Loading...
CC Resolution 2006-038 RESOLUTION 'NO. 2006..038 A ffESOLUTION OF THE CITYCOUNC,IL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL'"ASSESSMENT NO. 200S..0S50 AND DISAPPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, NO. 32752, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 2.SSACRESINTO THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: EA2005..550 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32752 APPLICANT: RAY SHAFFER WHEREAS, the City Cauncil of the City of La Quinta, Céllifornia, .didon the 18th day of AprH 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by Ray Shafferta certify Environmental Assessment Na. 2005-550 and apprave Tentative Parcel Map 32752 to allaw for three single-family homes and other miscellaneolJslots' onappraximately 2.55 acres located on 'or near Weiskopf Street and Jack Nicklaus, immediately south of PGA Boulevard withinPGA West; and WHEREAS, the owner and original subdivider, KSL Land Corporation, is selling the property to Ray Shaffer, the applicant for the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did,Òn the3rd day 'Of June 1997,àpprove Tentative Tract Map 28444, a single4amily development of 69 residential and other miscellaneous lots (described as flnon- residential common 10tsfl and two flreserved lots") by adoption of Resalution 97-42; and WHEREAS, the City Cauncilof the City of La Quinta, Califarnia did, on the 2nd day of June 1998, grant final map approval for Tract 28444 by adoption of Resolution 98-54; and WHEREAS, the City Cauncil of the City of La Quinta, Califarnia did, on the 6th day of August 1996, grant final map approval for Tract 28340..1, a develapment 'Of single family residential lots and other miscellaneous camman lots by adoption of Minute Order 96-130; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision of the 2.55 acres for the project involves Lots flH," III," IlL," and 'flW" of Tract 28444 and Lot lID" of Tract 28340-1; and WHEREAS, Lots flH", fll" and flW" are listed on the Lot and Land Use Summary on the Tentative Tract Map 28444 asflopen space and.tandscape lots" and were not described as flreserved lots" (only Lots lIT" and flU" of theTentativeMàp were described as flreserved lots") and were further described in staff reports and agenda titles far the Tentative Map as IIvarious non-residential lots" and flcommon lots", respectively; and Resolution No. 2006-038 EA 2005-550 & TPM 32752 Adopted: April 18, 2006 Page' 2 I WHEREAS, Lats flH", Iq"and flW" were reserved forllopen space and recreational purposes" 'On the final map; and WHEREAS, Lots IIH",III"and IIW" were voluntarily encumbered by KSL as open space/recreation and landscape lots on Tract 28444 and these lots implement the Goals, Policies and Objectives in Sections ULA. and III.F. of the Specific Plan to provide balance between 'Open space and other uses; 'and WHEREAS, the City staff members who pracessed Tract 28444, including Jerry Herman, who was then Community Development Director, Christine di Iorio, who was then the PlanningManager,and'Stan Sawa, then and now a Principal Planner, have indicated that KSL and. its consultants did not, at the time they were processing Tract 28444, indicate that their intention was to ultimately develop the open space lettered lots as residentialareas;and WHEREAS, deletion of these lots as open space lots would be incansistent with these Specific Plan Gaals, Policies, and Objectives far the original PGAWest section because these lots constitute strategic locations fÓr such amenities as determined by the City and as demonstrated by comments by the devel'Oper at the time of approval of Tract 28444; and WHEREAS, there is testimany in the record that adjacent homeowners relied on representations by KSLand others relating to the continued existence of these lots as open space, and indicated further that they were charged a premium for their lots based upon the proximity to open space areas; and WHEREAS, the applicant and KSL have stated on the record that there are other locations in PGA West where open space parcels exist that either they or others intend to develop with Jesidential housing if the City permits the conversi'On of non- residential open space to residential uses ,however, neither the applicant nor KSL have been willing arable to provide the City withinformatian about these specific locations so that the City can truly assess~heimpact of its actions; and WHEREAS, as a result of not having this information, the Cityis unable to determine whether granting the appraval for this subdivision will have a significant individual or. cumulative impact .on open space and recreational uses or establish a precedent for future similar projects; and WHEREAS, there is not sufficient evidence in the" Jecord that KSL intended to (or communicated to the City its intention to) develop Lots IIH", III", and IIW" as residential development, particularly in light of the fact that the Tentative Map IIreserved" only two lots (Lots liT" and flU") and in other residential tracts (e.g., Tract Na. 28340-1), KSL has expressly identified certain other lats as being reserved for future development; and _...._._-,.._-_._--------~ ------ -- -- - "- -- Resolution No. ,2006-038 EA 2005-550 & TPM 32752 Adopted: April 18, 2006 Page 3 ' WHEREAS, Lot ilL" is reserved on the FinarMap'for Tract 28444 for private street purposesforthe benefit of, among others, the69individual'1ot owners of Tract 28444 to provide the owners access to Jack N.icklausandsuchlot was also dedicated to and accepted by the City for ingress and egress for service and emergency vehicles and far publicutiHties; and WHEREAS, the record establishes that KSL intended far Lot ilL" to be constructed as the final, northern leg of Weiskopf Street as evidenced by testimony beforethe,City Council in connection with approval of Tract 28444 and as evidenced by express written concurrence with certain conditions contained in Amendment #1 to Encraachment Permit #2904; and WHEREAS, neither the applicant norKSLhave pravided the City with any evidence that the 69 individual lot owners have relinquished their rights in Lot ilL" of Tract 28444; and . ' . WHEREAS, neither the City nor the utility easement holders have abandon their easements in LatllL" of Tract 28444; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan identifies Lot ilL" of Tract 28444 and Lot 110" 'Of Tract 28340-1 as thenarthern leg of Weiskopf Street, allowing it to intersect with Jack Nicklaus; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Assessment did not address the growth inducing impacts of removing open space from PGA W~st (either on an individual or cumulative basis) nor did the Environmental Assessment address traffic or circulation impacts in the event that Weiskopf Street is not completed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Cammission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 27th day of December 2005, on the 10th and 24th day of January 2006, on the 14th day at February 2006, and on' the 14th and 28th day 'Of March 2006, hold noticed public hearings to consider certification of Environmental Assessment 2005- 550 and Tentative Parcel' Map 32752, and adopted Minute Motion 2006-003 recommending denial of the Environmental Assessment and proposed subdivision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and consideration of all testimony, evidence, and arguments presented, if any , of all interested persons desiring to be heard and based upon the entire record forthis application, the following facts exist which justify denial of certification of Environmental Assessment 2005-550 and disapproval of Tentative Parcel Map 32752: Resolution No. 2006-038 EA 2005-550,&TPM32752 A~opted:Aptil18, 2006 Page 4 1. That approval 'Of the proposed subdivisian wauld result in canversionof land currently established for open space and recreational use to'áresidential'use designation. The record does not contain slJbstantialevidencethatKSLhadal1 intention to convert LotsllH, " III," and IIW" to any other use when it created those lots. The record contains specific evidence that KSLbelieved that these open space and landscape lots would be of benefit to the subdi\lisionin connection with the subdivision's density and in cannectionwithview and other recreational goals assaciatêdwith these lots. KSLvoluntarily designated these lots as open space and landscape lots on the Tentative Map, reserved them for open space and recreati'Onal use on the recorded Final Map, and did not expressly reserve them for future development, as compared to other tract maps where such expressresefvations were madele.g.,Tract 28340.;.1). 2. That based on evidence in the 'record, including testimony of and letters from many lot owners, the elìmination of the open space and recreationaldesignatjon of said lots will undermine the reasooableexpectation formed by persons who acquired property interests in these developments with the understandjng that said lots w'Ould remain undeveloped. 3. That the praposedeliminatian of open space and landscaping us~s an Lots IIH", III" andllW" conflicts with section 9.10.010 of the Municipal Code which provides that the objectives of the Zaning Code include establishingllconditions which allow various types of land uses to exist in, harmony and to promote the stability of existing land uses protecting them" and lito prevent undue intensity of land use or development." This project would 'increase density (in contraction tp KSL's representations during approval of Tract No. 28444) and would undermine the stability and protection of open space. This is particularly the case where, during the tentative map approval far Tract 28444the agenda titles and staff reports referred totots IIH" ,111" and IIW" as IIcommon lots" and Ilnon-residentiallots", respectively ,indicating staff and CityC'Ouncil intentian at the time of Tract 28444'sapproval that these lots would not be developed for residential purposes. T~e proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's General Plan residential policy, which is to encourage the preservation of neighborhood character, including open space. 4. That Section III-A. of the original PGAWest Specific Plan provides as a Goal, , Policy, and Objective that it is necessary for projectstohavea balance between 'Open space and other uses. In furtherance of this concept, the Specific Plan provides fora IIcontinuous, ribbon-like pattern of open space throughout the praject. " Likewise, Section IJI.F. of the original· Specific Plan, entitled IIConservation, Recreational and Open Space Element,'! recognizes the importance of maintaining open space by noting its value asa Jhllited resource. In furtherance of these statedc'Oncepts, the Specific Plan prescribes that golf courses shall be Ildesigned (laid out) and developed sa that adjacent development will have the maximum visual,andopen space value possible." - ----..------ ----------------_. .....- - -- --- -- - - --- ----- -----~ Resolution No. 2006-038 ~ 2005,.550& TPM 32752 Adopted: April 18, 2006 Page 5 The remavalpf tats IIH", III" and IIW" from 'Open space uses will contradict established Goafs, Policies and Objectives in the Specific Plan that emphasize the importance 'Of maintaining 'apenspaceinPGAWest and seeks to prevent the removal of this limited and valuable resource~ Lots 1114", III" and IIW"were voluntarily included byKSL in Tract No. 28444 as non-residentiallatsand that these .Iots are strategically located to maximize open spàce·in an area that is compatible with its present use. In addition, the City Council' finds that the purpase of the, Open Space, Element is to establfshthe City's gaals" policies and programs relating to the preservation and management of open space lands. Open space pöliciesand programs are designed to discourage the premature 'Or inappropriate conversion of open space to more intense land uses. They are alsa intended to assure the long-term viability of open spaces for continUed availability and possible production, and recreational and scenic enjoyment. Preservation, conservation and management of the City's open space lands and scenic resources for enhanced recreational, environmental and economic purposes. The City shall encourage the preservation of open space in privately- owned development projects. As a result, this application is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and PGA West Specific Plan. 5. That KSL made statements during public hearings before the Planning Commission that it (KSL) andCNL currently own similarly situated property within the PGA West Specific Plan and PGA West that are presently designated as, open space and landscape lots. Statementswefemade ta the Planning Commission to the effect that a" favorable outcome of this application may result in further requests to subdivide these similarly situated lots by KSL, CNL, or others, ina manner similar to this project. Although requested by the Planning Commission to identify the scope of the similarly situated parcels, neither KSL nor the applicant was able and/or willing to provide the Planning Commission additional informåtion regarding' the location of or its plans to process these additional lots. 6. That, as a result 'Of the KSL's failure ta provide the Citywithinfarmatian relating to KSL's intention to further subdivide similarly situated subdivisions within the area covered by the PGAWest SpecificPlan¡ the City does not have the' necessary information to properly assess the individual or cumulative environmental impacts that could result to the physical environment from the removal of theopen space, landscape and recreational. uses designated for Lots IIH," III," and IIW" and the private street required on for Lot ilL". Environmental Assessment 2005~550 is therefore deficìentbecause it daes not constitute an adequate informational document to permit the City Council to approve the praject. Resolution ,No. 2006-038 EA 2005-550 & TPM 32752 Adopted: April 18;2006 Page 6 7. That approving the deletion of the open space, landscape and recreatianal lats may result in grawth inducing effects on the physical environment because the decision to allow elimination 01 open space, landscape and recreational lots' could establish a precedent with respect to conversion of other open space and recreationaL uses in the area (based on KSL's testimony before the Planning Commission). ThesegfovVthinducing ,impacts were not ahalyzedin the:, EnvironmentaLAssessment. Forthis reason, and as required by CEQAGuideline . ¡15126.2(d), thepatential cumulative effect of a decision to approve this project must be analyzed as part of the project's environmental review documentation. The current environmental review for thepr'Ojectalso lacks sufficienfanalysisan the traffic àndcirculationimpactsthat could result from the decision to remove WeiskopfStreetas acoUectorfor PGA West and asan entrance to Tract 28444 as evidenced on Exhibit 9 to Specific PlanAmendment #4. The project'straffic and circulation impacts are, not sufficiently analyzed. Environmental Assessment 2005-550 :is therefore deficient because it does not constitute. an adequate infarmatiQnal document, to permit the City Council to approve the project. 8. That, as part of recorded Final Map 28444, KSL made an offer to dedicate an easement to the City over certain lots including Lot IlL." This dedication was expressly granted to the Gityfor public utilities and for ingress and egress 'Of service and emergency vehicles. The Final Map indicates that the City accepted this dedication, as did apubHc utility provider. The record reflects that tat IlL" was also expressly intended to provide an access point for the 69 lots to Jack Nicklaus through an extension of Weiskopf Street. The Final Map for Tract No. 28444 expressly reserved Lot ilL" to the individual lot owners. Section 13.12.130(GLofthe MunicipalCqdeprovides thatthe City shall only approve a tentative map unless itcan make a finding that the subdivision ,lIwill not conflict with easements, acquired by the.public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. II The proposed subdivision would eliminate the' City's easement ,in that it would prohibit the City from ensuring thatLot IlL" is used for its stated purpose and would eliminate the individuaUot owner' sinterests in Lot IlL." There is no evidence in the record that the applicant or KSL have obtained the relinquishment of these rights. The,City has no authority to permanently relinquish the rights of such lot owners to property interests expressly conferred to such 'Owners without prior can sent fram each such lot owner and, indeed, not over the objections of such lot owners. Substantial evidence in the rec'Ord reveals that many of the affected lot owners havenat provided their consent to the proposed eliminatian of the private street depicted as Lot IlL" but have; instead, expressed their adamant objection to the propased subdivision based on the projected negative effects an aesthetics, maintenance of open space, and access for emergency services. -- -~-~-- -- ----- ---~~ - - --- --- -..----- Resolution No. 2006-038 EA 2005-'550 & TPM 32752 Adopted: April 18, 2006 . Page 7 9. The purpO$e for the individual lots owners' and City's interests in ·Lot IlL" are directly linked to a significant public health and safety issuerelating to the community, namely convenient and efficient access for emergency vehicles and as a primary access point for the subdivision. Thiscanclusion is evidenced by the inclusion of Lot IlL" as part of the Weiskopf Street cannection with Jaèk Nicklaus in Exhibit 9 of Specific, Plan Amendment #4. ' Notably, KSL concurred to develop Lot IILIf as the second phase of Weiskopf Street's extension to Jack Nicklaus andexpressJy represented to the City that it understoad that this obligation was not extinguished. In" light of the public health and safety concerns relating to the cantinuedmaintenance olLat ilL" for its designated us~, it is necessary to maintain its easement in the affected lots,. including Lot ilL," for the benefit of the City and its residents in the vicinity. 10. KSL'sintend to construct Weiskopf Street overLotllLlfisdepicted both on Exhibit 9 of the PGAWest Specific Plan and in the Grading, Drainage and Paving Plans for Final Map 28444. KSLexpresslyunderstood that tot ilL" would be used for the final northern leg of Weiskopf Street to JackNicklaus as evidenced by the 1999 Amendment #1 to Encroachment Permit #2409. This demonstrates that KSL did not have an expectation to develop the subject site (which is bisected by Lot ilL") as a residential use.. 11 . That, as part of recorded Final Map 28444, KSL retained for itself, successors, assignees, and lot owners certain lots within the tract, including Lot IlL," as private streets. Specifically, Lot IlL" was designated by KSL on the Final Map for ingress and egress of emergency services. This designation is shownon the recorded Final Map and is directly linked to a significant public health and safety issue relating to the community, namely the preservation of convenient and .efficient emergency vehicles. Therecord'furtherreflectsthat, in addition to its intended use for' ingress and egress of emergency services, Lot ilL'" was intended to act as a primary access point for the 69 lots to Jack Nicklaus. In 'Order to accomplish the connection, appraval of the Final Map was conditioned on KSL extending Weiskopf Street over Lot ilL"· so that it would connect with Jack Nicklaus. 12. That there is no feasible method to mitigate or avaid the impacts identified in findings above otherthan by denying Tentative Parcel MapNa. 32752 because, including without limit, (1) there has been Insufficient· environmental 'analysis relating ta removing open space and the connection afWeisk'Opf Street with Jack Nicklaus, (2) the location of Weiskopf Street terminating at Jack Nicklaus is specified in, the Specific Plan for this exact location and there arena other available locations for this intersection that would, be as effective, and (3) the individual lot owners, the City and 110 have not relinquished their respective property interests in Lot ilL". Resolution No. 2006-038 EA 2005..550 & TPM 32752 Adopted: April 18,2006 Page 8 . 1 3. Thè facts stated in this Resoluti'On a·re supported by substantial. evidence in the reÒord, including testimony received at public hearings, the Staff presentations and Staff report, all materials in the project files, in the TractNo. 28444Jiles, and the written correspondence and telephone messages left by area residents, the applicant and KSL. There is no other substantial evidence; nor are there other facts that detract from the findings made in this Resolution and the City Couf"Icilexpressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after duec'OlÌsideration of aiLe vidence presented: to it. NOVV, THEREFORE, BElT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, Califarnia, as fallows: 1 . That the above recitations are true' and correct and constitute the findings of said City Council in this cas~.ln addition, pursuant to La QuintaMunicipal Code Section 13.-12.130, the City further finds as follows: A. The proposed subdivisi'On is not consistent with the Open Space Element of the City' sGeneral Plan and PGA West Specific Planfor,am'Ong others, the reasons outlined above; B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the PGA West Specific Plan for, among others, the reasons stated above; . C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements may cause substantial environmental damage; D. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements may cause serious health problems to the extent that site access is' limited by the construction of homes in the right-of"'way forWeiskopfStreet and due to the inadequate access to 'One or more of thelats created by the subdivision; E. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development for the reasons stated above; F. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of devel'Opment, given that the original approval of the subdivision was based upon the assumption that the area now at issue would Temainas open space, and the prior density calculations and representations for Tract No. 28444 were based upon Lots IIH", ill", andllW" remaining open space; and G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements prop'Osed will conflict with easements and access rights held by the" City and by the 69 lot owners within Tract No. 28444 in Lat ilL" of Tract No. 28444. --- ..-- ....-..- -- ~--_._.~.- - ---..- Resolution No. 2006~038 EA 2005-550 & TPM 32752 Adopted: ,April, 18, 2006 Page 9 2~ That the Environmental Assessn1entand.subdivision application are incompatible with significant and objective standards and policies existing on the date the Environmental Assessment and subdivision application were deemed'complete. 3. That, the subdivision application would create conditians and impacts which cannot be avoided. 4. The City Council denies certificatiorrofEnvironmental Assessment No. 2005- 550 as submitted based . an the findings stated herein. Sasedupon the whale record, the City is unable to find that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed subdivisiÒnwill have a sigriificanteffecton the environment. The EnviranmentalAssessment' 2005-550 daes not reflect the independent'judgmentofthe City Council~ 5. The CityCouncil disapprovesolTentâtive Parcel Map 32752 based upon these findings. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California held on the 18th of April, 2006, by the 'fotl'Owing vote: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne, Mayor Pro Tam Sniff NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Adolph ABSTAIN: None ~F~~ City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: ~'-1ß-~~~<-V JU E.. ... REEK,MMC, City. . City 'Of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) Resolutio.nNO., 2006~038 EA 2005-550&TPM32752 Adopted: April 18, 2006 Page 10 APPROVED AS TO FORM: -_._--~..- -....--