following manner: A. The procedures for designating a historic district shall be the same as for designating a landmark, except as otherwise provided in this section. B. Any application for designation of a historic district shall be filed with the planning and development department upon the prescribed form and shall include the following data: 1. Boundaries of the proposed district and a list of names and addresses of property owners, assessor's parcel numbers and addresses of properties within the boundaries; 2. Description of the proposed historic district, including special aesthetic, cultural, architectural or engineering interest or value of a historical nature; 3. Sketches, photographs or drawings; 4. Statement of condition of structures and improvements within the district; 5. Explanation of any known threats to any historic resource within the district; 6. Other information requested by the planning and development department. C. If written consent of two-thirds of the owners of property within the proposed district to the proposed designation is not obtained at the time of the histeriG preserva+inn planning commission hearing, the process shall terminate and the commission shall notify the property owners and applicant of the termination within fourteen days of the commission's determination. D. If the commission determines that the area warrants historic district designation, it shall submit a written recommendation to the city council incorporating its reasons in support of the proposed district designation, within thirty days of its decision. Such recommendation shall include a report containing the following information: 1. A map showing the proposed boundaries of the historic district and identifying all structures within the boundaries, contributing or noncontributing; 2. An explanation of the significance of the proposed district and description of the cultural resources within the proposed boundaries; 3. Recommendations as to appropriate permitted uses, special uses, height and area regulations, minimum dwelling size, floor area, sign regulations, parking regulations and any other modification to existing development standards necessary or appropriate to the preservation of the proposed historic district; 4. Proposed design guidelines for applying the criteria for review of certificates of appropriateness to the nominated historic district. (Ord. 238 § 2, 1993; Ord. 207 § 1, 1992) 7.10.020 Restitution. Upon damage, destruction or removal of a historic resource, designated landmark or historic district without permit, the planninq_commission shall review the action and make recommendation for restitution commensurate with damage inflicted, specifically assessing the historic, as well as economic, value of the resource destroyed. (Ord. 238 § 2, 1993; Ord. 207 § 1, 1992) TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS Chapter 13.04 BASIC PROVISIONS 13.04.060 Review and approval authority. The authority for review and approval of subdivisions and related land actions is set forth in Table 13-1. as follows: Formatted Table Tentative m extensiGns Gity sta Other responsible 0 Final and p of FnapS Gity sta Gityn Other FeSpen sihlo a genGieS Dlo WaiveFs of paFGel maps Gity staPlann'Rg d'Fe Gter (DtheF r sihle a geRGieG 1 TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS Table 13-1 Review and Approval Authority PH = Decision -making body (public hearing required) R(PH) = Recommending review body (public hearing required) A = Administrative review by Community Development Director (no PH) CC = Decision-makin_q body (City Council as consent calendar item) Decision -Making Authority Type of Application Staff Planning City Commission Council Vesting Tentative maps Tentative maps Revised Tentative mans Tentative Parcel maps Tentative map extensions Final and Parcel maps Waiver of Parcel map Reversion to Acreage Lot Line Adjustments Parcel Mergers 2 PH A* AI PH PH A A R(PH) PH PH CC Comment [WN1]: Changed to Administrative; no public hearing TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS Amending Final maps I PH Substantial Conformance - Tentative maps I A** Environmental review Per city environmental review procedures Director's discretion.) ** By Public Works Director '—Community Development Director may only consider extensions if there are no proposed changes to the tentative map. autherity. a trte (Ord. 394 § 2, 2003; Ord. 356 § 1, 2001; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.04.070 Definitions. As used in this title: "Revised Tentative mao" means a revision to a valid approved tentative mar) and/or its approval conditions, wherein the design and/or improvements of the tentative map are modified from that of said approved tentative map, but with no substantial change in concept from the approved tentative map. as determined by the Communitv Development Director "Right-of-way" means the entire width of property used for highways, flood and drainage works, overhead and underground utilities, or any related improvements. "Shall" means that which is obligatory, necessary or mandatory. "Slope" means land gradient described as the vertical rise divided by the horizontal run, and expressed in percent. Comment [WN2]: Added to allow referral of maps TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS "Specific plan" means a plan adopted by thety GE)uRaCity Council that is based upon the G*City of La Quinta :anGeneral Plan and is consistent with Section 65450 et seq. of the Government Code. "Storm runoff' means surplus surface water generated by rainfall that does not seep into the earth but flows overland to lower elevations. Street, Collector. "Collector street" means a two-lane street improvement within a &k4y- feuF to seventy fouF feet with a variabiwidth as specified in (Exhibit II-3 of the 2035� General Plan circulation element. Collector streets are designed for both mobility and access to adjacent property and often provide on -street parking. Collector streets generally serve shorter trips within neighborhoods and access to higher -level streets. Designation of collector streets in the City of La Quinta are set forth in (Exhibit 11- 2 of the 2035I General Plan circulation element.` Vestward He Drove ,s an example of GeueGter street within the City of La Quinta. Street Improvements, Full -Width. "Full -width street improvements" means pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, medians, traffic -control devices, pavement markings, and other improvements required by Chapter 13.24, the La QUiRta geRefa44an2O35 General Plan circulation element and the city engineer. Street, Local. "Local street" means a two-lane street within a sixty foot right-of-way with a variable width of thirty-six to forty feet between curb faces. All rerna+ni=R - ther roadways which do not fit within the arterial or collector classifications are local streets. The local street system is designed for access to abutting properties and the movement of traffic is of secondary importance. Comment [WN3]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc commentary Comment [WN4]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc commentary Street, Major Arterial. "Major arterial street" means a six -lane street improvement within a ene hundred twenty feet right-of-way width as specified in (Exhibit 11-3 of the 2035 Comment [WNS]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc General Plan circulation element.^o^et foot ,n width hetWeeR Urh faGeo With aR commentary eighteen feet wideand includes a raised center median to separate opposing traffic flows and restrict access to adjacent properties. Major arterial streets are designed to provide a high level of mobility for very large traffic volumes and generally serve trips of several miles or more, including pass -through traffic. Major arterial streets link major activity centers within the community and provide direct connections to the regional roadway system. Wash'enten Street jeffersen Street and Fred Waring Drive are exam 4esDesignation of major arterial streets in the G#y-City of La Quinta are set forth in Exhibit 11-2 of the 2035 IGeneral Plan circulation element. Highway 111 is alse-classified as a major arterial, but has a ene hundred seventy two feet ,Ni evariable right-of-way and varying improvement widths as TraRGpertat'GRset forth in the 035 General Plan circulation element. 4 Comment [WN6]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc commentary Comment [WN7]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc commentary TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS Street, Primary Arterial. "Primary arterial street' means a four -lane street improvement within a one hundred to one hundred ten feet right-of-way width as specified in lExhibit 11-3 of the 2035 (General Plan circulation element, seventy-six to eighty-six feet in width Comment [WN8]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc between curb faces, hav+Rg-and includes a raised center median twelve to of ht o„ fee + commentary m width to separate opposing traffic flows and restrict access to adjacent properties. The primary arterial is designed to provide mobility for high traffic volumes, to provide continuity through the city, and generally serve trip lengths of one or more miles. Designation of primary arterial streets in the CitV of La Quinta are set forth in (Exhibit 11-2 of the 2035 (General Plan circulation element. MolesAvenue, Avenue 50 and Comment [WN9]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc EiSeRhower Drive are examples of primary arterial StFeetS OR the Gity Of La QuiRta.- commentary Street, Private. "Private street' means a privately maintained street within a private development or a planned residential development. Street, Secondary Arterial. "Secondary arterial street' means a four -lane street improvement within an eighty eight foot_a right-of-way width as specified in (Exhibit II-3 of the 2035 (General Plan circulation element.si +„_fey ,r feet wide between G ,rh faGeo Comment [WN10]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc The secondary arterial is designed for mobility, to provide continuity through the commentary community, and generally serves trips of a mile or more. Secondary arterial streets generally border neighborhoods and offer access as a secondary consideration. Designation of secondary arterial streets in the City of La Quinta are set forth in (Exhibit 11-2 of the 2035 (General Plan circulation element. Adams Street D ,ne Palms Comment [WN11]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc Avenida Bermudas south of Avenue 52 are examples of seGendary arterial streets in the pity of La Quinta. commentary "Subdivision" means the division of any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units. Property shall be considered as contiguous, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easements or railroad rights -of -way. This definition also refers to a condominium project, a community apartment project, or the conversion of five or more existing dwelling units to a stock cooperative, as defined in subdivisions (f), (d) and (m) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code. "Subdivision Map Act" means Sections 66410 to 66499.58, inclusive, of the Government Code of the state of California as may be revised from time to time. "Substantial Conformance" means minor modification(s) to a valid approved tentative map, which involve changes to map characteristics such as lot lines, shapes, dimensions, size, etc; changes to street widths or grades, grading criteria, pad elevations, and other similar characteristics that do not change the basic design and improvements required of the approved tentative map and the conditions thereof. TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS "Tentative map" and "tentative parcel map" mean a map designed to illustrate the concept of a proposed subdivision and how it interfaces with existing conditions and surrounding uses. Tentative maps need not be based upon an accurate or detailed field survey of the property. l Comment [WN12]: Delete this entire section 13.08.010 Diagram. The La Q onta su bdiyisien PFGGess shall he as fellews• rw ar. Y }iI✓s r■rw M1�ar � I• �• M�rria M.rel � ra wnr onrrr ur�a�r �rFr�iL i rl�raa! Y ■rr'■ MF�fia ■ r�Yr w b aaR � 'wrtir ]. ■ IwNC Yw a an■t� � M+Fa err SY/� Y��Yfi her ar OM �d■M n�.. ar rrr ra r LYI #iWY 41YI�lb a "Aft ar yIM- ....��Ilr Y!—I� Ma�a�y Ye Y�iY GYM OV�r rw■r Y•� •a r [�q Ybk A■Y �i1 lYrq iw■N r�q Yee u.w c.s.a a IMa■n Y �r � a■M ; r�IrtY ar.a Ytlw� W� M GSY�er TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS (Ord. 272 § 11 1995) Chapter 13.12 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPS 13.12.040 Filing of tentative maps. Tentative maps shall be filed with the planning departmen+Community Development Department. The city may by resolution establish a filing fee schedule for the processing of final maps. (Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.12.050 Application materials. The following application materials shall be submitted with each proposed subdivision: A: The city tentative subdivision map application form; A. a_ B._A_public notification package must be submitted to the Community Development Department and shall include a scaled map or Assessor's Map showing all properties within a minimum 500-foot radius of subject property, a typed list of all Property owners and their mailing address within a 500-foot radius, and all residents/tenants of said properties, and a typed list of the residents that reside contiguous to the subject property. The package shall include 3 sets of typed, self-adhesive, address labels for the above property owners and residents, as well as application contact persons. The list and map must be prepared with a wet signed or notarized certification by a title company, the Riverside County Assessor, or a licensed architect, engineer, or surveyor. .4. fove hupd-Fed- feet radius map exhibit, dFawR te 6GaI8WhiGh displays these properties withinfive hundred feet of the subdi„isien h.,U Rdaries and which , as listed OR the latest updated my equalized tax rolls; C. A completed copy of the city environmental information form and environmental filing fee, if the tentative map is determined to be subject to CEQA. D. TWe e-he requisite number of copies of the tentative map (as stated in the application requirements form), folded aGGerd+eR styleappropriately to a size not exceeding eight and one-half inches by eleven inches, with two reduced reproducible originals not exceeding eight and one-half inches by eleven inches in size; TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS E. A preliminary title report prepared and dated no more than ninety days prior to submission of the application; F. A drainage report describing the on- and off -site drainage characteristics, the amount of stormwater falling within the development and the proposed method of retaining that stormwater, and the amount and nature of historic inflow from other properties and the proposed method of retaining or passing through the inflow; G. The following additional documentation and special studies may be required: 1. 1. Historical, paleontological and/or archaeological study 4 2. 2. Biological study i. , 3 Geologic and/or coils study, r 3_ 4. Traffic study 4. Geologic and/or soils study, 4-5. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). This list is not all inclusive, and any other special studies required will be determined by city staff on a case -by -case basis. (Ord. 295 § 1, 1997; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.12.100 Public notice procedure. A. Public Notice. Public hearings shall be held on 49-tentative maps as set forth in Table 13-1. (Notice of such hearings shall be published at least one time not less Comment [WN13]: Revised to refer to than ten days before the date of the public hearing (twenty days if the tentative Authority Table 13-1 map is not exempt from CEQA action). The notice shall include the following information: 1. The time and place of the public hearing; 2. The hearing body or officer; 3. A general explanation of the matter to be considered; 4. A general description of the property in text or diagrammatic form; 5. Map preparer/subdivider representative. TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS 13.12.120 Revised tentative maps A revised tentative map may be filed for an approved tentative map, where the design and/or improvements of the tentative map are modified from that of said approved tentative map, but with no substantial change in concept from the approved tentative map. A. The Community Development Director shall determine whether the proposed revisions to the tentative map substantially conform to the original concept of the approved tentative map. B. A revised tentative map shall comply with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and all applicable provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code in effect at the time of approval of the revised tentative map. C. A revised tentative map shall be processed in the same manner as an initial tentative map proposal, with the exception of any procedures determined to be inapplicable. D. The approval or conditional approval of a revised tentative map shall terminate approval of the original tentative map. However, the revised tentative map approval or conditional approval shall not extend the original time period within which the final mar) may be filed. 13.12.140 Appeals. A subdivider or any other interested party may appeal a decision of the advise ageneyCommunity Development Director or the planning Planning eeffm4sslen Commission by using the following procedures: A. Appeal of the ndvis„Fy n en .,Approval Authority Decision. Within ten -fifteen calendar days after the date of the-@ decision by the advisGry agenGWCommunity Development Director, a written appeal, accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, may be submitted to the plaRRiRg departmentCommunity Development Department. The "date of decision" shall be either the time a formal noticed hearing is held or the date noted on correspondence mailed to the subdivider indicating the staff -decision. The appeal shall state the item to be appealed and the reason for the request. The planning Fire^+^'Community Development Director shall set the matter for hearing before the planning seMniss+en Planning Commission within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Written notice of the hearing shall be provided by mail to the subdivider, the property owner and those property owners or individuals originally noticed at the time of the first public hearing. B. Appeal of the Planning Commissions Decision. Within -ten fifteen calendar days after the date of the decision by the Planning Commission Plan ning Gem TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS a written appeal, accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, may be submitted to the plaRRiRg depaFtMeRtCOmmunity Development Department. The city clerk shall set the matter for hearing before the WCity GGuPG4Qouncil. The hearing on the appeal shall be held not more than thirty days from the date of receipt of the appeal and shall give written notice of the hearing to the subdivider, property owner, and those property owners or individuals originally noticed at the first public hearing. (Ord. 356 § 1, 2000; Ord. 295 § 1, 1997; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.12.150 Term of tentative maps. Pursuant to California Government Code �66452.6(a)1, tThe approval or conditional approval of a tentative map by the c*City GGuRGi-Council shall expire tWeRty thirty_ six months after such approval. (Ord. 295 § 1, 1997; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.12.160 Extensions of time for tentative maps. The expiration of an approved tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or parcel map of all or any portion of the real property included within the tentative map shall be filed with the city council without first processing a new tentative map. The initial twothree-year term of tentative maps may be extended as follows: A. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude or otherwise disallow any automatic time extension which may be granted by the state of California, for any approved tentative map meeting the criteria for such an extension. Any automatic extension shall run from the expiration date of the qualifying map, and shall be in addition to any remaining extensions available under this chapter. B. Request by the Subdivider. Before the expiration of the tentative map, the subdivider may apply for a r--n extension of time. Requests-AAplications for extensions of time shall be filed with the plan^'^^ depa tmeRtCommunity Development DepartmentCommunity Development Department OR either appFE)ved faFm r by 18#8F All requests for extensions of time shall include: 1. A completed application forme letter; 2. An identification of the length of time requested and reason�sj for the request; 3. The current processing fee as charged by the city for tentative map time extensions; 4. Twenty— "The requisite number of copies of the tentative map as required by the application. The tentative map shall be as approved by the Gi#-_City GeunGilCouncil. Additional copies may be requested subsequent to the application submittal. Extensions of time may be granted by the plaRRieg Community Development d+r-eGtsr Director if there are no changes to the approved tentative map. The director may waive some or all submittal material as noted in subsections (B)(1) through (4) of this section. Extensions of time that include modifiGatieRchanges to the approved tentative map are subject to the public notification procedure provided for in Section 13.12.090 and will be 10 TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS considered at a public hearing, to be held by the designated approval authority as set forth in Section 13.04.060. A time extension granted by the Community Development Director may not exceed two years. The approval authority may appro Pa agrant a maximum of six one-year time extensions. The extension may be granted for any period of time, from one year up to the maximum of six years. maximurn of throe e year time eXte Sens and The approval authority shall impose additional conditions of approval if such conditions are intended to maintain the public health, safety and welfare and/or to comply with current city, state or federal requirements. If, as part of the request for extension of the term of a tentative map, the subdivider requests changes or amendments to the tentative map or the conditions of approval for that map, the capproval authority may impose other conditions or amendments to the tentative map or the conditions of approval including the then -current standards and requirements for approval of tentative maps. C. Filing of Final Maps/Off-site Improvements. If a subdivider is required to expend the amount specified in Section 66453.6 of the Government Code to construct, improve or finance the construction or improvement of public improvements outside the property boundaries of the tentative map, excluding improvements of public rights -of -way which abut the boundary of the property to be subdivided and which are reasonably related to the development of that property, each filing of a final map authorized by Section 66456.1 of the Government Code shall extend the expiration of the approved tentative map by thirty-six months from the date of its expiration or the date of a previously filed final map, whichever is later. The extensions shall not extend the term of the tentative map more than ten years from its approval. D. Development Agreements, Moratoriums, Lawsuits, Etc. Additional factors affecting the term of approved tentative maps, and information for the proper construction of the provisions of subsections A through C of this section shall be as specified in Section 66452.6 of the Government Code. (Ord. 394 § 2, 2003; Ord. 295 § 1, 1997; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.12.170 Substantial conformance with tentative map The process and criteria for substantial conformance determinations with an approved tentative map are at the discretion of the Public Works Director, based on the definition set forth in Chapter 13.04, Section 13.04.070. Requests for substantial conformance determinations shall be filed with the Public Works Department, in the format and with the information as may be required by the Public Works Director in order to adequately review and decide on the request. As part of the review, the Public Works Director shall transmit a copy of the request to the Community Development Department for comment, as to zoning comnformance with the approved tentative map. 11 TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS Chapter 13.20 FINAL MAPS AND PARCEL MAPS 13.20.010 Purpose. This chapter establishes requirements for the preparation and processing of final maps, parcel maps and waivers of parcel maps. (Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.20.020 Applicability. A final map shall be required for all subdivisions creating five or more parcels, five or more condominiums as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code, a community apartment project containing five or more parcels, or for the conversion of a dwelling to a stock cooperative containing five or more dwelling units, except as specified herein below. A parcel map shall be required for all subdivisions creating four or less parcels, four or less condominiums as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code, a community apartment project containing four or less parcels, or for the conversion of a dwelling to a stock cooperative containing four or less dwelling units, ''"with exception of land and parcels with the following characteristics: A. The land consists of a parcel or parcels of land having approved access to a public street or highway which comprises part of a tract of land zoned for industrial or commercial development, and which has the approval of the governing body as to street alignments and widths; or B. The land before division contains less than five acres, each parcel created by the - division abuts upon a maintained public street or highway and no dedications or improvements are required by the legislative body; or C. Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of twenty or more acres and has an approved access to a maintained public street or highway; or D. Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of not less than forty acres or is not less than a quarter or a quarter section. (Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.20.130 Appeals. Appeals ^f the adviseFy ageRGY er planning G9Mmissien deGiSi^^c concerning final maps, amending final maps, parcel maps and waivers of parcel maps shall be processed as provided in Section 13.12.140, Appeals. (Ord. 356 § 1, 2000; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 12 Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.28" + Indent at: 0.53" Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.28" + Indent at: 0.53" Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.28" + Indent at: 0.53" Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.28" + Indent at: 0.53" TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS Chapter 13.24 IMPROVEMENTS 13.24.070 Street design —Generally. The design of street improvements shall conform with the following: A. Full -width street improvements shall be required for all internal subdivision streets and alleys. B. Subdivisions bordering a public street shall provide half -width right-of-way improvements, plus one additional travel lane on the opposite side of the centerline if it does not already exist. C. The street system in a proposed subdivision shall relate to and be compatible with existing or proposed streets in adjacent subdivisions and/or specific plans and shall, where applicable, provide for future development of adjoining property. D. Street connections shall be at ninety -degree angles unless approved by the city engineer. E. Alleys shall be at least twenty feet in width. Dead-end alleys shall provide adequate area for a turnaround. F. Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed a distance of one thousand three hundred twenty feet in length (measured from the centerline of the intersection to the center of the cul-de-sac) unless provided with improved emergency access/outlet routes no more than one thousand three hundred twenty feet from the end of the cul-de- sac. G. Minimum street grades shall be 0.5 percent longitudinally, 2.0 percent laterally. H. Additional rights -of -way or easements shall be provided, where necessary, to accommodate roadway slopes, drainage structures, bicycle or equestrian paths and trails, and other facilities related to subdivision development. I. The size and configuration of streets shall comply with the feAow+ag tableCirculation Element of the 2035 La Quinta General Plan, Exhibits II-2 and II- 3, as may be subsequently amended. 13 Comment [WN14]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc commentary TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS NNE= MEN= ff ; M J. The right-of-way radius for cul-de-sac bulbs shall be a minimum of forty-five feet. The minimum curb radius shall be forty-five feet for private streets and thirty-eight feet for public streets. (Ord. 490 § 1, 2011; Ord. 275 § 1, 1997; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.24.080 Street design —Private streets. Private streets, permitted only when there is adequate provision for their construction and maintenance, shall be in conformance with the standards listed in Table 13.24.070 except as follows: Width Permitted Use 28 feet No on -street parking 32 feet Parking on only one side of street 36 feet Parking on both sides of the street 40 feet Entry and primary circulation streets 14 TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS (Ord. 295 § 1, 1997; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.24.090 Image corridors and gateway iRteFGeGtiGRS The circulation element of the 2035 La Quinta general General plar�Plan establishes image corridors and gateway interseGti ns which warrant special improvements. Improvements constructed along image corridors and at gateway iRterse^+i^^c shall comply with the improvement standards identified in the general 2035� General planPlan. (Ord. 295 § 1, 1997; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.24.130 Landscape setbacks. Landscape setbacks are required along public street rights -of -way. Buildings, walls, parking lots, and other improvements associated with the subdivision shall not be constructed within setbacks except as allowed herein. Retention basins, public sidewalks and equestrian trails may be located in setbacks if approved by the city as compatible with the landscape and design theme desired within the setbacks. Landscape setbacks for residential subdivisions shall be created on the final map as lettered lots. If the subdivision streets are to be ungated and publicly maintained, landscape setback lots shall be dedicated to the city. If the subdivision streets are to be gated and privately maintained, landscape setback lots shall be dedicated to the homeowners' or landowners' association. Landscape setback widths, as measured perpendicular to the ultimate right -of way line, shall generally be as follows: Street Setback Highway 111 50 feet Other major arterial streets 20 feet Primary arterial streets 20 feet Secondary arterial streets 10 feet Collector streets 10 feet 13.24.140 Landscaping plans. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape 15 Comment [WN15]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc commentary Comment [WN16]: Added per 11-19 Ad Hoc commentary TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS architect. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for review and approval of the plaRRORg diFeGt0fQ0MmunitV Development Director and the CGity €RQiReerEngineer (Ord. 295 § 1, 1997; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.24.150 Special improvements. Bicycle lanes shall be designed and improved consistent with the bikeway corridor policy diagram contained within the La Quinta general plan, or if adopted,and the comprehensive trails system master plan. Hiking and equestrian trails shall be designed and improved consistent with the park recreation policy diagram of the La Quinta general plan, or if adopted, the comprehensive trails system master plan. The trails shall be deeded to the city either in fee or as easements as determined by the c*City e4g+eeerEngineer. (Ord. 295 § 1, 1997; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.24.160 Maintenance Subdividers shall make provisions for maintenance of improvements until final acceptance, by the city council, of all improvements required as conditions of approval For privately maintained street and drainage improvements, the entity responsible for maintenance shall comply with all applicable provisions of the genera most current stormwater discharge permit (SDP) issued for the Colorado River Basin under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), including the city's stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and the drainage area master plan (DAMP). (Ord. 295 § 1, 1997; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.24.170 Clean air/clean water. The subdivider shall comply with applicable provisions of the NPDES. In the absence of an NPDES permit specific to the subdivision, the subdivider shall comply with the SW PPP and DAMP as approved for the c*City under the city's SDP. Graded land shall be protected from wind and water erosion through the use of various materials and methods such as, but not limited to, active irrigation, establishment of vegetative root structure to anchor soil, or surface barriers such as straw, wood chips or anchored plastic sheeting. Prior to grading operations, the subdivider shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.4-0-16 of this code. (Ord. 295 § 1, 1997; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 16 TITLE 13 SUBDIVISIONS AD HOC EDITS Chapter 13.32 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS 13.32.010 Purpose. This chapter establishes procedures for adjusting the boundary lines between two or more existing parcels. (Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 13.32.020 Applicability. Lot line adjustment may be utilized to reconfigure the size or shape of one lot provided that: A. All property line segments adjusted are boundary lines of the subject lot (though the extensions of the adjusted segments may affect several lots); B. The lot line adjustment does not alter the number of lots; and C. The applicant and/or owner of the property has not received approval of a lot line adjustment affecting any of the lots to be altered, or lots abutting any of the lots to be altered, for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of the current application, unless the property is zoned Reighberhood.Neighborhood GGFnFneFalCommercial, GOMM 4R*Community iaCommercial, regleRal Regional GOMM8:GialCommercial, eff+ce Office Commercial,oF WGiRess parliCommercial Park, Village Commercial or Maior Community Facilities in which case there shall be no time restriction between lot line adjustments. (Ord. 444 § 1, 2007; Ord. 326 § 3, 1998; Ord. 272 § 1, 1995) 17 7 9.40.0340 Table of permitted uses. Table 9-1: Permitted Uses in Residential Districts, following, specifies those areas and structures which are permitted within each residential district. The letters in the columns beneath the district designation mean the following: "P": Permitted as a principal use within the district. "A": Permitted only if accessory to the principal residential use on the site. "C": Permitted if a conditional use permit is approved. "M": Permitted if a minor use permit is approved. "H": Permitted as a home occupation if accessory to the principal residential use and if a home occupation permit is approved. "S": Permitted if a specific plan is approved per Section 9.40.030. "X": Prohibited in the district. Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Principal Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development `° r M = Minor use permit H = Home °' aNi Fi occupation v, c a �, permit m a S = Specific plan required c T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited _j o m use c d c s M > J v x Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Single-family P P P P P S detached dwellings Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = PrOnGmpal Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development `° r M = Minor use permit H = Home °' E occupation c permit � -a S = Specific plan required c T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited _j o m use �' 3 > > J 0 _ Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Single-family detached patio homes (i.e., "zero PUDS PUDS PUDS PUDS P PUDS lot -line") Duplexes (two units on the same PUDS PUDS SX PUDS P P lot) Single-family attached dwellings (two units per PUDS PUDS X PUDS P P building with each unit on its own lot) Townhome dwellings (two or more units per PUDS PUDS X SIP P P building with each unit on its own lot) Condominium multifamily PUDS PUDS X SP P P ("airspace" units) Apartment multifamily (rental X X X P P P units) Comment [nl]: would a PUD or PRD Permit with Planning Commission approval be appropriate for first three rows instead of requiring a Specific Plan? Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Pr+nEipal Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development w M = Minor use m permit H =20 Home occupation c permit aNi m S = Specific plan required o T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited o J m o E E use c �, c s _M > J 0 2 Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Mobilehome parks C C C C C C Mobilehome subdivisions and manufactured homes on P P P P P X individual lots, subject to Section 9.60.180 Resort residential subject to Section CID GP X CP CID CID 9.60.320 Guesthouses, subject to Section A A A A A A 9.60.100 Second residential units subject to A A A A A A Section 9.60.090 Group Living and Care Uses Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Pr+nEipal Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development w M = Minor use m permit H =20 Home occupation c permit aNi m S = Specific plan required o T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited o J m o E E use c �, c s _M > J 0 2 Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Child day care facilities as an accessory use, A A A A A X serving 8 or fewer children, subject to Section 9.60.190 Child day care facilities as an accessory use, M M M M M X serving 9-14 children, subject to Section 9.60.190 Congregate living facilities, 6 or fewer P P P P P X persons Congregate care C C C C C C facility Residential care facilities, 6 or fewer P P P P P P persons Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Pr+nEipal Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development w M = Minor use m permit H =20 Home occupation c permit aNi m S = Specific plan required o T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited o J m o E E use c �, c s _M > J 0 2 Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Senior citizen residences, 6 or fewer persons, P P P P P P subject to Section 9.60.200 Senior group housing, 7 or more X X X XM GM M persons, subject to — — — Section 9.60.200 Time share facilities, subject to GM GM GM GM GM Section 9.60.280 Bed and breakfast GM GM GM GM GM GM inns — — — — — — Supportive X X X C C C Housing Transitional X X X C C C Housing Cottage Food Operations, subject MP MP MP MP MP MP to Section 9.60.115 Open Space and Recreational Uses Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Pr+nEipal Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development w M = Minor use m permit H =20 Home occupation c permit aNi m S = Specific plan required o T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited o -J m o E E use �' 3 �, > _a, > J 0 2 Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Public parks, playfields and open P P P P P P space Bicycle, equestrian P P P P P P and hiking trails Clubhouses and community P P P P P P pools/cabanas Unlighted tennis and other game courts on private A A A A A A property, subject to Section 9.60.150 Lighted tennis and other game courts on private property, M M M GM GM subject to Section 9.60.150 Golf courses and country clubs per P P P P P P Section 9.110.040 Driving range with GM GM X GM GM CM or without lights — — — — — Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Pr+nEipal Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development w M = Minor use m permit H =20 Home occupation c permit aNi m S = Specific plan required o T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited o -J m o E E use �' 3 �, > _a, > J L) 2 Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Accessory Uses and Structures Home occupations, subject to Section H H H H H H 9.60.110� Patio covers, decks, and A A A A A A gazebos, subject to Section 9.60.040 Fences and walls, subject to Section P P P P P P 9.60.030 Satellite dishes and other antennas A A A A A A subject to Section 9.60.080 Swimming pools, spas and cabanas, A A A A A A subject to Section 9.60.070 Garages and carports, subject to A A A A A A Section 9.60.060 Comment [n2]: Home occupations are entirely handled by Code Enforcement. Delete all references and move to Municipal Code Title 87 Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Pr+nEipal Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development w M = Minor use m permit H =20 Home occupation c permit aNi m S = Specific plan required o T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited o J m o E E use c �, c s _a, > J 0 2 Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Keeping of household pets, A A A A A A subject to Section 9.60.120 On lots of 1 acre or more, the noncommercial keeping of hoofed animals, fowl (except roosters) and rabbits, subject to Section 9.60.120. Hoofed animals include A A X X X X horses, sheep, goats, pot bellied pigs, and similar. The keeping of horses is subject to Section 9.140.060 and limited to one horse per 2.5 acres. Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = PronGmpal Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development `° r M = Minor use permit H = Home °' E occupation c permit � -a S = Specific plan required c T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited -J o m use �' 3 > � > J 0 2 M _ Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Other accessory uses and structures which are customarily associated with and subordinate to A A A A A A the principal use on the premises and are consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district. Agricultural Uses Tree crop farming; P X X X X X greenhouses Field crop farming P M X X X X Produce stands, subject to Section P M X X X X 9.100.100 Temporary Uses Garage sales A A A A A A Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Pr+nEipal Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development w M = Minor use m permit H =20 Home occupation c permit aNi m S = Specific plan required o T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited o J m o E E use c �, c s _M > J 0 2 Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Construction and guard offices, M M M M M M subject to Section 9.60.210 Use of relocatable M M M M M M building Model home complexes and sales offices, M M M M M M subject to Section 9.60.250 Special outdoor events, subject to M M M M M M Section 9.60.170 Parking of recreational A A A X X X vehicles, subject to Section 9.60.130 Other Uses Churches, temples and other places of C C C C C C worship 10 Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Pr+nEipal Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development w M = Minor use m permit H =20 Home occupation c permit aNi m S = Specific plan required o a_ T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited o -J m o E E use �' 3 �, > _a, > J 0 2 Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Museum or gallery displaying sculpture, artwork or crafts, including CM GM GM GM CM M schools for above, on 20 acres or more Community recreational vehicle XA XA X PA PA 'A storage lots, — — — — noncommercial Communication towers and equipment C C C C C C (freestanding, new towers) subject to Chapter 9.170 Communication towers and equipment (co - location, mounted M M M M M M to existing facility) subject to Chapter 9.170 11 Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Rr nG+pa1 Permitted use A = Accessory use C= Conditional use permit PUD = Planned Unit Development `° r M = Minor use permit H = Home °' E occupation c permit � -a S = Specific plan required c T= Temporary o Use Permit X = Prohibited -j o m use �' 3 > � W > J V 2 M _ Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Utility substations M M M M M M and facilities Public flood control facilities and P P P P P P devices (Ord. 492 § 1, 2011; Ord. 480 § 1, 2010; Ord. 466 § 1, 2009; Ord. 445 § 1, 2007; Ord. 414 § 1, 2005; Ord. 394 § 2 (Exh. A), 2003; Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 299 § 1, 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Indent: Left: 0.75", Right: 0.01", Space After: 4 pt, Line spacing: At least 14 pt, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5 Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, 12 pt, Font color: Black 12 Chapter 9.80 NONRESIDENTIAL PERMITTED USES 9.80.010 Development permits required. Table 9-4 of this chapter specifies whether a land use or structure is permitted within a zoning district. However, in most cases development to establish a use also requires approval of a site development permit and/or other permits as set forth in Chapter 9.210., approval of a specific plan is required for any development or land division in the CR district. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 9.80.020 Residential uses in the CR Regional Commercial district adjacent to Highway 1 1 1 in NR overlay district. In accordance with General Plan Policy 2-3.1.4, no residential uses shall be established within the NR nonresidential overlay portion of the CR regional commercial district except for incidental residential uses which: A. Are incorporated into a project site which is twenty acres or more in size; B.Are a part of a larger mixed use project with predominantly nonresidential uses; C.Are no more than twenty percent of the total project square footage; D.Are well integrated into the larger development, i.e., not a separate use; E. Serve a legitimate necessary purpose for the development such as employee housing; F. Have at least fifty percent of the units in the affordable category, as defined in the general plan housing element; and G.Are approved by the city as an integral part of the overall mixed use project. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 9.80.030 Residential uses outside NR overlay. In accordance with the General Plan Policies 2-3.1.6 through 2-3.1.8, single- family residential uses may be established in the CR district outside the NR nonresidential overlay. Such projects may have up to a proportion of one hundred percent residential. The following requirements shall apply: A. A specific plan shall be approved and the project shall conform to the RSP residential specific plan standards of Section 9.30.0809.140.100 with regard to common open area and perimeter landscaping with the exception of single-family residential. B. A minimum of fifteen percent of the dwelling units are provided in the affordable "low" and/or "very low" income category per Section 9.60.270. 13 C. Project sites of less than twenty acres shall be single -use, either all residential or all nonresidential. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 9.80.040 Table of permitted uses. A. Uses and Structures Permitted. Table 9-5, Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts, following, specifies those uses and structures which are permitted within each nonresidential district. The letters in the columns beneath the district designations mean the following: 1. "P": Permitted as a principal use within the district. 2. "A": Permitted only if accessory to the principal use on the site. 3. "C": Permitted as a principal or accessory use if a conditional use permit is approved. 4. W": Permitted if a minor use permit is approved. 5. "T": Permitted as a temporary use only. 6. "V: Prohibited in the district. 7. "S": Permitted under a specific plan. B. Uses Not Listed in Table. Land uses which are not listed in Table 9-5 are not permitted unless the planning or the planning commission determines that such use is within one of the permitted use categories listed (e.g., principal use, conditional use, etc.) in accordance with Section 9.20.040. Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Principal -Permitted Y R 10 w R use A=Accessory use M u -E U E u E C= Conditional use o `m 5 �, = L �, E E :- E permit E E E so E v o o v M= Minor use permit � c E c a� o 'iv y m o LL d T= Temporary use 0 c v Co v Z w � permit U Z �0 0 2 X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Retail Uses Retail stores under 10,000 sq. ft. floor area P AP P P AP AP X P per business Retail stores', 10,000— 50,000 sq. ft. floor area P SP SP SP X X X P Retail stores', over 50,000 sq. ft. floor area GP C 6M X X X X X Food, liquor and convenience stores under 10,000 sq. ft. floor P A P P A A X P area, open less than 18 hours/day2 14 Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Principal -Permitted Y !0 T R useV A =Accessory use 20 c- c 0.� E 'V C = Conditional use c d CD CD E E £ r E E 0 0 0 M= Minor use permit a o o v rn o H M c LL d T=Temporary use c� c v m U r w .0 permit V Z 0 O g j X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Food, liquor and convenience stores M under 10,000 sq. ft. floor OM X GM GM CM X X area, open 18 or more hours/day2 Plant nurseries and garden supply stores, with no propagation of plants on the premises, CID X GP GP X X X subject to Section P 9.100.120 (Outdoor — storage and display) Showroom/catalog stores, without P P P X X X X X substantial on -site — inventory General Services Barbershops, beauty, nail and tanning salons P A P P P A X P and similar uses — Miscellaneous services such as travel services, photo developing, videotape rentals, shoe repair, appliance repair, P A P P P A X p and similar uses — Laundromats and dry cleaners, except central P X P P P X X M cleaning plants — Printing, blueprinting and copy services P P P P P P X P Pet grooming —without overnight boarding P X P P P X X p Office and Health Services 15 Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Plat Permitted use'V A=Accessory use 20 [- c .� E �= V C = Conditional use c d 3 y L CD E E E E '= E E permit E Eo E E Q E 0 o o •� 0 M =Minor use permit W E E o o v rn o •m H o LL T = Temporary use c� t) v w permit V Z 0 O 2 X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC Banks P X P P P P X General and P XP P P P P GP professional offices — — Medical offices — physicians, dentists, optometrists, P XP P P P P X chiropractors and similar practitioners, Medical centers/clinics— four or more offices in P X P C X P X one building Surgicenters/_medical P XP P C X P X clinics — Hospitals C X X X X X C Convalescent hospitals C X C X X X C Veterinary clinics/animal hospitals and pet CM GM CM CM X X X boarding (indoor only) Dining, Drinking and Entertainment Uses Restaurants, other than P A P P P X A drive -through Restaurants, drive- P A P X P X X through Restaurants, counter take-out with ancillary seating, such as yoghurt, ice cream, P P P P P X XA pastry shops and similar Bars_, taV8FRs and cocktail lounges C C C XC C X X Dancing or live entertainment as a C XC C X C X X principal use Dancing or live entertainment as an A XA GA GA GA X X accessory use 16 P P X P C Formatted Table Formatted Table Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Prir�Permitted �_ 6 use'V A=Accessory use La o- c .� E �= V C = Conditional use c d CD CD E B E £ r E E E 0 0 0 M= Minor use permit a o o v rn o 'm H M c LL T = Temporary use c� c v c) w permit V Z 0 O 2 X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Theaters, live or motion GP X GM XM GM X XA picture M Tobacco shops without onsite smoking, as per the provisions of the P X CP XP CA X X P Heath and Sanitation — Code Cigar lounges, hookah bars, and similar uses with onsite smoking, as GM X XM xM GA X X per the provisions of the M Health and Sanitation Code Recreation Uses Bowling, pool or billiard centers as a principal C XC C X C X X C use Pool or billiard tables as accessory use (3 tables A A A A A A X A or less) Game machines, 11 or more (as either a C X C C C X X principal or accessory use) Game machines as an accessory use, 10 or A A A A A A X A fewer machines Golf courses and country clubs (see GC X AX X X GA AX X X district permitted uses, — — — — Chapter 9.120) Tennis clubs or C A C X X A C complexes Health clubs, martial arts studios, and dance MP MP MP MP MP MP AM studios, 5,000 sq. ft. P floor area or less Health clubs, martial arts studios, and dance GM GM GM GM GM GM XM studios, over 5,000 sq. M 17 Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0" Formatted Table Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Prir�Permitted Ri m use'V A=Accessory use La c- c .� E �= V C = Conditional use c d CD CD E B E £ r E E E 0 0 0 M= Minor use permit a o o v rn o 'm H M c LL T = Temporary use c� c v c) w permit V Z 0 O 2 X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC ft. floor area Libraries P XP P CP P P P P Museum or gallery displaying sculpture, P artwork or crafts, P P P P P P P including schools for above Parks, unlighted playfields and open P P P P P P P P space Lighted playfields X X X X X X C C Bicycle, equestrian and P P P P P P P hiking trails P Indoor pistol or rifle X C X X X X X ranges X Miniature golf/recreation C X X X GM X X ters X Assembly Uses Ice skating rinks GM XM GM X XM X GM X Lodges, union halls, social clubs and senior GP GP CID GP X X GP P citizen centers Churches, temples and CM GM GM GM X GM X other places of worship M Mortuomearies and funeral GM GM GM X X X X X Public and Semipublic Uses Fire stations P P P P XP P P P Government offices and P P P P P P P police stations P Communication towers and equipment C (freestanding, new C C C C C C C towers) subject to Chapter 9.170 Communication towers and equipment (co- M M M M M M M location, mounted to 18 Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Prir�Permitted �_ 6 use'V A=Accessory use La o- c .� E �= V C = Conditional use 0 d CD y E E E E r E E E 0 0 0 M= Minor use permit a E o o v rn o .2 H M c LL T = Temporary use c� v c) w permit V Z 0 O 2iF X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC existing facility) subject M to Chapter 9.170 Electrical substations PAX M MX X X X M X Water wells and MP MP MP XP XP XP MP pumping stations P Reservoirs and water X X X X X X MPtanks X Public flood control P P P P P P P facilities and devices P Colleges and C XM X X X XM C universities C Vocational schools, e.g., barber, beauty and CM C C X X C C C similar Private elementary, intermediate and high C C C C C C C C schools 120w;tn o..dm onhnnls G G G X G X G �TFaiR bus and t.+.: s �m S X G X C X C Helicopter pads X X X X C X C X_ Public or private kennels and animal shelters X C X X X X C (with indoor or outdoor X pet boarding) Golf courses and country clubs (see GC C A C X C A P district permitted uses, Chapter 9.120) Driving range unlighted P A C X P A P Tennis clubs or C A C X C A C complexes Health clubs, martial arts studios, and dance P P P P P P A studios, 5000 sq. ft. floor area or less Residential, Lodging and Child-Car-eChild daycare Uses Townhome and C a a C �4C XC XC XC X multifamily dwelling as a PC 19 Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Prir�Permitted �_ 6 use'V A=Accessory use La o- c .� E �= V C = Conditional use 0 d CDL y E E E E r E E E 0 0 0 M= Minor use permit a E o o v rn o .2 H M c LL T = Temporary use c� v c) w permit V Z 0 O 2 X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC primary use3,4 Residential as an accessory use, e.g., OM CM GM CM GM GM CM caretaker residences per M Section 9.100.160 Child day-care facilities, centers and preschools as a principal use, GM GM GM GM XX GM GM subject to Section — — — — — — — M 9.100.250 (also see Accessory Uses) Senior group housing, subject to Section GX X X X X X X M 9.100.260 Rooming and boarding GX X X X X X X M houses — Single room occupancy (SRO) hotels, subject to C X X X X X X X Section 9.100.270 Emergency shelters P P P P P P P X_ Transitional shelters for homeless persons or C X X X X X C X victims of domestic — abuse Single family residential SX X X X X X X X Mixed -use projects: residential and SP XP XP XP XP XP X P office/commercial RV rental parks and ownership/membership GX X CX X CM X X X parks Resort residential S X C X C X X Hotels and motels CID X CID X CID X X P Timeshare facilities, subject to Section PC XX PC XX PC XX XX P 9.60.290 V F Formatted Table Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0", Space Before: Opt Formatted: Not Highlight Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = P at -Permitted Ri m use'V A=Accessory use La [- c .� E �= V C = Conditional use 0 d y L y E E E E r E E E 0 0 0 M= Minor use permit a E o o v rn o 'm H M c LL T = Temporary use c� v t) w permit V Z 0 O 2 X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Caretaker residences M M M M M M M M Automotive Automobile Uses5 Golf cart, neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV), P P P XM X X X and electric scooter — M sales Automobile service stations, with or without C C C C X X X C minimart Car washes GM GM GM X X X X X Auto body repair and painting; transmission X C X X X X X X repair Auto repair specialty shops, providing minor auto maintenance: tire sales/service, muffler, C C C X X X X brake, lube and tune-up services —not including X major engine or drivetrain repair Auto and motorcycle GM GM X X X X X sales and rentals X Used vehicle sales, not associated with a new C C X X X X X vehicle sales facility, as X per Section 9.100.030 Truck, recreation vehicle C C X X X X X and boat sales Auto parts stores, with no repair or parts P P P GP X X X installation on the P premises Auto or truck storage yards, not including X Cr X X X X X dismantling X_ Private parking lots/garages as a C C C X C C X principal use subject to 21 Formatted Table Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Prir�Permitted �_ 6 use'V A=Accessory use La c- c .� E �= V C = Conditional use c d CD CD E B E £ r E E E 0 0 0 M= Minor use permit a o o v rn o 'm H M c LL T = Temporary use c� c v c) w permit V Z 0 O 2 X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Chapter 9.150, Parking C Warehousing and Heavy Commercial Uses5 Wholesaling/distribution centers, with no sales to C P X X X X X X consumers General warehouses, with no sales to C P X X X X X consumers Mini -storage X warehouses X X6 X X X X X Lumber yards, outdoor (see retail stores for X GM X X X X X indoor lumber sales) X_ Pest control services CM PG X X X X X X_ Plumbing repair shops C P X X X X X Contractor, public utility and similar GX GM X X X X GP X equipment/storage yards — Central cleaning or GX GX GX X XA X X laundry plants X_ Communication or relay facilities/antennas as C C Cr C C C C primary use Industrial and Research Uses Indoor manufacture and assembly of components or finished products from materials such as cloth, fiber, fur, X P X X X X X X glass, leather, stone, paper (except milling), plastics, metal, and wood Research and P P X X X X X development X Recording studios P-M P X X X X X M Bottling plants X P X X X X X X 22 Formatted Table Formatted Table Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Prir�Permitted �_ 6 use'V A =Accessory use La o- c .� E �= V C = Conditional use c d CD CD E E £ r E E E 0 0 0 M= Minor use permit a o o v rn o .2 H M c LL T = Temporary use c� c v c) w permit V Z 0 O 2 X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Sign making, except P P X X X X X sandblasting Sign making, including X P X X X X X sandblasting Recycling centers as a X primary use, collection X C X X X X C and sorting only, subject to Section 9.100.190 Off -site hazardous waste facilities, subject X C X X X X X X to Section 9.100.230 — Accessory Uses and Structures Portable outdoor vending uses (such as flower stands, hotdog M M M M M M M stands, etc.), subject to M Section 9.100.100 Swimming pools as an MA MA MA XA AA MA AA accessory use A_ Golf or tennis facilities MA MA MA XA AA MA AA as an accessory use A_ Signs, subject to A A A A A A A Chapter 9.160 Fences and walls, subject to Section A A A A A A A 9.100.030 Antennas and satellite dishes, subject to A A A A A A A Section 9.100.070 A Reverse vending machines subject to A A A A X X A Section 9.100.190 M Recycling dropoff bins, subject to Section M A M M X X A 9.100.190 Incidental products or services for employees A A A A A A A or businesses, such as 23 Formatted Table Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Prin�Permitted Ri m use'V A =Accessory use La o- c .� E �= V C = Conditional use 0 d y L CD E E £ r E E E 0 0 0 M= Minor use permit a o o v rn o 'm H M c LL T = Temporary use c� c v c) w permit V Z 0 O 2 X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC child day care, cafeterias and business A_ support uses Other accessory uses and structures which are customarily associated with and subordinate to the principal use on the premises and are A A A A A A A consistent with the A_ purpose and intent of the zoning district, as determined by the director Temporary Uses Christmas tree sales, subject to Section T T T T X X T T 9.100.080 Halloween pumpkin sales, subject to Section T T T T X X T T 9.100.090 Stands selling fresh produce in season, T T T T X X T T subject to Section 9.100.100 Sidewalk sales, subject T T T T T T X to Section 9.100.130 T Temporary outdoor events, subject to T T T T T T T T Section 9.100.140 Construction and guard offices, subject to T T T T T T T Section 9.100.170 Use of relocatable building, subject to T T T T T T T T Section 9.100.180 Other Uses Fortunetelling and C X C X X X X 24 Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Princ+pa4-Permitted Y f6 7+ use A =Accessory use 20 L ° _ C r t> E v != v E C= Conditional use c m 3 `m d E E E- E mit 0 0 0 M= Minor use permit E E E o f o r; m c U. T= Temporary use 0 v v m U L c permit U Z 0 O g X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC palmistry Sexually oriented businesses, subject to C X X X X X X X Section 9.110.0807 Other uses not listed in this table: per Section 9.20.040, director of planning commission to determine whether use is permitted Notes: 1 Other than convenience stores. Items sold may include clothing, groceries, meat, drugs, jewelry, sundries, office supplies, pets, furniture, appliances, hardware, building materials (except lumber yards), and similar retail items. 2 With no consumption of alcohol on the premises. 3 If part of a mixed -use project per Section 9.80.020 or 9.80.030. 4 Subject to Section 9.30.070 (RH, High Density Residential District) for density, 9.60.270. 5 Subject to Section 9.100.120, Outdoor storage and display. 6 Mini -storage warehousing operating on December 17, 2008 (the effective date of -the ordinance codified in this section), are considered legal, conforming land uses._Existing facilities may be reconstructed if damaged, and may be modified or expanded within the boundaries of the lot on which they occur as of December 17, 2008 with approval of a site development permit. Any modification or expansion shall conform to the development standards for the commercial park zoning district contained in Chapter 9.90, Nonresidential Development Standards. 7 Property must also be located within the SOB (sexually oriented business) overlay district. (Ord. 492 § 1, 2011; Ord. 480 § 1, 2010; Ord. 472 § 1, 2009; Ord. 471 § 2, 2009; Ord. 466 § 1, 2009; Ord. 449 § 1, 2007; Ord. 429 § 1, 2006: Ord. 414 § 1, 2005; Ord. 397 § 1 (Exh. A), 2004; Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 307 § 1, 1997; Ord. 299 § 1, 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) Chapter 9.110 SPECIAL PURPOSE, DISTRICTS Chapter 9.120 SPECIAL PURPOSE PERMITTED USES 25 Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 10 pt, Don't add space between paragraphs of the same style Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal 9.120.010 Development permits required. Table 9-8 of this chapter specifies whether a use or structure is permitted within a zoning district. However, in most cases development to establish a land use requires approval of a site development permit and/or other permits as set forth in Chapter 9.210. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 9.120.020 Table of permitted uses. Table 9-8, Permitted Uses in Special Purpose Districts, following, specifies those uses and structures which are permitted within each special purpose district. The letters in the columns beneath the district designations mean the following: 1. "P": Permitted as a principal use within the district. 2. "A": Permitted only if accessory to the principal use on the site. 3. "C": Permitted as a principal or accessory use if a conditional use permit is approved. 4. "T": Permitted on a temporary basis if a temporary use permit is approved. 5. "X": Prohibited in the district. P = Permitted use 2 = Accessory use d f0 L C = Conditional m m o C0 O use permit c n M 0 (Am = 0 = Temporary use R % oo y a d >+ �' coo permit Y� ,�? c c y N C 3 c m 'y = Prohibited use d o c o = o> 0 M a � o a.W 0 0 U- x00 cnm w Qx Land Use JPR GC OS FP HC' SOB* EOD* AHO* Open space Public parks, lakes �P ** ** i and passive recreation facilities Playfields, lighted or P ** unlighted, Bicycle, equestrian P and hiking trails 26 Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Table Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted IFormatted Formatted F. Formatted Formatted 71 Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted = Permitted use >a 2 T = Accessory use — m = Conditional d o 1 > O se permit -o c 0 0 = Temporary use 'm o � a d T mtM srmit N V _ 'a °o y = Prohibited use m 42 o a. o > 0 = a r- oo dQ' 0 O LL 2U0 fnm W Q2 ;s and ms. IC-1 A I C I C I C for centers. bhouses and imunity I P. I A I X I X I X I X Tennis clubs or ;omplexes, private, 3olf courses and ;ountry clubs, ncluding C„ ;lubhouses and )ther customary accessory uses 3olf courses vithout above- 3round structures, C ncluding fairways, 3reens, tees and gns, subject to ha ter 9.160 races and walls, abject to Section 100.030 atellite dish and A A AI A A `. 27 tFormatted Formatted Table Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted * Formatted Formatted Formatted * Formatted Formatted Formatted _ Formatted Formatted Formatted * Formatted A Formatted Formatted 71 Formatted A Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted * Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted ', Formatted P = Permitted use �a T = Accessory use c — m C = Conditional d d c> O use permit = Temporary use o o R 'm o c a ;� d 0 2' 0 m permit Y w Cn = O >a a y= V; n ayi ` .W = Prohibited use an d —0 a. O = o> N a � oo dW 0 O LL 200 !nm W Qx i other antennas, J1' subject to Section 9.100.070 Temporary outdoor T� T T T T ** events, subject to �T Section 9.100.040 Commercial Filming, subject to T T T T T T T T Section 9.210.050 Single-family C C' ** residential Multifamily ** residential, commercial (except sexually oriented ** businesses), office or industrial develo ment Sexually oriented businesses, subject X, C ** o Section -- 9.140.050 Communication towers and equipment C C C C' C ** (freestanding, new AC towers) subject to Chapter 9.170 Communication towers and equipment (co - location, mounted to M ** existing facility) subject to Chapter 9.170 Electrical , ** substations 28 Formatted Formatted Table Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted P = Permitted use > T = Accessory use c C = Conditional d c L> O use permit o o _ O O = Temporary use m '� o 0) a m >• , 0 m e permit Y i w c N ti 3 N 0 = Prohibited use `m 0 o o. o y o > 0 = a o' aW 0 O LL Too vim w Qx P P P ' ** ater wells and pumpingstations X.- M � `* Water tanks and reservoirs Public flood control P facilities and devices Medical marimuana X X X X X X— X — X dis ensaries Uther principal, accessory or temporary uses not listed above (Ord. 492 § 1, 2011; Ord. 299 § 1, 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 29 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0.01" Formatted Table Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, Not Bold, Not Italic J Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted Formatted LJ Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal Formatted: Right: 0.01" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Chapter 9.200 GENERAL PERMITTING PROCEDURES 9.200.010 Development review process. Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same A. Purpose. Chapters 9.200 through 9.260 set forth the procedures for style processing development review applications and the criteria and conditions necessary so that an appropriate decision may be made by the city on each such application. B. Applicable State Law. It is intended that the provisions of this chapter shall be consistent and in full compliance with Section 65920 et seq., and other applicable sections of the State Government Code and that such provisions shall be so construed. C. Persons Who May File Applications. An application for a permit or other action under Chapters 9.200 through 9.260 may be submitted only by a property owner of the subject property, by an agent with notarized written authorization from the property owner, or by a public agency. D. Application Filing. Applications shall be filed with the planning department on forms prescribed by the director, together with: (1) all maps, plans, documents and other materials required by the director, and (2) all required fees per Chapter 9.260. The director shall provide the necessary forms plus written filing instructions specifying all materials and fees required to any requesting person at no charge. E. Legal Actions. Any action or proceeding to challenge, attack, review, set aside, void or annul any discretionary action described in this chapter shall be governed by the applicable provisions of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65000 et seq.). (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) A Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial 4 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Indent: Left: 0", Space between After: 0 pt, Add space paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing: single 9.200.020 Authority. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Normal, Don't add space between A. Decision -Making Authority. Table 9-23, following, specifies the decision- paragraphs of the same style, No bullets or making authority for each of the various actions described in this code. An numbering "A," "PH" or "CC" means that the official or body at the top of the column Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0.25", Space Before: 0 pt, After: 10 pt, Add space between has decision -making authority for the application. An "A" means that the paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing: application is reviewed administratively without a public hearing. A "PH" Multiple 1.15 li means that a public hearing is required before action is taken. An "R(PH)" Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same means that the planning commission is responsible for holding a public style hearing and forwarding a recommendation to the city council. A "CC" means that the city council is responsible for considering the site development permit as a consent calendar item. 30 Table 9-23 Discretionary Review Authority PH = Decision -making body (public hearing required) R(PH) = Recommending body (public hearing required) A = Administrative review by director (no public hearing) CC = Decision -making body (City Council as consent calendar item Type of Application Decision -Making Authority Staff Planning Commission City Council General plan amendment R(PH) PH Zoning code amendment R(PH) PH Zone change R(PH) PH Specific plan R(PH) PH Development agreement R PH PH Variance PH Conditional use permit PH Site development permit*** (not within scope A PH Site development LQQMG permit —(;per Minor use permit A* Minor adjustment A* Temporary use permit A* Home occupation permit Sin permit A* Sign program A* P44 Subdivisions Per city subdivision code Environmental review Per city environmental review procedures * By planning director, * By director of building and safety ***Subject to the provisions of 9.210.010, ** ****Also see Title 13, Subdivisions, B. Administrative Action. Actions to be taken administratively per Table 9-23 preceding, are those which are relatively minor in nature and with relatively little potential for adverse impacts on the surrounding community or the environment. A public hearing or public notification is not required for administrative actions, although the director may notify residents or property owners near the subject property if the director determines on a case -by -case basis that the public interest would be served by such notification. C. Public Hearings. Public hearings shall be noticed and held in accordance with Section 9.200.110 for those applications shown in Table 9-23 as requiring a hearing. (Ord. 425 § 1, 2006: Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 31 Formatted Table r ment [n3]: Should SDPs be an inistrative process, with staff approval? (See ussion under 9.210.010. Comment [n4]: May be deleted if Home Occ. Moved to Title 11. Formatted: Font: (Default) Mal, 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, 10 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, 10 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Don't keep lines together, Tab stops: Not at 0.75" Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic 9.200.030 Combined applications. At the discretion of the director, applications for different types of actions may be combined and processed concurrently on GRe app"GatoG, with eRe foe deposit so long as all applicable processing requirements and all required findings are satisfied. The following rules shall apply to such combined applications: A. When an application requiring a public hearing is combined with one not requiring a public hearing, the combined application shall require a public hearing. B. The final decision on the combined application shall be made by the highest applicable decision -making authority pursuant to Table 9-23 preceding. For example, the decision on an application combining a zone change and a conditional use permit shall be made by the city council. C. The applicable fee(s) shall be collected in accordance with Chapter 9.260. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.200.040 General permit provisions. A. Applicability of Permits to Property. All rights granted by the approval of a development review permit remain with the affected property and all entitlements, conditions and requirements of a discretionary permit are passed on to the new property owner when there is a change of ownership. B. Enforceability of Permit Provisions. All conditions, requirements and standards specified either in writing or graphically as part of any approval granted by authority of this chapter shall have the same force and effect as this zoning code. Any land use or development established as a result of an approval which is not in compliance with all such conditions, requirements or standards shall be in violation of this chapter, and the enforcement provisions of the municipal code shall be applicable. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.200.050 Permit applications. A. Acceptance of Applications as Complete. Within thirty days of receipt of a permit application, the director shall determine whether the application is complete and shall transmit such determination to the applicant. If the application is determined not to be complete, the director shall specify in writing those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which they can be made complete. B. Preparation of Environmental Documents. When it is determined that an environmental impact report or a negative declaration is required for a proposal, the application for that proposal shall not be deemed complete until the applicant has deposited with the planning department sufficient funds to pay for the cost of completion of the environmental impact report 32 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style or negative declaration. The director shall determine the amount of funds required to be deposited for the preparation of an environmental impact report or negative declaration and shall advise the applicant of that amount within ten days after the application is filed. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.200.060 Action by decision -making authority. A. Possible Actions. The decision -making authority may take one of the following actions on each application: 1. Approval. Simple approval of an application means that no conditions or requirements other than those specified by the application are imposed. After the action's effective date defined in subsection C of this section and after approval of any required plan revisions per subsection D of this section, the proposed land use or development may be established in compliance with all applicable regulations and the approved project plans and specifications. 2. GGRdit+aealApproval with Conditions. Any application may be approved subject to compliance with conditions. Conditions may require dedication of land, installation of improvements, the posting of financial security to guarantee performance, design modifications or other conditions necessary to achieve the objectives of the general plan and this zoning code. After the action's effective date as defined in subsection C of this section and after approval of any required plan revisions per subsection D of this section, the proposed land use or development may be established in compliance with all applicable regulations, the approved project plans and specifications, and the requirements of the conditions of approval. 3. Denial. When a conditional use permit or site development permit application has been denied, an application for the same or a similar use on the same property shall not thereafter be accepted for a period of one year from the date of final determination, except that the decision -making authority may specify that this time limitation shall not apply. This time limitation on resubmittal of applications is not applicable to other discretionary permits. 4. Withdrawal. With the concurrence of or at the request of the applicant, any application may be withdrawn. When an application is withdrawn, such action is effective immediately and is not subject to appeal. Thereafter, such application shall be null and void and the property shall have the same status as if no application had been filed. B. Action in Writing. The decision on each application, including any required findings and any other reasons that serve to explain the determination plus all conditions of approval shall be in writing. A copy of the written determination shall be forwarded to the applicant following the date of final determination and shall be made available at cost to any person requesting such a copy. 33 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style C. Effective Date. The determination of the decision -making authority by Resolution shall be effective fifteen calendar days after the da+mot"� deGesien ismade and after all appeals Of any, have been aGte l en pe Section 9.200.120immediately unless appealed. Ordinances shall be effective 30 days after second reading. D. Tie Votes. 1. Development Review Applications. If action on a development review application results in a tie vote by the decision -making authority, such vote shall constitute a lost motion. 2. Appeals. When all members of a decision -making authority are present, a tie vote on whether to grant an appeal shall be considered a denial of the appeal. The original action shall then stand unless the decision - making authority takes other action to further consider the matter. If a tie vote occurs when less than all members of the decision -making authority are present, the matter shall automatically be continued to the next regular meeting unless otherwise ordered by the decision -making authority. E. Use of More Restrictive Standards. In conjunction with approval of a development review permit, the decision -making authority may impose more restrictive site development standards than set forth in this code in order to make the required findings for each type of permit as specified in Chapter 9.210. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.200.070 Time limits on processing applications. A. Development review applications shall be processed within the time limits specified in Chapter 4.5 of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65920 et seq.). Time periods specified in Section 9.200.120 regarding actions on appeals shall be in addition to the preceding Government Code time limits. B. Incomplete Application Sunset Provisions. All applications which remain incomplete aPA—or inactive for a minimum six-month period shall have a written thirty -day warning notification forwarded to the applicant by means of certified mail or similar method. If no action is taken by the applicant regarding the application within thirty days thereafter, the application shall automatically be withdrawn and closed. (Ord. 466 § 1, 2009; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.200.080 Permit expiration and time extensions. A. Period of Validity. The period of validity for a development review permit shall begin on the permit's effective date as set forth in Section 9.200.060. The period of validity shall run pursuant to subsection C of this section. B. Establishment. A development review permit shall be deemed established if the following actions occur within twenty-four months of the effective date 34 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style of the approval or within such other time period designated by the approval: 1. In the case of a development review permit where ministerial permits are required, such permits have been issued. 2. In the case of a development review permit where no ministerial permits are required, the use authorized by the permit has been established. In circumstances where a certificate of occupancy is required, such certificate has been issued. C. Expiration. A development review permit shall expire and be of no further force or effect if: 1. The permit is not established within twenty-four months of the permits effective date or such other time period designated by the permit approval, by state law or by this code; or 2. After establishment, the use or activity for which the permit was approved is discontinued or abandoned for a period of one year. D. Time Extensions. 1. Upon application before expiration of the period of validity, the original decision -making authority may grant an extension to the period of validity for up to two years if it finds that such an extension is justified by the circumstances of the project. The filing of an application for extension shall stay expiration of the permit until action is taken on the time extension by the decision -making authority unless the application has been deemed incomplete and inactive pursuant to Section 9.200.070(B). Development Review Permits can be extended no more than twir.P 2. Projects not requiring a time extension may be constructed in accordance with the requirements and standards in effect at the time of permit approval provided the construction complies with all project conditions of approval and all laws in effect at the time of the permit approval. However, any project or permit requiring a time extension shall conform to the requirements and standards in effect at the time the extension is granted. (Ord. 489 § 1, 2011; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) E. Amendments to development review permits. A-1. Content of Amendments. Permit amendments are required for - substantial revisions to conditions of approval, alterations to approved plans which are more substantial than the modifications provided for in Section 9.200.090 new or additional land uses, or similar major chanaes. 9-.2. Procedures. A development review permit may be amended any number of times by the approval of a subsequent application. All permit amendments shall be for the same parcel or property for which a development review permit was previously approved. Amendments shall be filed prior to the expiration of the previously approved permit in compliance with the same filing procedures and payment of the fee 35 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" required for an amendment. Amendments shall be processed in the same manner as an original application. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A), 1998: Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A). 1996) 9.200.090 Modifications by applicant. A. Plan Modifications by Applicant. Site development permit and Village permit plans modified at the initiative of the applicant from those approved by the decision -making authority may be submitted to the director. B. Procedures. If the director determines that the proposed plan modification is minor, will not result in a significant change in the project approved by the decision -making authority, and complies with the spirit and intent of the original approving action, the director may approve the modified plan without further compliance with this section. If the director determines that the plan modification may result in a significant change in the project, the director shall refer the change to the original decision -making authority. C. Criteria. Modifications by applicant shall permit minor changes to an existing or approved site development permit er Village use permi+ The following criteria constitute minor changes that shall be deemed eligible for modification by applicant consideration: 1. Increases in building square footage not to exceed ten percent from the original approval that have been determined to not result in a significant architectural, aesthetic, or visual impact to the existing project and require additional parking; 2. Changes, additions, or adjustments to windows, window locations, or window treatments; 3. Changes, substitutions, or adjustments to building materials, roofing materials, screening materials, lighting fixtures, or paving; 4. Changes, additions, or substitutions to existing approved landscaping, 0n,'Yd;ng the r al of W-4 . victor fo-afi r site or grading plans; 5. Minor adjustments, substitutions, or additions to architectural features such as pilasters, canopies, trellises, shade structures, overhangs, eaves, parapets, cornices, or portions of roof structures that do not result in a significant effect on the overall aesthetic or architectural style of the building; 6_Changes, substitutions, or adjustments to the approved color palette or material colors. 6-7. Changes in residential model design. D. Ineligibility. Modifications by applicant which have been determined by the planning director, planning commission, or city council to exceed these standards or constitute a significant change shall require application and approval of an amended site development permit er amended Village use - permit. (Ord. 466 § 1, 2009; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 36 9.200.110 Public hearings. Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Right: 0", Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, No bullets or numbering A. Applicable State Law. Public hearings required for development review actions shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section. It is intended that the provisions of this section shall be fully consistent and in full compliance with Section 65090 et seq., of the State Government Code and that such provisions shall be so construed. B. Failure to Receive Notice. Pursuant to State Government Code Section 65093, the failure of any person to receive notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the decision -making authority. C. Conduct of Hearings. Public hearings shall be noticed in accordance with subsection D of this section and then held by the decision -making authority prior to action on the relevant application. At the public hearing, the decision -making authority may take action on the application, continue the application to a specified date, or take the application under submission. An application taken under submission may later be taken out of submission for the purpose of taking action on the application without scheduling a new public hearing provided no additional testimony is heard and no further evidence is presented. Further testimony may be heard and further evidence may be presented regarding an application taken under submission only if a new public hearing is held in compliance with this section. D. Noticing Requirements. Not less than ten days prior to hearing. The city shall: 1. Mail or deliver a public notice, which includes the date, time and place of the hearing, the application number, the applicants name, the 37 location of the property affected, and a description of the land use, development or other action proposed, to: a. The owner of the subject real property, b. The owners authorized agent, if any, c. The project applicant, d. Each local agency expected to provide water, sewage, street, roads, schools or other essential facilities or services to the project, e. All owners of real property as shown on the last equalized assessment roll within five hundred feet of the subject real property. If the number of owners to whom notice would be mailed is greater than one thousand, the city may instead place a display advertisement of at least one -eighth page in a newspaper of general circulation; and 2. Publish a legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation or post a notice at two public places in the city and one place at the subject site. E. Additional Notice. The planning director may require that additional notice be given by enlarging the notification radius or by other means determined by the director. F. Other Notice. The city shall also provide any other notice required by law. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 299 § 1, 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.200.120 Appeals. A. —Appealable Decisions. Any development review action by the director may be appealed to the planning commission and any development review action by the planning commission may be appealed to the city council in compliance with the provisions of this section. nlonn!R- GOMMISSIOR shall- the Gity G nil shall G notit Ute the board of appeals for deeioir-r,e y bthe GB. Persons Who May Appeal. Any interested person may appeal a decision of the director or the planning commission regarding the action taken on a development review permit application for a development project upon submittal of the required documents and information and the payment of the required fee. GC. Call -Up Review. The board of appeals (either the planning commission or city council), on its own motion adopted by a majority vote of its total membership, may elect to call up and review any decision of the director or the planning commission regarding the action taken on a development review permit application. The pRlanninq cGommission's or cGity cGouncil's' call-up review shall be processed in accordance with s bSeGtie., C of this section and m , he a e.J at a y time prier to the expiratiOR of fifteen days from the .Jute O .,hieh the d is i n e 38 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, 12 pt, Font color: Black Formatted: Right: 0.01", Keep with next E-. D. Appeal Procedures. 1. Time Limits for Filing Appeals. a. All appeals, except call-up reviews pursuant to Subdivision C,� shall be filed with the director within fifteen calendar days of the date on which the decision being appealed was rendered. If the fifteenth day is a nonworking day for the city, the appeal period shall be extended to include the next city working day. No appeal shall be accepted after the appeal period has expired. fib. A request for call-up review pursuant to Subdivision C shall be - initiated by a member of a board of appeals (either the planning commission or city council) delivering written request for call-up review to the city manager or his/her designee within fifteen calendar days of the date on which the decision of the director or the planning commission (as applicable) was rendered. Upon timely receipt of the request for call-up review, the city manager or his/her designee shall schedule as an agenda item at the next regular meeting of the board of appeals, on which the member calling up review is seated, the question whether an appeal shall be considered for the decision subject to Gall- up review. If the next regular meeting of the board of appeals is cancelled, the city manager or his/her designee shall reschedule the question whether an appeal shall be considered at the next regular meeting that is not cancelled. No appeal may be heard on a decision subject to call-up review unless a majority of the membership of the board of appeals votes to approve the consideration of the appeal. The board of appeals shall consider the appeal that was subject to call-up review not later than forty-five days after the board of appeals votes to approve consideration of the appeal. An appeal may be heard and decided at the same meeting at which the majority of the membership voted to approve the call-up review, provided no applicable law would be violated if the hearing of an appeal occurs at the same meeting. A member of the city council may initiate the call-up review process for a director's decision on a development review permit, without the need for review of that decision by the planning commission, in which case an appeal of the decision subject to call-up review may be considered directly by the city council if a majority of the membership of the city council vote to approve the consideration of the appeal pursuant to this section. 2. Required Documents. Each appeal, except for call-up reviews i�+tiaed by a board of appeals on its own moti , shall be in writing and shall include all grounds for the appeal and sufficient information so as to make it clear to the board ef appealsplanning cSommission or cSity cSouncil the substance of each of the grounds for appeal. The director may require that the written appeal be accompanied by such other documents and information that the director determines to be necessary to adequately explain and provide proper notification for the 39 Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", First line: 0", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" appeal. No appeal shall be accepted if it fails to contain the grounds for the appeal and the description of the grounds. 3. Forwarding of Records. When an appeal has been received, the director shall forward to the board of appeals p�lanning cSommission or cGity cGouncil -all documents and information on file pertinent to the appeal together with the minutes or official action of the decision - making authority and a report on the basis of the decision. 4. Public Hearing Requirements. If the original approving action did not require a public hearing, the appeal review shall not require a public hearing. If the original approving action required a public hearing, the appeal review shall also require a public hearing. Notice and scheduling requirements for an appeal hearing shall be the same as those for an original hearing as described in Section 9.200.110. 5. Issues to be Considered. The beard ef appe pRlanninq cGommission or cGity cGouncil-may refuse to consider any issues which were not raised by the appellant or another person either by verbal testimony or written correspondence made at or before the time the decision -making authority took action. When reviewing a decision -making authority's decision via its own call-up review, the pRianninq cGommission or cGity cGouncil beard ef app may raise and consider any issue it deems appropriate to the project application. 6. Action on Appeal. Not later than forty-five days after an appeal has been received and accepted by the director, the pP-lanninq cGommission or cGity cGouncil beard of appeals shall consider the appeal and take one of the following actions: a. Take action to sustain, reverse or modify the original decision. If an original decision to approve a project is modified, the pRianning cGommission or cGity cGouncilboard of appeals may modify permitted land uses, place additional or different conditions of approval on the project, direct that revisions be made to project plans, or require other project modifications. b. Continue the appeal for further consideration. c. Refer the application back to the original decision -making authority with directions. 4-.7. Majority Vote. Action by the pPlanning cGommission or cGity cGouncil-- beard of appeals to reverse or modify an appealed decision shall require a majority vote of appeal board members present. If there is a tie vote, the original decision shall stand. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.200.130 Permit revocation. A. Grounds for Revocation. Any development review permit may be revoked by the decision -making authority or the city council pursuant to the provisions of this section on any of the following grounds: 1. Such approval was based on inaccurate or misleading information. 40 Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style 2. One or more of the conditions upon which such approval was granted or extended have been violated. 3. A change in conditions occurring after the original grant of the approval or the continuation of the use as approved is contrary to public health, safety or general welfare, or is detrimental or incompatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity. 4. The findings which were the basis for the original permit approval can no longer be made. 5. Other grounds as set forth elsewhere in this code such as, but not limited to, those for sexually oriented businesses. B. Procedure. Prior to any action on revocation, the decision -making authority shall hold a public hearing noticed and held in accordance with Section 9.200.110, except that the permittee shall be given not less than fifteen days' notice. The notice shall state the causes for which the revocation is to be considered. C. Action of Decision -Making Authority. Following the hearing, the decision - making authority may revoke the permit or revoke the permit subject to reinstatement upon compliance with the conditions of the original permit. D. Amortization. If a revocation of any permit is ordered, the decision -making authority may at the same time provide for a reasonable period of time to amortize any lawful existing uses on the site. Extensions of this time period may be granted for good cause shown on later application to the decision - making authority by any affected person. E. Appeal. Any action by the decision -making authority pursuant to this section may be appealed as set forth in Section 9.200.120. F. New Decision -Making Authority. If the decision -making authority which granted a permit is no longer in existence or no longer issues such permits, the authority which would issue such permit at the time revocation is to be considered shall be the decision -making authority as that term is used in this section. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) Chapter 9.210 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMITS 9.210.010 A"Site Development Permits. A. Terminology. For purposes of this code, site, architectural, lighting and - preliminary landscape plans, related development plans, and sign programs are included within the term site development permit. B. Purpose. The purpose of a site development permit is to ensure that the development and design standards of this zoning code, including, but not limited to, permitted uses, development standards and supplemental regulations are satisfied. The site development permit process provides a means of achieving this purpose through city review of detailed plans for proposed development projects. Therefore, all development authorized under a site development permit and anv land uses associated with the 41 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.75" development shall be in comDliance with the plans. specifications and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the approved permit.. C. Applicability. A site development permit is required for all projects which involve building construction except the following: 1. Individual single-family houses and alterations to single-family houses or associated accessory structures, unless a site development permit is otherwise required by an applicable provision of this code or permit condition of approval. 2. Temporary uses (requires temporary use permit per Section 9.210.050). D. Decision -Making Authority. Site development permits shall be processed - as follows: 1 Allpermits shall PFOGessed by the Planning nnmmiooiOn per th'c ce�.The Director shall be the Decision Making Authority for the following protects: a. New office or commercial buildings no more than 10,000 square feet that are not part of an approved master commercial development or Specific Plan. b. New building construction or remodeling (single and multiple family residential, office, commercial and/or institutional) and landscape plans within an approved Specific Plan. c. New buildings on vacant pads within an approved commercial development. d. New single family models and landscaping plans in an approved tentative tract map. Vie. 2. The Planning Commission shall be the Decision Making Authority for the following projects: a. New office or commercial buildings of more than 10,000 square feet that are not part of an approved master commercial development or Specific Plan. b. New multi -family buildings and landscaping no part of an approved Specific Plan. c. New Mixed Use buildings and landscaping plans. 42 Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, 12 pt, Font color: Black Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.75" Formatted: Indent: Left: 1" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt, Font color: Black Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.75", No bullets or numbering ealenrdar, er she ld the Planning Gerpm'scien'c ae+'n not he approved as a consent calendar item the permit shell be noticed for public hearing hefere the City Ge eil City Ce inoi"S review of the 'tern shall fully eensirder the a pliea+ien E. Precise Development -Plan. Upon approval a site development nermi - senstitWt8s—awes+se de"el anent nla . Therefore, all de„el enauthorized under a site development permit and any land uses associated with rde + ell he I' '+h t# land s GifiGa+ions �,-r- the r�enr ��cen�ce�r- the r and GenditieRS Gf a ,al she OR and/er attached +e the a ,ed Permit. F. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the decision - making authority prior to the approval of any site development permit: -1-.2. Consistency with General Plan. The project is consistent with the general plan. 2-.3. Consistency with Zoning Code. The project is consistent with the provisions of this zoning code. -3-.4. Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4-.5. Architectural Design. The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style and other architectural elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. �6. Site Design. The site design of the project, including, but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. b-7. Landscape Design. Project landscaping, including, but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. 7 Sign Prggrarno Per SeGtien 9.160.090 (Sign p .nit r W) ender to planned sign program the rleeision_makiR authority m s+ finrd that: fondcr-n-ruy a. The —sign �pregrar'mn is Gensisten+ with the purpose and iRten of Chapter 9.160 (Signs); b. The sign program is inn harmony with and visually related +e: 43 Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.75" i All signs within the planned sign pregram, via the in ra+ien of several remmon design elements sUGh as materials totter style eleFSy i illmina+ien n type shone � H. The Buildings They Identify. This may be aseeMplsshed—bp WtiliZiRggmaterials, 66IGF, eF desgTlTVoff 'fnfGluded-I-the building being identified, Surrounding Development Implementa+ien of the planned sign prenram will net adversely affes+ s ending land uses er ebSGUre adianent senfermin.. s G. Appeals. Appeals to decisions on -site development permits shall be - reviewed pursuant to Section 9.200.120. H. Expiration and Time Extensions. The period of validity for establishment or time extension of a site development permit is pne "ear frpm its effer.tiv e date as defined in 9est+car-9.280-060Tie—exteRsiens may be graetedshall be pursuant to Section 9.200.080.E I. Amendments. Amendments to site development permits shall be processed pursuant to Section 9.200.100. J. Staff Certification of Construction Documents. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the director shall certify that final construction documents conform to preliminary plans (schematic elevations, preliminary site and landscape plans, etc.) approved as part of the site development permit. (Ord. 425 § 1, 2006; Ord. 299 § 1, 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.210 020 Conditional use permits A. Purpose. The purpose of a conditional use permit or minor use permit is to provide for individual approval or denial of land uses requiring such permits under this code. Uses requiring these permits have potential for adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents or businesses. Therefore, when such uses are approved, conditions are placed on their establishment and operation to mitigate or eliminate such impacts. der purpeses of this seGtir,n the term LisePeFmit" insludes hpth r•pnditienal use and miner usepermite B. Definitions.,See Chapter 9.280. C. Applicability. A conditional use permit or a minor use permit is required for all land uses identified in this code as requiring such permits. D. Decision -Making Authority. Conditional use permits shall be reviewed by the planning commission in conjunction with a public hearing held pursuant to Section 9.200.110. Ma EW Use permits shall bePFocessed admipistra+iyel„ by the planning direr.ter p ant to Sep+ten 9.200. n7n E. Compliance with Permit. The establishment and operation of any land use authorized under a use permit and any development associated with the permit shall be in compliance with the approved permit and any plans, specifications and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the permit at all times. 44 Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.75" Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, Font color: Auto F. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the decision - making authority prior to the approval of either a conditional use permit or a ner --- norm•+• 1. Consistency with General Plan. The land use is consistent with the general plan. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The use is consistent with the provisions of this zoning code. 3. Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Surrounding Uses. Approval of the application will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. G. Appeals. Appeals to decisions on use permits shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 9.200.120. H. Expiration and Time Extensions. The period of validity for establishment or time extension of a site development permit shall be pursuant to Section 9.200.080.The decision akin authority m impose a tome limitation establ'shMe t of use, as defined OR SestiOR 9.200.080, and/or m establish an expiration date on the use permit •+self. Time extensions I. Amendments. Amendments to use permits shall be processed pursuant to Section 9.200A98080. J. The use permit may be modified or revoked by the city council, or planning commission, should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare, or materially injurious to property, or improvements in the vicinity, or if the property is operated or maintained, so as to constitute a public nuisance. (Ord. 489 § 1, 2011; Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.210 020 Minor use permits A. Purpose. The purpose of a minor use permit or minor use permit is to� provide for individual approval or denial of land uses requiring such permits under this code. B. Definitions. See Chapter 9.280. C. Applicability. A minor use permit is required for all land uses identified in this code as requiring such permits. D. Decision -Making Authority. Minor use permits shall be processed administratively by the Community Development Director pursuant to Section 9.200.020. E. Compliance with Permit. The establishment and operation of any land use authorized under a use permit and any development associated with the 45 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" permit shall be in compliance with the approved permit and any plans, specifications and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the permit at all times. F. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the decision - making authority prior to the approval of a minor use permit: 5. Consistency with General Plan. The land use is consistent with the general plan. 6. Consistency with Zoning Code. The use is consistent with the provisions of this zoning code. 7. Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 8. Surrounding Uses. Approval of the application will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. G. Appeals. Appeals to decisions on use permits shall be reviewed pursuant - to Section 9.200.120. K. Expiration and Time Extensions. The period of validity for establishment or time extension of a site development permit shall be pursuant to Section 9.200.080. H. Amendments. Amendments to use permits shall be processed pursuant to - Section 9.200.100. The use Dermit may be modified or revoked by the Citv Council. or Planning Commission, should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare, or materially injurious to property, or improvements in the vicinity, or if the property is operated or maintained, so as to constitute a public nuisance. (Ord. 489 1, 2011; Ord. 325 1 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.210.030 Variances. A. Purpose. The purpose of a variance Perrp-i' is to provide for deviations from applicable standards of this zoning code such as the development standards set forth in Chapter 9.50 and 9.90. Therefore, any development or other activity authorized under such a Dermit shall be in comDliance with the plans, specifications and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the approved permit, B. Applicability. A variance pe mit is required for any development which is not consistent with applicable site development standards or other regulations of this code and which is not eligible for consideration as a minor adjustment pursuant to Section 9.210.040. 46 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, 12 pt, Font color: Black Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, 12 pt, Font color: Black C. Decision -Making Authority. Variances shall be reviewed by the planning commission in conjunction with a public hearing held pursuant to Section 9.200.110. D. Conditions of Approval. If a variance is approved, conditions may be placed on the permit to mitigate or eliminate adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents or businesses. E. PFes+se Development Plan. I Inn approval, -PFMit eenst+tutes a res+se develepment plan. Therefore, any develepment e. ethe. aGtiV*ty authorized rl + shall be liars h the lone au�ze �„Qer su—�pe�r�;�����n esn,;�..u,Tee w+t�-p.�.,,T speGifina+inns and Gendi+inns of a ,al sheen n and/er a++ashed to the approved permit. €- E. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the decision -making authority prior to the approval of a variance permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The variance is consistent with the general plan. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The variance is consistent with the provisions of this zoning code. 3. Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the permit variance application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Surrounding Uses. Approval of the application will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. 5. Special Circumstances. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which, when the zoning regulations are strictly applied, deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning regulations. The special circumstances shall be specified in the adopted finding. 6. Preservation of Property Rights. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zoning district and otherwise denied to the subject property. 7. No Special Privileges. The variance's -perpAls-required conditions of approval assure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning regulations. 8. No Land Use Variance. The approval does not authorize a land use or activity which is not permitted in the applicable zoning district. L. Expiration and Time Extensions. The period of validity for establishment or time extension of a site development permit shall be pursuant to Section 9.200.080. 47 G. The deGiSiGR rnakiRg aa+therity may impese a time —i*ri+ on establishment -v the variance hermit, as defined in Section9.200.080. Time exteRS'eRS may ben anted pursuant to SeGtien 9.200.080. K.F. Amendments. Amendments to variance permits shall be processed pursuant to Section 9.200.400080 4-.G. Staff Certification of Construction Documents. If development is provided for under the variance it, prior to issuance of a building permit the director shall certify that final construction documents conform to preliminary plans (schematic elevations, preliminary site and landscape plans, etc.) approved as part of the variance. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.210.040 Minor adjustments. A. Purpose. The purpose of a minor adjustment permit is to provide for minor deviations from certain specific development standards set forth in this code. B. Definition. See Chapter 9.280. C. Applicability. A minor adjustment permit may be approved only for deviations of up to ten percent of a numerical development standard (for example, a reduction of one foot from a ten -foot setback requirement) for an approved or proposed map; approved or proposed development permit review; single family home building permiter fer deviations speGifi^ ;._on+ifio.+ in this ,ode. Other deviations shall require consideration of a variance pursuant to Section 9.210.030. Only one setba-kUp to three adjustments per lot shall be allowed. Example aR „+i„S+..,on+ of the fr.,nand rear yard Shall Rot be appreved. D. Decision -Making Authority. Minor adjustments shall be reviewed administratively by the director pursuant to Section 9.200.020 unless combined with another application which requires discretionary review by the planning commission or city council pursuant to Section 9.200.030 and 9.200.090.B. E. Conditions of Approval. If a minor adjustment is approved, conditions may be placed on the permit to mitigate or eliminate adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents or businesses. F. Precise Devekepment PlaR. Upen appreval, a miner adjustment perr it eenst+tutes—arise dev=elepm ent plaR. Therefere—aA_ny development authorized under such a permit shall be in compliance with the plans, specifications and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the approved permit. G. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the decision - making authority prior to the approval of any minor adjustment permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The project is consistent with the general plan. 48 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The project is consistent with the provisions of this zoning code. 3. Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Surrounding Uses. Approval of the application will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. H. Appeals. Appeals to decisions on minor adjustments shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 9.200.120. I. Expiration and Time Extensions. The decision_ making authority may impose a time llmltatlnn OR establishment of the, MiRer adj Uo+ment n mi+ as defined in S8Gtien 9.200.080. Time extensiens may he granted pursuant te .The minor adjustment will expire at the same time as the primary building or planning permit. J. Amendments to Minor Adjustment Permits. Amendments to minor adjustments shall be processed pursuant to Section 9.200.100. K. Staff Certification of Construction Documents. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the director shall certify that final construction documents conform to preliminary plans (schematic elevations, preliminary site and landscape plans, etc.) approved as part of the adjustment. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A), 1998; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.210.050 Temporary use permits. A. Purpose. The purpose of a temporary use permit is to regulate certain temporary land uses and activities to ensure that adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents and businesses are minimized, that the time limitations for temporary uses are specified and complied with, and that the site of the temporary use is restored to its condition prior to establishment. B. Applicability. A temporary use permit is required for temporary uses permitted under this code. C. Decision -Making Authority. Temporary use permits shall be reviewed administratively by the director pursuant to Section 9.200.020. D. Conditions of Approval. If a temporary use is approved, conditions may be placed on the permit to mitigate or eliminate adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents or businesses. E. PFes+se Development PlaR. UPa; aPpFeval, a temporary use pe mit eenstitetes aPFec+se develOpMent plaR. Therefor�aAny use or development authorized under such a permit shall be in compliance with the plans, specifications and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the approved permit. 49 Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt, Font color: Black Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0.01" Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style F. Required Findings. Findings required for approval of a temporary use permit shall be deemed to have been made if the director determines that the standards set forth for such temporary uses in the applicable section of this code have been satisfied. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.210.060 Home occupation permits. A. Purpose. The purpose of a home occupation permit is to regulate certain incidental and accessory home enterprises in residential neighborhoods under conditions that will ensure their compatibility with the neighborhood. Regulations for home occupations are set forth in Section 9.60.110. B. Applicability. A home occupation permit is required for home occupations conducted within a residence which are accessory to the main residential use of the dwelling and which are permitted pursuant to Section 9.60.110. C. Decision -Making Authority. Home occupation permits shall be reviewed administratively by the director of building and safety pursuant to Section 9.60.110. D. Conditions of Approval. If a home occupation is approved, conditions may be placed on the permit to mitigate or eliminate adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents or businesses. E. Compliance with Permit. Any use or activity authorized under a home occupation permit shall be in compliance with the specifications and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the approved permit. Failure to comply with such specifications and conditions of approval may result in revocation of the permit. F. Required Findings. Findings required for approval of a home occupation permit shall be deemed to have been made if the director of building and safety determines that the standards set forth in Section 9.60.110 for home occupations have been or will be satisfied. These standards consist of the following: 4G. The establishment and conduct of a home occupation shall be an - incidental and accessory use and shall not change the principal character or use of the dwelling unit involved. 2-.H. Only residents of the dwelling unit may be engaged in the home occupation. 3I.A home occupation shall be conducted only within the enclosed living area of the dwelling unit or within the garage provided no garage space required for off-street parking is used. The home occupation shall not occupy more than twenty-five percent of the combined floor area of the house and garage. 4J. A home occupation shall not be conducted within a detached accessory structure, although materials may be stored in such a structure. -5K. There shall be no signs, outdoor storage, parked vehicles or other exterior evidence of the conduct of the home occupation. Neither the dwelling nor the lot shall be altered in appearance so that it appears other 50 Comment [n5]: May move to Title 11. Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" than a residence, either by color, materials, construction, lighting, sounds, vibrations or other characteristics. 6-1. Electrical or mechanical equipment which creates interference in radio, television or telephone receivers or causes fluctuations in line voltage outside the dwelling unit shall be prohibited. TM. The home occupation shall not create dust, noise or odors in excess of that normally associated with residential use. 8 N. No sales activity shall be conducted from the dwelling except for mail order sales. The dwelling unit shall not be the point of customer pickup or delivery of products or services, nor shall a home occupation create greater vehicular or pedestrian traffic than normal for the district in which it is located. 9.0. Medical, dental or similar occupations in which patients are seen in the home are prohibited. 40-.P. All conditions attached to the home occupation permit shall be fully complied with at all times. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) Chapter 9.220 ZONE MAP CHANGES AND CODE AMENDMENTS 9.220.010 Zone map changes and prezoning. A. Purpose. A zone map change is a develepment review action by the city council to change the zone designation of a property or properties on the official zoning map. A prezoning is the zoning of property outside the city's boundaries in anticipation of annexation into the city. For purposes of this code, prezonings are included within the term "zone change." B. Applicable State Law. It is intended that the provisions of this section shall be fully consistent and in full compliance with Section 65853 et seq., of the State Government Code and that such provisions shall be so construed. C. Who May Apply. 1. The owner of the property or by the owners agent (with written notarized authorization from the owner); 2. The city council by a majority vote; 3. The planning commission by a majority vote; or 4. The planning director. D. Review Procedures. 1. Zone changes shall be approved, approved with modifications or denied by ordinance of the city council after receipt of testimony at a public hearing held pursuant to Section 9.200.110. 51 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style 2. Prior to city council review, the planning commission shall hold a public hearing, review the application, and forward a recommendation to the council. 3. If the council contemplates a modification to the application not previously considered by the planning commission, the proposed modification may be referred to the planning commission for report back to council. A public hearing shall not be required for such planning commission review. E. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the city council prior to approval of any zone map change: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The zone map change is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the general plan. 2. Public Welfare. Approval of the zone map change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. 3. Land Use Compatibility. The new zoning is compatible with the zoning on adjacent properties. 4. Property Suitability. The new zoning is suitable and appropriate for the subject property. 5. Change in Circumstances. Approval of the zone map change is warranted because the situation and the general conditions of the property have substantially changed since the existing zoning was imposed. (Ord. 367 § 1 (Exh. A), 2002; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 9.220.020 Zoning code text amendments. A. Purpose. A zoning code text amendment is a development review action by the city council to change the text and/or graphics within this zoning code. B. Applicable State Law. It is intended that the provisions of this section shall be fully consistent and in full compliance with Section 65853 et seq., of the State Government Code and that such provisions shall be so construed. C. Who May Apply. A code amendment may be initiated by: 1. The city council; 2. The planning commission by a majority vote; or 3. The planning director; 3-4. An interested party. D. Review Procedures. Cede Text amendments shall be reviewed under the same procedures as zone map changes as set forth in Section 9.220.010. E. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the city council prior to approval of any eede text amendment: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The code amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the general plan. 52 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style 2. Public Welfare. Approval of the code amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. (Ord. 367 § 1 (Exh. A), 2002; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) Chapter 9.230 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 9.230.010 Application and referral. A. Purpose. A general plan amendment is a discretionary legislative action by the city council to change the text of the general plan or any map or diagram of the general plan. B. Applicable State Law. It is intended that the provisions of this section shall be fully consistent and in full compliance with Section 65350 et seq., of the State Government Code and that such provisions shall be so construed. C. Who May Apply. 1. The owner of the property or by the owners agent (with written notarized authorization from the owner); 2. The city council by a majority vote; 3. The planning commission by a majority vote; or 4. The planning director. 4.5. An interested party. D. Referral of Proposed Amendments. Proposed general plan amendments shall be referred to the persons and agencies as specified in Section 65352 of the State Government Code. E. Frequency of General Plan Amendment. F1. General Plan elements specified as mandatory in the State Government Code may be amended pursuant to City Council Resolution 2000-77. Each amendment may include more than one change to the general plan. G—The limitation on frequency of amendments to the general plan set forth in subsection (E)(1) of this section does not apply to residential development projects with at least twenty-five percent of the dwelling units to be occupied by persons or families of low or moderate income. (Ord. 367 § 1 (Exh. A), 2002; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) 14-.2. �F.Review Procedures. 1 . General Plan elements sp ec+#i ed as mandatery in the State GOVernmen+ Code may he amended n an+ tG Git y r.eU RGil Resel6 lien 20000 77. EaGh a nrlmen+ m ORGlude mere than eRe nhanr.e to the general plan. 7. The limitation on frequenG y of a Rdmen+s to the general plan set forth L in subseet en(€)(1�) of this eGt' does Rot apply to residential deyelenmen+ n er•+s with at least twee+y_fiye n ent of the dwelli 4 units to he a ied by PeFSORS r families of low or moderate in (Ord. 367 § 1 (Exh. A), 2002; Ord. 284§1 (Exh. A), 1996) 53 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.56" + Indent at: 0.81" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt, Font color: Black 1. General plan amendments shall be approved, approved with modifications or denied by resolution of the city council after receipt of testimony at a public hearing held pursuant to Section 9.200.110. Approval or approval with modifications shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of the total membership of the council. 2. Prior to city council review, the planning commission shall hold a public hearing, review the application, and forward a recommendation with findings to the council. 3. If the council contemplates a modification to the application not previously considered by the planning commission, the proposed modification may be referred to the commission for report back to the council. A public hearing shall not be required for such commission review. �G. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the city - council prior to the approval of a general plan amendment: 1. Internal General Plan Consistency. The General Plan amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives and policies of the general plan which are not being amended. 2. Public Welfare. Approval of the General Plan amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. 3. General Plan Compatibility. In the case of amendments to the general plan policy diagram, the new designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties. 4. Property Suitability. In the case of amendments to the general plan policy diagram, the new designation is suitable and appropriate for the subject property. 5. Change in Circumstances. In the case of amendments to the general plan policy diagram, approval of the amendment is warranted because the situation and the general conditions of the property have substantially changed since the existing designation was imposed. (Ord. 367 § 1 (Exh. A), 2002; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) Chapter 9.240 SPECIFIC PLANS 9.240.010 Specific plan review. A. Purpose. A specific plan is a detailed plan covering a selected area of the city for the purpose of implementation of the general plan. 54 (Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0", Space After: 10 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing: Multiple 1.15 li, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.56" + Indent at: 0.81" Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style B. Applicable State Law. It is intended that the provisions of this section shall be fully consistent and in full compliance with Section 65450 et seq., of the State Government Code and that such provisions shall be so construed. C. Who May Apply. A specific plan or specific plan amendment application may be initiated by: 1. The city council 2. The owner of the property or by the owners agent (with written notarized authorization from the owner); 3. The planning commission by a majority vote; or 4. The planning director. D. Review Procedures. Specific plans shall be prepared, adopted and amended in the same manner as the general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted either by resolution or ordinance. E. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the city council prior to approval of any specific plan or specific plan amendment: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The plan or amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan. 2. Public Welfare. Approval of the Specific Pplan or amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. 3. Land Use Compatibility. The specific plan is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties. F. Property Suitability. The specific plan is suitable and appropriate for the subject property. (Ord. 367 § 1 (Exh. A), 2002; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A), 1996) Chapter 9.250 OTHER ACTIONS 9.2-69250.020 Environmental review. A. Definition. See Chapter 9.280. B. Procedures. All discretionary applications shall be evaluated in compliance with CEQA the CEQA Guidelines, and the citys environmental review procedures to determine the proposals potential impacts. Examples 9 potential paGtsiRGIude but are RGt limited--«E and air seils, geology and/. y,y, b+� seTsrxieithydrologpEAG Fesoees, aFGheelog paleen#II and GCITCt. ral Fr�ArGeS,�Qse and ZGRing, traffiG, PlGiSe, aesthetics, light and glare, health and safety, public services and utilities, aR d +hreateRed ., or,.•I- Rgere d SpeGieS.(Ord 294 § 1 (Exh A) (part) 1996) 55 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style 9.250.030 Development agreements. A. Purpose. A development agreement is a daSGF ,legislative action by the city council to provide certainty in the review and approval of development projects in order to make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public, strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, reduce the economic costs of development, and provide for public facilities and infrastructure. Development agreements shall be prepared, reviewed, adopted, and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. B. Applicable State Law. It is intended that the provisions of this section shall be fully consistent and in full compliance with Section 65864 et seq., of the State Government Code and that such provisions shall be so construed. C. Review Procedures. 1. Application Forms. The director shall prescribe the form of each application, notice and document provided for or required under this chapter for the preparation, processing and implementation of development agreements. The application shall include as separate documents by reference, the following information: a. Duration of the agreement; b. The permitted uses of the property; c. The density or intensity of use of the property; d. The maximum height and size of proposed buildings; e. Provisions for reservation of dedication of land for public purposes; f. Fiscal impact statement to include revenue generated to the city and benefits received by the developer; g. Phasing and project completion date; h. Consistency with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. In addition to the above, the director may require an applicant for a development agreement to submit such other information and supporting data as the director deems necessary to process the application. 2. Fees. The city council shall establish and from time to time amend by resolution a schedule of fees imposed for the filing and processing of each application and documentation required by this chapter. The fee may be waived in whole or in part by the city council for affordable housing that is in conformance with the general plan. 3. Who May Apply. An application for a development agreement may only be filed by a person who has a legal or equitable interest in the real property for which a development agreement is sought or the authorized representative of such person. 4. Proposed Form of Agreement. Each application shall be accompanied by draft development agreement in form which is mutually agreed upon 56 Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Space After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style R 0 by the applicant and the city at a pre -proposal meeting. This requirement may be met by using the city's standard development agreement form and including specific proposals for changes in or additions to the language of the standard form. Review and Filing of Application. The director shall endorse on the application the date it is received. The director shall review the application and determine if additional requirements are necessary to complete the agreement. The application may be rejected if it is not completed in the manner required by these rules. After receiving the required information, the director shall prepare a staff report. The staff report shall analyze the proposed development agreement and shall contain a recommendation as to whether or not the development agreement proposed or in an amended form would be consistent with the general plan or any applicable specific plan. Before processing the application the director shall obtain the opinion of the city attorney as to sufficiency of the applicant's interest in the real property to enter into agreement. Notice of Intention. Upon completion of the staff report required by subsection C5 of this section, in addition to any other notice required by law, the director shall give notice of intention to consider adoption of a development agreement. The notice shall contain: a. The time and place of the public hearing; b. A general explanation of the development agreement, including a general description of the property proposed to be developed; c. Other information that the director considers necessary or desirable. Manner of Giving Notice. All notices required by these rules shall be processed in the manner provided in Section 9.200.110 of this code. Hearing and Recommendation of Planning Commission. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed development agreement at the time and place specified in the notice of intention. The planning commission shall make its recommendation to the city council in writing within thirty days of the date set for the public hearing. The recommendation shall include whether or not the proposed development agreement: a. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan; b. Is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located; c. Is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare and good land use practices; d. Will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare; e. Will adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values; f. Will have a positive fiscal impact on the city. 57 9. Hearing by City Council. After the recommendation of the planning commission or after the expiration of the time period specified in subsection C8 of this section, the director shall give notice of a public hearing before the city council in the manner provided for in subsections C6 and 7 of this section. 10. Decision by City Council. a. After it completes the public hearing and considers the recommendation, if any, of the planning commission, the city council may accept, modify or disapprove the proposed development agreement. It may, but need not, refer the matters not previously considered by the planning commission during its hearing back to the planning commission for report and recommendation. The planning commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing on matters referred back to it by the city council. b. The development agreement may not be approved unless the city council finds that the development agreement is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. 11.Approval of Development Agreement. The development agreement shall be approved by the adoption of an ordinance. Upon the adoption of the ordinance, the city shall enter into the development agreement by the execution thereof by the city manager. 12.Amendment and Cancellation. a. Either the city or the applicant or successor in interest thereto may propose an amendment or cancellation in whole or in part of the development agreement. b. The procedure for proposing and approving an amendment to or cancellation in whole or in part of the development agreement shall be the same as the procedure for entering into a development agreement. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a proposed amendment to a development agreement to delete certain real property from the terms and conditions of the agreement and sell such property to a public entity considered by the planning commission without a noticed public hearing so long as the planning commission holds a properly noticed public hearing in connection with a proposed general plan amendment and/or zone change for such property. Upon consideration of the proposed amendment and written recommendation to the city council by the planning commission, the city council shall hold a properly noticed public hearing and consider the amendment in accordance with the same procedure for entering into a development agreement. d. Except as expressly set forth herein, each and every provision of this section concerning the procedures for processing and approval of development agreements remains in full force and effect. e. Except as provided for in subsection C14c of this section, the development agreement may only be amended or canceled in whole 58 or in part by the mutual consent of all parties to the development agreement. 13. Recordation. a. No later than ten days after the city enters into the development agreement, the city clerk shall record with the county recorder a copy of the development agreement. b. If the parties to the agreement or their successors in interest amend or cancel the agreement, or if the city terminates or modifies the agreement for failure of the applicant to comply in good faith with the terms or conditions of the agreement, the city clerk shall cause notice of such action to be recorded with the county recorder. 14. Periodic Review. a. The city council shall review the development agreement at least every twelve months from the date the development agreement is entered into until expiration of the term of the agreement. b. The director shall give the applicant or successor in interest thereto at least thirty days' advance notice of the time at which the city council will review the development agreement. c. The city council may refer the matter to the planning commission for further proceedings or for a report and recommendation. d. The applicant or successor in interest thereto shall demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement. e. If, as a result of such periodic review, the city council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the applicant or successor in interest thereto has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the development agreement, the city council may commence proceedings to enforce, modify or terminate the development agreement. 15. Modification or Termination. a. If, upon a finding under subsection C14e of this section, the city council determines to proceed with modification or termination of the development agreement, the city council shall give notice to the applicant or successor in interest thereto of its intention to do so. The notice shall contain the time and place of the hearing. b. At the time set for the hearing on the modification or termination, the city council may refer the matter back to the planning commission for further proceedings or for report and recommendation. The decision of the city council shall be final. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) Chapter 9.60.015?? Planned Unit Development Standards K. Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development is to allow flexibility in the design of residential projects, and encourage the development of creative, high -quality residential projects that provide 59 attractive living environments in a setting that is different from standard single family home development. L. Permit Required. Planned Unit Developments (PUD) shall require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. M. Design Guidelines Required. All PUDs shall be required to submit design guidelines that include: 1. A site plan that shows building and unit footprints, common and private open space areas, parking areas, roadways/driveways/alleys, and access points. 2. Architectural plans that include elevations, floor plans, roof plans, lighting and landscaping plans. The graphic plans must be accompanied by text that describes minimum development standards, building materials, landscape palette and lighting details. 3. For protects proposing two or more story structures, a massing plan that depicts the relationship of the structures within the project to each other, and to development adjacent to the project. The massing plan shall be accompanied by text that describes how the project is compatible with surrounding development. 4. A common area plan that describes in text the area(s) to be devoted to common area, and the amenities to be provided, as well as a calculation of the percentage of common area provided in relation to the residential units. 5. A circulation plan that provides graphics and text describing the roadway/driveway/alleyway cross-section dimensions, parking areas, and entryway treatments. N. Development Standards. All PUDs shall be subject to the following development standards. 1. Density. The maximum density allowed in a PUD shall not exceed the General Plan and Zoning designation on the property. 2. In order to encourage creative design, development standards in PUDs can be proposed by the applicant. The applicant must demonstrate in the prolect's Design Guidelines that reduced setbacks are offset with project amenities. 3. Common Areas. A PUD must provide 30% of the net project area (not including City street dedications, interior streets or parking areas), as common area. Common area cannot include parking lot landscape areas, landscaped areas of less than 5 feet in width, or any open space area provided for the exclusive use a residential unit. Common areas can include passive and active areas, and must provide amenities for the communitv as a whole. Amenities can include: 60 ' Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or • Passive park, at least '/2 acre in size, and not including retentionnumbering Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: basins 1" + Indent at: 1.25" • Swimming pool, with or without spa • Clubhouse/recreation room • Tot lot with play equipment • Picnic tables and barbeque areas • Tennis court • Basketball court • Volleyball court • Bocce ball or horseshoe pitch • Softball. baseball or soccer field • Putting preen, driving range or similar golf -oriented area • Par course • Off-street continuous trail or paseo (allowing a loop through the ro'ect • Community garden • Daycare center or similar children's activity building • Other facilities as determined appropriate by the Director ' Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.25", No bullets or A minimum number of amenities shall be provided based on the numbering Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Hanging: number of units within a project, as shown below. 0.25", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt, Font 0-25 units 2 amenities color: Black 26-50 units 3 amenities 51-100 units 4 amenities 101 or more units 5 amenities I Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, 12 pt, Font 4. Parkina: Parkina shall be Drovided consistent with ChaDter 9.150. As color: Black provided in that Chapter, variations from parking requirements can be proposed in a PUD, with appropriate substantiation. 5. Signage. Signage shall be provided consistent with Chapter 9.160. O. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the decision - making authority prior to the approval of any Planned Unit Development: 8. Consistency with General Plan. The project is consistent with the general plan. 9. Consistency with Zoning Code. The protect is consistent with the provisions of this zoning code. 10.Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Qualitv Act. 61 11.Architectural Design. The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style and other architectural elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. 12. Site Design. The site design of the project, including, but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the q!b 13. Landscape Design. Project landscaping, including, but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. 62 Title 8 Buildings and Construction Ad Hoc Edits 8.13.030 Provisions for new or rehabilitated landscapes.) A. Applicability. 1. Except as provided in subsection (A)(3) of this section, this section shall apply to: a. All new construction and rehabilitated landscaping for private, public, commercial and governmental development projects; and b. All new construction and rehabilitated landscaping in single-family tracts and multifamily projects. 2. Projects subject to this section shall conform to the provisions in this section. 3. This section shall not apply to: a. ResadeRt h.,Mor,W. eF provided a. d/er hr,.r,or,Wr,or_hired I.-,.,.Jo..a.,iRgm t Ssingle-family residential landscaping projects on individual lots/parcelswith a total project landscape area less than five thousand square feet; b. Homeowner -provided landscaping within individually -maintained patio areas, courtyards, or private gardens at a condominium, townhome, or similar multifamily project; b.c. Turf-reduction/replacement landscaping protects, with no new or expansion of existing landscaped area(s) involved; Ed. Registered local, state, or federal historic sites; d-e. Ecological restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system; e-.f. Mined -land reclamation projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system; f-.g_Plant collections, as part of botanical gardens and arboretums open to the public. B. Final Landscaping Plan Application Submittal Pask-ageReguirements. 1. Each final landscaping plan submittal shall include the following elements: a. Water conservation concept statement; b. Calculation of the maximum applied water allowance; c. Calculation of the estimated applied water use; d. Calculation of the estimated total water use; e. Landscape design plan; f. Irrigation design plan; g. Grading design plan; and h. Soil analysis. 2 Five GGpies of +h^The final landscaping plan submittal ^^ fGFFn;ng t^ this GhapterappIication shall be submitted to the city in accordance with the requirements and information as stipulated on the City application form. No +tCity-approval shall be issued until the city and the local water purveyor Fevie s and appFe eshave reviewed and accepted the landscape documentation package. or;^r to r r,t,^., and s bl'FliSSOO , of the final Comment [WN1]: Much of this Section wilt need revision based on the new draft CVWD revised model ordinance Title 8 Buildings and Construction Ad Hoc Edits landSGaninn plan submittal, .with the 0 eptien of rehabilitated er hGmo_ If applicable, the final landscape plan submittal shall substantially conform to the proiect's preliminary landscape plan as approved !by the planning R.for the prolect.1 3. A copy of the approved final landscaping plan submittal shall be provided to the property owner or site manager along with the record drawings and any other information normally forwarded to the property owner or site manager. ICI. Elements of Final Landscaping Plan Submittal. Chapter 8.80 GRADING 8.80.010 Purpose and intent. A. Generally. The purpose of this chapter is to safeguard life, limb, health, property and public welfare by establishing minimum requirements for regulating grading and procedures by which these requirements may be enforced. B. Scope. No person shall make, alter or maintain any excavation or fill except as provided by this chapter. Exception: The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following: 1. Work accomplished under the auspices of land owned and controlled by the United States of America or by the State of California. 2. Work in a public right of way, drains and drainage structures constructed by or under contract with the city or county flood control district unless the structure forms a portion of the support for a building or a structure coming within the jurisdiction of the building and safety department. C. Permissive Provisions. The permissive provisions of this chapter do not waive, and shall not be presumed to waive, any limitations imposed by other statutes or ordinances of the state or city. D. Limitations. If two or more pertinent limitations are not identical, those limitations shall prevail which provide the greater safety to life, limb, health, property, and public welfare. Comment [WN2]: Eliminated PC review per Ad Hoc commentary of 10/28. Comment [WN3]: Per Comment 1, no changes to 8.13.030.0 and subsequent sections are proposed so they are not included here. The new CVWD ordinance will need to be incorporated which will replace the remainder of this Section. Title 8 Buildings and Construction Ad Hoc Edits PFGjeGt; the type Of WRit GeleGted must be used eXGIUS*Vely thrGughout that prejeGt rmmplyinn with the r nts of this nhapter. (Ord 406 § 1 2004 8.80.050 Grading bonds. A. Requirements. A permit will not be issued for excavation or fill of more than five hundred cubic yards (three hundred eighty cubic meters) in hillside areas, more than one thousand cubic yards (seven hundred sixty cubic meters) in other areas, or for any work which requires retaining walls, until the permittee shall post with the city engineer a bond for the benefit of the city. The bond shall be executed by the owner and a corporate surety authorized to do business in this state as surety in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of the project, including corrective work necessary to remove and eliminate geological hazards. All bonds shall be in a form acceptable to the city engineer. Exception: The city engineer may waive the requirement that a bond be posted before a permit is issued as provided in this section if the city engineer determines that no potential hazard would exist if the grading is not completed. B. Cash or Deposit Agreement in Lieu of Bond. In lieu of a surety bond the applicant may file a deposit agreement or deposit cash with the city engineer upon the same terms and conditions and in an amount equal to that which would be required in the surety bond. The deposit submitted with the cash bond may be in the form of cash or negotiable United States securities. The deposit agreement shall be on forms approved by the city engineer. C. Application of Bond to Adjacent Property. Where grading is required on property adjacent to the grading site under permit to complete a project satisfactorily, written consent must be obtained from the adjacent owner and a copy of the written consent submitted to the city engineer prior to commencement of grading on the adjacent property. The owner of such adjacent property need not provide an additional grading bond, if the original is of sufficient amount to include such additional grading. D. Conditions of the Bond, Deposit Agreement, or Cash Deposit. Every bond, deposit agreement or cash deposit shall be conditioned that the permittee shall: 1. Comply with all of the provisions of this chapter and all other applicable laws and ordinances. 2. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the permit for excavation and fill to the satisfaction of the city engineer. E. Period and Termination of Bond, Deposit Agreement, or Cash Deposit. Title 8 Buildings and Construction Ad Hoc Edits 1. The term of each security shall begin upon the date of filing with and shall remain in effect until the completion of the work to the satisfaction of the city engineer, plus an additional period of one year. Such completion shall be evidenced said Ger+if'Ga+o by inspection and acceptance of the work by the City Engineer or Designee. In the event of failure to complete the work and failure to comply with all of the conditions and terms of the permit, the city engineer may order the work to be completed as required by the permit and to the satisfaction of the city engineer's office. The surety executing such bond or such deposit, shall continue to be firmly bound under a continuing obligation for the payment of all necessary costs and expenses that may be incurred or expended by the city in causing any and all of such required work to be accomplished and that said surety or the depositor assents to any lawful extensions of time within which to construct and complete such work. In the case of a cash deposit or deposit agreement, any unused portion shall be refunded to the permittee. 2. After the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the city engineer, the city engineer may release or exonerate the bond, deposit agreement, or cash deposit earlier than the additional one-year period if the city engineer determines that the public health and welfare is not jeopardized. In no case shall the security be released earlier than four months after the grading work has been completed to the satisfaction of the city engineer. F. Amount of Security. The amount of the security shall be based upon the estimated cost plus twenty percent, as determined by the number of cubic yards of materfai i either o .a+iOR er fill whinheyer is the greater a Rt Rd shall * nclude the cost of all retaining walls, drainage structures, erosion control, and ot protective devices a „ lawfully be required (Ord 496 § 1, 22004-) determined by the method outlined in Enaineerina Bulletin #04-09. which is available via the Citv website at www.la-guinta.org. 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Title 9- Zoning - (La Quinta Municipal Code)-1-12-2016 Development Code Tune Up Draft Recommendations Analysis - Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Commission *Highlighted rows identify substantial changes from existing procedures Review Inefficiency/Challenge Possible Improvement tcome Ad Hoc SectionCode P• •DirectionL 9.40.040 Housing types not -Specific Plans require Create new Code Provisions for Planned Savings in Acceptable Permitted permitted by right in lengthier processing Unit Development Permits Time changes Uses in specific residential times, subject to SB Maximum flexibility from existing Money Residential zones require approval 18, and can be costly development standards for District of a Specific Plan (pg 1- to prepare. residential projects, except 2) -Creative housing Public Works Street types and project Specifications and density-e-nd designs are not iondscape setharks. allowed within the Allow the final review authority scope of the Code. to be Planning Commission -Creates staff Approval challenge for tracking See Page 59-60 multiple standards for Specific Plans 9.40.040 Duplexes (two units on -Specific Plan a -Prohibit in Cove Residential Zone. Easier to Permitted the some lot) (pg 2) challenge for small understand Uses in lots in cove and may Residential not be desired District 9.40.040 Townhomes and -Require a Specific -Allow as a Permitted Use in Medium 0 Savings in Permitted Condominiums Land Plan in Medium Density Residential Zone Time Uses in Use (pg 2) Density Residential 0 Money Residential Zone District 9.40.040 Condominium -Condominium -Allow as a permitted use in the Medium • Flexibility Permitted multifamily ("airspace" multifamily is Density Residential Zone Uses in units) compatible in the Residential Medium Density District Residential Zone 9.40.040 Resort Residential Land -Requires a CUP and -Allow as a Permitted Use in all Savings in Permitted Use (pg 3) approval at the Residential Zones except Cove Time Page 1 of 17 9 M Z Uses in Planning Commission Residential Zone 0 Money Residential -No review District 9.40.040 Senior Group Housing -Not allowed in -Allow as a Minor Use Permit in Medium 0 Savings in Permitted (pg 5) Medium Density Density, Medium -High Density and High Time Uses in Residential Density Residential zones 0 Money Residential -Requires Planning -Administrative Level Review District Commission approval as a CUP in Medium High Density and High Density Residential zones 9.40.040 Bed and Breakfast (pg -Requires a -Allow as Minor Use Permit in all 0 Savings in Permitted 5) Conditional Use residential zones Time Uses in Permit -Administrative Level Review 0 Money Residential District 9.40.040 Cottage Food -Requires a Minor Use -Permit by right since Riverside County e Savings in Permitted Operations (pg 5) Permit Environmental Health conducts health Time Uses in - Riverside County inspections and City currently does not . Money Residential Environmental Health reviews. District conducts health inspections -unnecessary 9.40.040 Lighted tennis and -Requires a -Allow as Minor Use Permit in Medium 0 Savings in Permitted other game courts on Conditional Use Density Residential, Medium High Time Uses in private property (pg 6) Permit in Medium Density Residential and High Density . Money Residential Density Residential, Residential zones District Medium High Density -Administrative Level Review Residential and High Density Residential zones -Does this really need a public hearing? 9.40.040 Stand Alone Driving -Requires a CUP -Allow as Minor Use Permit in all Savings in Page 2 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 Permitted Range (pg 6) -impacts can be residential zones except Cove Time Uses in evaluated at staff Residential . Money Residential level -Administrative Level Review District 9.40.040 Home Occupations (pg -Doesn't make sense -Move to Title 8 0 Easier to Permitted 7) in this table and is Understand Uses in handled entirely by Residential code enforcement District 9.40.040 Museum or gallery -Conditional Use -Allow as Minor Use Permit in all 0 Savings in Permitted displaying sculpture, Permit unnecessary Residential Zones. Time Uses in artwork or crafts (pg -Impacts can be -Administrative Level Review . Money Residential 11) evaluated at staff District level or will already be evaluated with SDP if new construction 9.40.040 Recreational vehicle -doesn't permit in -Allow as an accessory use in all 0 Easier to Permitted storage lots, Very Low Density or residential zones if associated with a understand Uses in associated with a Low Density planned community and therefore can 0 Potential Residential planned community Residential zones be located to minimize impacts to savings to District (pg 11) when there is a need residents. residents in to store these storage fees vehicles. 0 Reduce demand for code enforcement services 9.80.040 Retail stores under -doesn't make sense -Allow as permitted use in all non- 0 Easier to Permitted 10,000 sq. ft. of floor to be an accessory residential zones, except Major understand Uses in area per business (pg use in Commercial Community Facilities zone. 0 Encourage Nonresidenti 14) Park, Tourist, or development al Districts Office Commercial zones 9.80.040 Retail stores,10,000— -Requires CUP -Allow as a permitted use in Commercial . Savings in Acceptable Permitted 50,000 sq. ft. floor area approval by Planning Park, Community Commercial, Time changes Uses in (pg 14) Commission in Neighborhood Commercial, and Village Money Nonresidenti Commercial Park, Commercial Zones. Page 3 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 at Districts Community Commercial, and Neighborhood Commercial Zone -No reason why a CUP is necessary if new construction requires an SDP. 9.80.040 Retail stores, over -CUP required for -Allow as permitted use in Regional 0 Savings in 0 Acceptable Permitted 50,000 sq. ft. floor area Regional Commercial Commercial. Time changes Uses in (pg 14) and Community -Allow as a minor use permit in 0 Money Nonresidenti Commercial Zones Community Commercial since the scale at Districts -No reason why a CUP of commercial in this zone is intended for is needed for this use smaller scale commercial. The minor use in these zones. permit allows for any impacts to be addressed through conditions of approval. -Not permitted in the Village Commercial Zone 9.80.040 Food, liquor and -Requires a CUP for -Allows as minor use permit in the 0 Savings in Not Permitted convenience stores Regional Commercial, Regional Commercial, Community Time presented at Uses in under 10,000 sq. ft. Community Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, . Money Ad -Hoc Nonresidenti floor area, open 18 or Commercial, Tourist Commercial, and Village Meeting #2- al Districts more hours/day (pg 14) Neighborhood Commercial zone. Direction Commercial, Tourist -Administrative Level Review needed. Commercial, and Village Commercial zones -Impacts related to the proposed use can be conditioned at the administrative level. 9.80.040 Plant nurseries and -Requires a CUP in the -Permit by right in Regional Commercial, • Savings in Permitted garden supply stores, Regional Commercial, Community Commercial, Neighborhood Time Uses in with no propagation of Community Commercial, and Village Commercial 0 Money Nonresidenti plants on the premises, Commercial, zones al Districts subject to Section Neighborhood Page 4 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 9.100.120 (pg 15) Commercial zones -No reason why they shouldn't be allowed 9.80.040 General and -No reason why not to -Allow as permitted use in the 0 Easier to Permitted professional offices (pg allow in Commercial Commercial Park or major Community understand Uses in 15) Park or major Facilities zones 0 Encourages Nonresidenti Community Facilities investment, al Districts zones development 9.80.040 Medical offices— -No reason why not -Allow as permitted use in Commercial 0 Easier to Permitted physicians, dentists, permitted in Park zone understand Uses in optometrists, Commercial Park 0 Encourages Nonresidenti chiropractors and zone investment, al Districts similar practitioners development (pg 15) 9.80.040 Surgicenters/ medical -No reason why not -Allow as permitted use in Commercial 0 Easier to Permitted clinics (pg 16) permitted in Park zone understand Uses in Commercial Park 0 Encourages Nonresidenti zone investment, at Districts development 9.80.040 Veterinary -No reason this should -Allow as a Minor Use Permit in Regional • Savings in Permitted clinics/animal hospitals be a CUP approval at Commercial, Commercial Park, Time Uses in and pet boarding Planning Commission. Community Commercial, Neighborhood Money Nonresidenti (indoor only) (pg 16) -Can be reviewed at Commercial and Village Commercial al Districts administrative level Zones -Administrative Level Review 9.80.040 Restaurants, drive- -Not permitted in -Allow as ^ permitted use iR Encourages No change Permitted through (pg 16) Neighborhood Ne*g bGrhG^a Ca-mm^r-^i^' investment, Uses in Cmmn^e�..: development Nonresidenti r^,wegt CarnmPrei^i al Districts Zones -Limits development opportunities 9.80.040 Restaurants, counter -We may want to -Allow as an Accessory use Encourages Permitted take-out with ancillary allow restaurants and investment, Page 5 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 Uses in seating, such as lessees in Public development Nonresidenti yogurt, ice cream, Facilities al Districts pastry shops and similar (pg 16) 9$0.049 Mirrn_hrewer OF WIRe-Net a n+l„ a laved _Add as a new land use. . cam . Acceptable Pprmitttnd tasting, accessory to use ldesignn+lnn and _Alln,n, ae an accessory use in all change but e restci gran+ or har (pg +hnrnfnrn nn+ commercial zones except Mainr . Money on� modify bar to nlnnrnci.de�n+i ,�.a-�.� 4 ('e,rr,.v Unity Facilities � ne Fn n„raans tasting room �+mn investment , m-vi�crrcz� Nc) n _nnnrW, ti.eS fnr Will be +hnce, n�+ahlichmnn+� develp}pmeRt presented +ha+ r•an he great separately in a++ra-rut am_ March 2016 as part of Zoning Consistency effort. 9.80.040 Permitted Bars and cocktail lounges (pg 16) -Not allowed in Neighborhood -allow as a Conditional Use Permit in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone as we Encourages investment, Uses in Commercial Zone are still able to condition the use to development Nonresidenti -limits economic address possible impacts. al Districts development opportunities 9.80.040 Dancing or live -not allowed in -allow in Commercial Park Zone with Encourages Permitted entertainment as a Commercial Park approval of a Conditional Use Permit. investment, Uses in principal use (pg 16) zone development Nonresidenti al Districts 9.80.040 Dancing or live -not allowed in -Allow as a permitted use in Commercial Savings in Permitted entertainment as an Commercial Park Park zone Time Uses in accessory use (pg 16) zone -Allow as an accessory permitted use in Money Nonresidenti -requires CUP in the Community Commercial, al Districts Community Neighborhood Commercial, and Tourist Commercial, Commercial zones Neighborhood Page 6 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 Commercial, and Tourist Commercial zones -If this is an accessory use do we really need a CUP? 9.80.040 Theaters, live or -requires a CUP in -Allow as permitted us in Regional . Savings in Permitted motion picture (pg 16) Regional Commercial, Commercial Zone. Time Uses in Community -Allow as a minor use permit in the . Money Nonresidenti Commercial zone, Commercial zone, Neighborhood 0 Encourages al Districts Neighborhood Commercial, and Tourist Commercial investment, Commercial, and Zones. development Tourist Commercial -Administrative Level Review a Easier to Zones. Theaters in a understand Regional Commercial zone should have the least impact. Impacts in other commercial zones can be mitigated in the conditions of approved under an MUP. -Not allowed in Major Community Facilities zone which limits ability to have a community theater in a City facility. 9.80.040 Tobacco shops without -Requires a CUP in -Allow as permitted use in Community 0 Savings in Permitted onsite smoking, as per Community Commercial and the Neighborhood Time Uses in the provisions of the Commercial and Commercial Zones. 0 Money Nonresidenti Heath and Sanitation Tourist Commercial -Allow as an accessory use in the Tourist al Districts Code (pg 16) Zones Commercial Zone. -Not permitted in Neighborhood Commercial Zone Page 7 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 -Are there any business impacts that require special conditions? 9.80.040 Cigar lounges, hookah -Requires a CUP in the -Allow as minor use permit in Regional 0 Savings in Permitted bars, and similar uses Regional Commercial Commercial, Community Commercial, Time Uses in with onsite smoking, as and Tourist Neighborhood Commercial, and Village . Money Nonresidenti per the provisions of Commercial Zones Commercial zones. at Districts the Health and -Not permitted in -Allow as Accessory in the Tourist Sanitation Code (pg 17) Community Commercial Zone. Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial Zones -Are these restrictions necessary? -Impacts can be addressed with conditions at administrative level. 9.80.040 Bowling alleys (pg 17) -Requires a CUP and is -Allows as a permitted use in Regional 0 Savings in Permitted added in same Commercial, Commercial Park, Time Uses in category as pool or Community Commercial zones. 0 Money Nonresidenti billiards centers -Allow as a CUP in the Village at Districts Commercial zones 9-80040 Peel er hilliarfl centerc -Alloy as n CUP in the f nmmprnial Park Cnrni irnnes . Will be 0 .Permitted nc nPFiRGiPG1 use G and Village !'nmmnrninl 7nnnc inyPgt-P'Pe_ntt1 presented ,fin nrincin„I use (pq , 7) zone development separately nlen t4 with Zoning ,. l nay orsi; r' Consistency Changesin March 2016 9.80.040 Permitted Golf courses and country clubs (see GC -Do not allow golf courses in Commercial Park, Tourist Commercial, or Office Encourages investment, Uses in district permitted uses, Commercial zone development Nonresidenti Chapter 9.120) (pg 17) (encoura al Districts ge retail Page 8 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 develop ment) 9.80.040 Health clubs, martial -requires a minor use -Allow as a permitted use in all 0 Savings in Permitted arts studios, and dance permit in most commercial zones. Time Uses in studios, 5,000 sq. ft. commercial zones -allow as minor use permit in Major 0 Money Nonresidenti floor area or less (pg -biggest impacts for Community Facilities zone at Districts 17) these uses are parking in existing retail centers which can be analyzed during tenant improvements 9.80.040 Health clubs, martial -requires a -Allow as a minor use permit in all . Savings in Permitted arts studios, and dance Conditional Use commercial zones, including Major Time Uses in studios, over 5,000 sq. Permit in commercial Community Facilities zone. 0 Money Nonresidenti ft. floor area (pg 17) zones. 0 Easier to at Districts -Parking impacts understand larger than same use less than 5,000 square feet but CUP is too much 9.80.040 Miniature -requires a -Allow as Minor Use Permit in Tourist 0 Savings in Permitted golf/recreation centers Conditional Use Commercial Zone. Time Uses in (pg 18) Permit in Tourist 0 Money Nonresidenti Commercial Zone. al Districts -it should be easier to approve miniature gold centers since the use is compatible. 9.80.040 Ice skating rinks (pg -requires a CUP in -Allow as Minor Use Permit in Regional . Savings in Permitted 18) Regional Commercial, Commercial, Commercial Park, Time Uses in Community Community Commercial, Tourist 0 Money Nonresidenti Commercial, and Commercial, and Major Community at Districts Major Community Facilities zones. Facilities Zone. -Not permitted in Commercial Park and Tourist Commercial Page 9 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 Zone 9.80.040 Lodges, union halls, -allow as a permitted -allow as permitted use in Regional . Savings in Permitted social clubs and senior use. Design with new Commercial, Commercial Park, Time Uses in citizen centers (pg 18) construction is Community Commercial, Neighborhood . Money Nonresidenti addressed as a site Commercial and Major Facilities Zone. al Districts development permit 9.80.040 Churches, temples and -CUP is unnecessary. -allow as a minor use permit in Regional . Savings in Permitted other places of worship Impacts of use can be Commercial, Commercial Park, Time Uses in (pg 18) addressed with Community Commercial, Neighborhood Money Nonresidenti conditions of a minor Commercial, and Office Commercial at Districts use permit Zone. 9.80.040 Mortuaries and funeral -CUP is unnecessary. -allow as a minor use permit in Regional . Savings in Permitted homes (pg 18) Impacts of use can be Commercial, Commercial Park, Time Uses in addressed with Community Commercial and not . Money Nonresidenti conditions of a minor permitted in Village Commercial Zone. al Districts use permit 9.80.040 Electrical Substations -requires a minor use -require Community Facilities zoning for . Too Permitted (pg 19) permit electrical substation sites. permissive Uses in and has Nonresidenti potential at Districts impacts 9.80.040 Water wells and -allow as permitted in all commercial Permitted pumping stations (pg zones Uses in 19) Nonresidenti al Districts 9.80.040 Reservoirs and water -requires a minor use -allow as a permitted use in Community 0 Savings in Permitted tanks (pg 19) permit in Major Facilities zone Time Uses in Community Facilities 0 Money Nonresidenti zone when the at Districts designation is already the most appropriate zone Page 10 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 9.80.040 Colleges and -not allowed in -allow as a minor use permit in . Savings in Permitted universities (pg 19) Commercial Park or Commercial Park and Office Commercial Time Uses in Office Commercial Zone. 0 Money Nonresidenti Zones and therefore -allow as a Conditional Use permit in 0 Easier to al Districts difficult for desired Village Commercial Zone understand educational facilities 0 Encourages and associated investment, economic development opportunities to operate in these zones. 9.80.040 Vocational schools, -Conditional Permit -allow as a Minor Use Permit in the 0 Savings in Permitted e.g., barber, beauty unnecessary in Regional Commercial Zone. Time Uses in and similar (pg 19) Regional Commercial . Money Nonresidenti zone. al Districts 0 Private c,e,im rheelc -RG need to regulate _eliminate land- use rateaerV • Not a • Not a T^te (pg 9) these streamlining streamlining ,fin Alnnre jaenm. A, D*rtr'rto -Can he ,-In«ifiPd ;n health club rntegery issue issue 0 Train bus and taxi _Alone ex*St and are -eliminate Iand use cciteanry • Not a • Not a Permitted StatieRS (pg , % there an., rea�an� .,e streamlining streamlining Uses in NeRresifi'Cnt4 A, n'a✓+crrtc arvrri-ci� i ilt ,n,ant there farIra,cil ies? issue issue 9.80.040 Townhome and -Only allowed as a -Permit by right in Regional rnmmnr.-inl, . Savings in Staff Permitted multifamily dwelling as CUP in Regional inmmer�inl Pnrk Cnmmi�ni+., Time recommende Uses in a primary use (pg 19) Commercial and Commercial, Neighborhood Commemi • Money d change not Nonresidenti Commercial Park Tn--rir+ Commercial, Office Cnmmer, :nl� Encourages approved at Districts Zone and village f nmmnr�inl zones investment, Amend Code -Not Permitted in -Keep as CUP in Regional Commercial, development to require Community Commercial Park. CUP approval Commercial, -Allow with CUP in Community in all Page 11 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 Neighborhood Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Commercial Commercial, Tourist Tourist Commercial, Office Commercial, zones. Commercial or Office and Village Commercial zones Commercial 9.80.040 Residential as an -Requires a CUP in all -Allow with a minor use permit in all 0 Savings in Permitted accessory use, e.g., zones which is too commercial zones. Time Uses in caretaker residences rigid . Money Nonresidenti per Section 9.100.160 at Districts (pg 19) 9.80.040 Timeshare facilities -there is a difference -Divide timeshares into two categories 1) . Savings in Permitted subject to Section between new new development 2) conversions Time Uses in 9.60.290 (pg 20) development for -Allow new development timeshares as 0 Money Nonresidenti timeshares and permitted by right for Regional 0 Easier to al Districts conversions Commercial, Community Commercial, understand -Conversions may Tourist Commercial, and Village create impact on Commercial zones. existing residential -Require timeshare conversion as developments Conditional Use Permits for Regional -Existing CUP Commercial, Community Commercial, requirements is too Tourist Commercial, and Village cumbersome for new Commercial zones proposed timeshare development 9.80.040 Golf cart, neighborhood -Opportunities not -Allow sales as a minor use permit in the Flexibility Permitted electric vehicle (NEV), available for NEV Neighborhood Commercial Zone Uses in and electric scooter sales Nonresidenti sales (pg 21) al Districts 9.80.040 Car washes (pg 21) -Minor Use Permit will -allow as a minor use permit in the 0 Savings in Permitted allow a faster process Regional Commercial, Commercial Park, Time Uses in and include Community Commercial zones. Not 0 Money Nonresidenti conditions to mitigate permitted in the Village Commercial al Districts impacts Zone 9.80.040 Auto and motorcycle -CUP is unnecessary -Allow as a minor use permit in Regional . Savings in Permitted sales and rentals (pg and impacts can be Commercial and Commercial Park Zones Time Uses in 21) mitigated with 0 Money Page 12 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 Nonresidenti conditions under a al Districts Minor Use Permit 9.80.040 Private parking -Requires a CUP in Savings in No Permitted lots/garages as a most Commercial Community Cnmmnrrinl Zones Time Uses in principal use subject to Zones -Allp , n,; r,in,,. „moo .,o..,,itgn 'Ta-wort . Money Nonresidenti Chapter 9.150, Parking -May not be a desired .,mWf ; rmeFGiG nrl_ and at Districts (pg 21) use in some Major Community Facilities, and Village commercial zones as it may prevent retail -Keep as a CUP in the zones where it is development currently required. 9.80.040 Auto parts stores, with -CUP is unnecessary -Allow as a permitted us in 0 Savings in Permitted no repair or parts Neighborhood Commercial and Village Time Uses in Nonresidenti installation on the premises (pg 21) Commercial Zone. 0 Money al Districts 9.80.040 Lumber yards, outdoor -CUP is unnecessary -Allow as a Minor Use Permit in the 0 Savings in Permitted (see retail stores for when a MUP can Commercial Park Zone. Time Uses in Nonresidenti indoor lumber sales) (pg 22) include conditions of regulate use . Money al Districts 9.80.040 Pest control services -CUP is unnecessary -Allow as a Minor Use Permit in the 0 Savings in Permitted (pg 22) when a minor use Regional Commercial Zone. Time Uses in Nonresidenti permit can include conditions of regulate -Allow as a permitted use in the Commercial Park Zone 0 Money al Districts use. Pest control seems to be a compatible use with the Commercial Park Zone 9.80.040 Contractor, public -CUP is unnecessary in -Allow as a Minor Use Permit in the 0 Savings in Permitted utility and similar Commercial Park zone Commercial Park Zone Time Uses in equipment/storage when use can be -Allow as a permitted use in the Major • Money Nonresidenti yards (pg 22) regulated with Community Facilities Zone al Districts conditions in a minor use permit. Page 13 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 -CUP is too restrictive in a Major Facilities zone and is compatible as a permitted use 9.80.040 Central cleaning or -The restriction should -Allow as an accessory use in the Tourist Flexibility Permitted laundry plants (pg 22) be lifted in the Tourist Commercial Zone Uses in Commercial since -Prohibit in the Regional Commercial, Nonresidenti laundry plant may be Commercial Park, and Community al Districts central to services at Commercial zone a resort 9.80.040 Recording Studios (pg -Prohibited in -Allow as minor use permit in Regional Flexibility Permitted 22) Regional Commercial Commercial and Village Commercial Uses in and Village zones Nonresidenti Commercial zones at Districts 9.80.040 Swimming pools as an -Minor Use Permit -Allow as an accessory use in all 0 Saving in Permitted accessory use (pg 23) unnecessary if an commercial zones Time Uses in accessory use . Money Nonresidenti al Districts 9.80.040 Golf or tennis facilities -Minor Use Permit -Allow as an accessory use in all 0 Saving in Permitted as an accessory use unnecessary if an commercial zones Time Uses in (pg 23) accessory use 0 Money Nonresidenti al Districts 9.200.020 Site Development -Requires approval by S-DP to be Gppr ved at the 0 Savings in Create a Authority Permit (SDP) (pg 31, Planning Commission level. Time Minor Site 41) -Some Site -Create a Minor SDP process to be 0 Money Development Development Permits approved at the administrative level. Review require approval by -Staff Recommended Threshold is: Process for City Council New office or commercial administrativ buildings no more than 10,000 e review. square feet that are not part of Keep Site Page 14 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 an approved master commercial Development development or Specific Plan. Permit at • New building construction or Planning remodeling (single and multiple Commission family residential, office, for big commercial and/or institutional) projects and landscape plans within an Major approved Specific Plan. concerns • New buildings on vacant pads with Minor within an approved commercial Site development. Development • New single family models and Permit will be landscaping plans in an approved referred to tentative tract map. Planning Commission 9.200.020 Home Occupation -already reviewed by -Move to Title 11 0 Easier to Authority Permit (pg 31) Code Enforcement understand 9.200.020 Add: Planning -No specific process -add to authority table at staff level 0 Easier to Authority Compliance Review for substantial review understand (pg 30) conformance review 9.200.020 Sign Program (pg 31) -Requires Planning -Move to Staff review a Savings in • Yes Authority Commission review Time • Money 9.200.090 C. Criteria ("this is the -only allows for -Allow for decrease in building square 0 Savings in • Yes Modification criteria for allowing modification of footage through the Modification by Time by applicant minor changes to an building square Applicant process. • Money (MBA) approved development footage if it is design) (pg 36) increases. A decrease in square footage is subject to a Site Development Permit to be approved by the Planning Commission. 9.200.090 C. Criteria (pg 36) -MBA process does -Allow for changes, additions or Savings in Yes Page 15 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 Modification by applicant (MBA) not allow for minor changes to site or grading plans as an administrative function. -Any changes site or grading plans would require Site Development Permit approval by the Planning Commission. substitutions for site and grading plans in the Modification by Applicant process. Time Money 9.200.090 C. Criteria (pg 36) -MBA process does -Allow for changes in residential model 0 Savings in Approved Modification not allow for changes design in the Modification by Applicant Time by applicant in residential model process. 0 Money (MBA) design. -Any changes to the residential model design would require a Site Development Permit approval by the Planning Commission. Chapter D. Decision -making -requirements that -Remove SDP from final approval 0 Savings in Approved 9.210 authority (pg 31) Site Development authority Time Developmen Permits for high 0 Money t Review density residential or Permits non-residential permits with structures greater than one-story and twenty-two feet in height and within one hundred feet of residentially zoned properties be reviewed by Council is too rigid. Page 16 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 Chapter C. Applicability (pg 47) -Only one deviation of -Allow for up to three adjustments per lot Flexibility As Directed 9.210.040 10% allowed for a by Ad -Hoc Minor numerical standard Committee Adjustments Page 17 - Development Code Tune Up- Title 9 Draft Recommendations and Analysis 1-12-2016 Title 8- Buildings and Construction Procedural Improvements (La Quinta Municipal Code) Title 8; Chapters 8.13 and 8.80 Development Code Tune Up Draft Recommendations Analysis -Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Commission Highlighted text relates to streamlining change MAU 11 IN III III 1111� 8.13.030.A Applicability of Turf reduction plans -Clarify inapplicability to SFD homesites No further direction given landscaping review subject to full review -Make section inapplicable to turf reduction process/application plans 8.13.030.B Clarify submittal Text not tied to actual -Change text to cite application Changes reviewed 11/19; items application requirement -Change reference to project and not PC no further direction given Due to upcoming revisions to CVWD Model Ordinance; no further changes are proposed to Chapter 8.13 as they may conflict. However, most of the remaining landscape code requirements are technical and do not impact potential for streamlining. 8.80.050 Bonding N/A - Clean-up only Minor clean-up language related to current No further direction given Grading requirements bond requirements Bonds Page 1- Development Code Tune- Title 8 Draft Recommendations- 1-12-2016 Title 13- Subdivision Regulations (La Quinta Municipal Code) Development Code Tune Up Draft Recommendations Analysis - Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Commission *Highlighted text relates to streamlining or significant change for discussion by Ad -Hoc Committee / / • .060 7Approval Decision authority Reduce layers of review for map Revise review table to limit PC and CC review of No further direction given w and on tentative maps applications mapping actions, except where maps filed with (Pg. 2) other applications require those reviews. Authority Staff has added TPM review by Director as non- Confirmed change PH 13.04.070 Add review type No procedures for TTM revisions or Add definitions to allow for Revised TTM and No further direction given Definitions definitions (Pg. 4) substantial conformance Substantial Conformance processes 0 Added revisions to cite General Plan for defined street hierarchy Chapter 13.08 Subdivision Outdated Delete Chapter and reserve Chapter number 0 No further direction given Subdivision process flowchart Process (Pg.10) 13.12.050 Clarify Clean-up / update Consistency with application forms and current 0 No further direction given Application requirements (pg procedures materials 11) 13.12.120 Requires cultural Unclear and redundant as Delete Section as application and General Plan 0 No further direction given Special studies and bio studies applications vary sets forth requirement to address studies (Pg 12) 13.12.120 Add process for Current ordinance does not allow Add Section on procedure for revised tentative 0 No further direction given (New) revised maps for revision to approved tentative maps Revised maps tentative maps 13.12.150 Establish validity N/A - Update and clarify Current state provisions allow initial 3 year No further direction given Term of of tentative map approval term, while current code cites 2 year tentative (pg 13) term maps 13.12.160 Establishes time Ordinance not reflective of current Allow longer extension terms and flexibility in No further direction given Extensions of extension process state allowances granting those terms. time for (pg 14) tentative maps 13.12.170 Establish Ordinance does not codify current Codifies the current process and clarifies it as a No further direction given Substantial substantial use of a substantial conformance Public Works preocedure, allowing flexibility by conformance conformance through Public Works. granting discretion to PW in applying the with tentative process (pg 15) process map 13.24.070 and Sets street design Section reflects prior General Plan Delete Table 13.24.070, and replace with 0 Add reference to where 080 - Street standards (pg 17) geometries general reference to current General Plan. standard is in General design Update table in 13.24.080. Plan - added 13.24.090 References image Section reflects prior General Plan Update per current GP 0 No further direction given Image corridors (pg 18) language corridors 13.24.130 References Section reflects prior General Plan Update per current GP 0 No comment made - Landscaped landscape language acceptable change setbacks setback requirements (pg 19) 13.32.020.0 Limits Unclear at this time Proposes including Village Commercial and No comment made - Lot line adjustments Major Community Facility zoned property to acceptable change adjustments within a 6 month allowed exception for commercial districts period on residential zoning (pg 21) Page 2 — Development Code Tune Up —Title 13 Draft Recommendations- 1-12-2016 ATTACHMENT 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 1:32 p.m. by Chairperson Maevers. PRESENT: Commissioners Leila Namvar, Peggy Redmon, Linda Williams and Chairperson Kevin Maevers ABSENT: None VACANCIES: One STAFF PRESENT: Public Works Director Tim Jonasson, Planning Manager Gabriel Perez, Consultant Principal Planner Nicole Criste, Principal Engineer Bryan McKinney, Executive Assistant Wanda Wise -Latta, and Executive Assistant Monika Radeva Chairperson Maevers led the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed top APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion - A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Redmon/Williams to approve the Historic Preservation Commission Special Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2015, as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 submitted by Case and Lisa Swenson for the consideration of a Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM Tech for the Swenson residence located within The Enclave Mountain Estates (77-210 Loma Vista). Commissioner Maevers stated he has a conflict of interest due to a business relationship with persons related to the Swenson residence; he recused himself and left the meeting room. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 1 MARCH 1, 2016 Consultant Principal Planner Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Commissioner Redmon said she would like to include a condition of approval requesting that a tribal member be present and/or consulted during excavation, entrenching, and other ground disturbing activity. The Commission discussed the height of the structure and visibility. Commissioner Williams noted that the report erroneously identified the La Quinta Resort and Club as the earliest development in the City, when in fact it was Point Happy. Motion - A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Redmon/Williams to approve the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Conditional Use Permit 2013-152, Swenson residence, as submitted, and with the addition of the following condition of approval: The City shall consult with the local Native American tribal governments; and if requested, a tribal monitor shall be present during any excavation, entrenching, and other ground disturbing activity. AYES: Commissioners Namvar, Redmon, Williams. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairperson Maevers. ABSTAIN: None. Motion passed. Chairperson Maevers joined the meeting at 1:47 p.m. 2. Development Code Tune Up - Recommendation to eliminate Chapter 2.35 Historic Preservation Commission from the City of La Quinta Municipal Code. Planning Manager Perez presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. The Commission said they understand and support Council's efforts to streamline the development process and be fiscally responsible. However, they expressed a general disagreement with the Ad -hoc Committee's recommendation to eliminate the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission addressed the following issues: Importance of maintaining the Certified Local Government (CLG) status - placed emphasis on the prior efforts, funds, and staff time spent on obtaining the CLG status originally; explained that the benefits of the CLG status are scarce because the City has not identified and placed priority on any historic preservation projects that would qualify for CLG grants; the Commission is interested in many projects that have not been addressed due to a continuous HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 2 MARCH 1, 2016 change in staff and other priority City items, such as to work with residents and the La Quinta Historical Society to establish the Cove historic district comprised of 57 homes and to obtain a landmark status through the State, to place plaques on historical buildings of importance throughout the City, to complete a bicycle map, to mention a few. Further, obtaining a CLG status in the future might be a very difficult process; Assembly Bill 52 establishes consultation requirements with all California Native American Tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission List and does not provide staff the ability to realize any time savings for the developer as staff still needs to allow for the 90 day notification period; thus, no actual time streamlining is achieved if the item is not presented to the Commission; further, some instances may require the presence of a tribal member or consultant as tribal notification will not suffice; Frequency of meetings - the Commission met only five times during 2015/16; it recommended amending the bylaws to allow for quarterly meetings; Possibility of combining the Historic Preservation Commission with another existing City Board or Commission that can assume its responsibilities and purview, and allow for the CLG status to be maintained; The stakeholders' feedback received through the community outreach efforts of the Development Code Tune Up review were from developers and contractors; no comments were received from homeowners who own historic properties and are very interested to see them preserved, and will be concerned when they realize that historic preservation is not being taken seriously by the City; Lack of appreciation of the City's historic resources in general, including underground, dwellings, as well as the beautiful mountains; The Ad -hoc Committee Members, with the exception of Chairperson Wright, have never attended a Historic Preservation Commission meeting; there is a difference when evaluating the benefits of a Commission on paper and in action; Financial savings would be minimal based on the limited amount of meetings the Commission has held over the last few years; further, the Commissioners have individually covered the majority of expenses associated with the required yearly trainings and conferences; Other Coachella Valley local municipalities are currently in the process of establishing historic preservation commissions. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 3 MARCH 1, 2016 The Commission asked who will be responsible for historic preservation review if the Commission is disbanded. Staff replied the reviews will be completed by planning staff, additionally, the Ad -hoc Committee's recommendation was for staff to work in conjunction with the La Quinta Historical Society in the review of historical, archaeological, and paleontological reports. Staff noted that this item will be presented to the Planning Commission on March 8, 2016, and encouraged the Commission to attend and express their comments at the meeting. The Commission reached a unanimous consensus recommending that the City Council does not eliminate Chapter 2.35 Historic Preservation Commission from the La Quinta Municipal Code. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL - None REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None COMMISSIONER ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Namvar/Redmon to adjourn this meeting at 2:55 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA, Executive Assistant City of La Quinta, California HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 4 MARCH 1, 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 Monika Radeva From: Peggy Redmon <peggy@peggyredmonlaw.com> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 5:48 PM To: Wanda Wise -Latta Cc: Monika Radeva; Gabriel Perez; Kevin Maevers; Linda Williams; Leila Namvar Subject: Elimination Of Historic Preservation Commission/Memo In Regard Same Attachments: historicpreservation332016.doc Attached. ICbmCgorry3lIvas[botCbbleMolgetMtltompletedC�arlierltoday.0 Peggy Redmon, Esq.O IN Law Office of Peggy Redmon, APCR P.O. Box 240M La Quinta, CA 92247M Phone: 760-250-6232M peggy@peggyredmon law. comM M *** CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION *** The information and attachments of this e-mail transmission contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from PEGGY REDMON, ESQ. This information may be protected by the attorney -client privilege and/or the work product doctrine and is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as the recipient hereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately at (760) 250-6232 and permanently delete this message without making a copy.m M If this communication is regarding an assessment collection matter, please note that I am acting as a debt collector in this matter and any information obtained or transmitted may be used by me in that matter.M PEGGY REDMON PO BOX 240 LA QUINTA, CA 92247-0240 (760) 250-6232 PHONE peggy@peggyredmonlaw.com Planning Commission & City Council City of La Quinta RE: Historic Preservation Commission Elimination Dear Concerned Parties: First, I want to thank you for the efforts that have gone into analysis re: termination of Historical Preservation Commission. - I do not think you took this decision lightly! But as none of you (with the exception of Bob Wright) have ever served on the HPC, I think there are some points of which you should be made aware. With that said, here is some of my reasoning as expressed at the meeting on 3/1 /2016 after a presentation by Mr. Perez and for why this action should not take place, and for my vote opposing same: Focus Appears To Be On Only One Aspect Of HPC "Charge" & Not the Entire Municipal Code Provisions Regarding Powers and Duties of the HPC The focus appears to be on the costs to developers for the review by the HPC as well as the costs to the City for that Commission's meetings, etc. when it should be on the next focus of that Commission for the next several years. The fees for the HPC review are paid by developers to the City, so the City shouldn't be out a great deal of $ on that. The HPC hasn't attended any conferences, etc. for at least a couple of years now versus in the past when conferences, flights, etc. were paid by the City. Cost of meetings is predicated upon both number of meetings held AND cost of cancelling meetings. This is because HPC meetings are scheduled on an annual basis yet meetings are only held when need for review of projects - which means only about 5 actual meetings held this year with 7 cancellations - costs could be reduced by scheduling HPC meetings "on calendar" only 4 times year (requirement of maintaining CLG status & when there is nothing historical for review, those meetings could be used for webinar classes to maintain commissioner's CLG educational requirements) & then having additional meetings only as needed for review of projects with historical significance (further discussed below). This would reduce costs of having to post cancellations, etc. There have been only 2 reviews within the past year brought to HPC and which resulted in those 5 meetings (2 meetings were held on same development as I recall) - not a lot of cost to developers. Each of these were approved by the HPC with only tribal input requested (which would now be mandatory under new guidelines/laws & so HPC would not be involved in that any more anyway). Remember the HPC is only advisory, and so we could not stop a development or project anyway! IF new laws allow the "tribal aspect" of review by HPC (which was part of past emphasis), even fewer would now have to go to HPC - would be limited to only those with possible historic significance rather than tribal or cultural significance. This eliminates the idea/position that the HPC adds to the review process time or is potentially redundant of 2 the CEQA process/review, and the elimination of this from the duties of the HPC will hopefully result in a streamlining of the developer's process by the actions of the Planning Commission or other entities charged with those tribal notifications. Other HPC charges (see Chapter 2.35, Section 2.35.040 B1, 2, 3, 5 and C3, 4, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17) should be the emphasis for the future - and bolster need to maintain CLG status - with CLG status, City can apply for grants, etc. to facilitate those "charges" being developed, implemented and monitored as indicated in those Chapter requirements. This was beginning to be the shift of focus of the committee before David Sawyer retired, but then with changes in staff, etc. - it seemed to have fallen by the wayside. We had completed input on the bike/walk guide sheet/booklets and on the website re: same - and were starting to discuss how to go about next steps toward historic landmarks, historic districts, etc. As I understand it, the 1996 survey is not quite complete and needs to be revised - that tally of the historic homes/buildings in LQ also needs to be coordinated with the Planner's database so that when a request for demolition/construction can be reviewed against the historical aspect/importance of that building & then adjustments made in that review process - another aspect of the HPC that would be future work, but which had not yet been begun as the HPC was not informed until Tuesday's meeting that this coordination of databases did not exist! This would indeed demonstrate the City's concern for cultural resources and would maintain that CLG status. It should be noted that this 1996 Survey identified 72 properties eligible for landmark status, 6 eligible for National Registry and approximately 57 with potential for forming a Historic District in the Cove - all projects that should be the next focus of the HPC. It seems that the developers were deemed to be the "stakeholders" in this review & determination to eliminate the review by HPC - but the entire City of La Quinta & its citizenry are stakeholders in the historical buildings throughout this City - and in identifying, maintaining, advertising & working on getting that info to the public - all of which are HPC "Powers and Duties" but all of which have not been begun yet - we were aware that developer review was diminishing as fewer and fewer projects were being built, but were starting that other aspect of the HPC's identified duties. We should be allowed the opportunity to serve the citizenry in this capacity. Need to Maintain CLG Status CLG status was hard fought several years in the past, and it would be a shame to throw the baby away with the bath water - especially as the baby hasn't yet had a chance to develop its full potential! It was said that there is concern re: the costs to compile the required annual CLG report but let's be honest - for the last several years, it has simply been a matter of "nothing new since last report". But now there is potential for that to change and in a positive way that could engender CLG monies coming our way for those historically centered projects! CLG requires only 4 meetings a year - so the HPC calendar could be scheduled annually accordingly, as discussed above - eliminating the need for repeated costs for cancelling monthly meetings that didn't occur because there were no developments to review, and the costs of posting that cancellation, etc. Those meetings could be focused entirely on the historical charges identified above and in the Municipal Code sections cited above. 3 CLG requires a 5 person committee/commission. But it is possible that this committee/commission could be combined with another committee/commission - something that could be considered and implemented, if allowed under CLG guidelines. If not, there is really a de minimis cost to the City - the commissioners are paid only $75 each per meeting - and my poll of the commissioners indicates that ALL are willing (as I have done) to waive that payment! Frankly, it costs me more money to pay my accountant to prepare extra schedules because of that $75 per meeting than that $75 amounts to! Please note that other cities in the Valley are just beginning to see the need for Historic Preservation Committees in their own jurisdictions - why should our City be the one going backward instead of forward in this regard? And they are seeing that the CLG designation is harder and harder to obtain - why should our City let this go and then perhaps in future years regret that decision? We have historical sites that need to be developed as the Municipal Code sets out - and we need to maintain that CLG status for possible funding, direction and education toward those goals. If there is no HPC - what commission or committee or part of City government is going to take on those historical site development roles - who will assure that preservation of those historical buildings will occur? There does not appear to be a plan to do anything as to those aspects of the HPC charge - but those are important duties and responsibilities that this City should not sweep under the rug. I urge you to reconsider your position and determine not to eliminate this valuable and important commission. Sincerely, Peggy Redmon BI-1 Titif at Cp " OF �O TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Gabriel Perez, Planning Manager DATE: March 8, 2016 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION — CHANGE START TIME TO 6:00 P.M. BACKGROUND At the February 23, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, staff expressed interest in assessing the Planning Commission preference for a change in the start time for the regular Tuesday evening Planning Commission meetings. Since the February 23, 2016 meeting, Executive Assistant Monika Radeva received individual correspondence from Planning Commissioners and the majority of responses are in support of changing the Planning Commission start time from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. City staff requests that the Planning Commission make a formal decision to request the change in start time to 6:00 p.m. A department report will be prepared for the City Council regarding the decision of the Planning Commission to request a change in the start time of the regular Planning Commission meetings. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council amend the Planning Commission meeting start time from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.