SP 121-E La Quinta Resort (1989) - Amendment 2PC STAFF REPORT
r
K01A
MEMORANDUM
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
:P"H-2
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1989
SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E AMENDMENT
#2 AND PLOT PLAN NO. 89-041
This matter was continued from the October 10, 1989 Planning
Commission meeting to permit the Applicant and property owners
the opportunity to resolve their concerns.
Therefore, the matter is now before the Commission. The
Commission has various options available, such as the following:
1. Continue the Hearing.
2. Approve the request as presented.
3. Modify the request.
4. Deny the request.
Attachment: 1. Letters of protest received since October
10, 1989, meeting.
2. October 10, 1989 Planning Commission
Staff Report
BJ/MEMOJH.014
$AA
Qll
�.� October 10, 1989
As a permanent resident of Santa Rosa Cove since February 1986, I am
deeply concerned about Landmark's intention to build a further 77-80 hotel
units on Avenida Obregon.
As a concerned homeowner, I would like to call your attention to the
following facts and comments:
1) Property owners were given minimal notice of this project.
2) This meeting was scheduled at a time when very few property owners are
able to attend.
3) Inspite of Landmarks considerable political "clout," as property owners
we have rights that need to be respected and addressed and action taken
to implement BEFORE this project is allowed to commence.
The issues that need to be dealt with in order to protect our rights are:
1) Parking 80 units/14 parking spaces? Please clarify.
2) Traffic Santa Rosa Cove should not be subjected to hotel traffic --either
employee or guest.
3) Density
The project description states "Medium density residential
4-8 dwellings per acre. Net acreage 1.7." Please clarify.
Between Landmark and La Quinta Joint Venture, Santa Rosa Cove
is beginning to look more like a city than a beautiful desert
community. This "progress" undoubtedly brings in dollars,
but over -developing a unique area does not enhance the City
of La Quinta longterm.
4) Security
It is imperative, if Landmark goes ahead with this project,
that they first ensure our security by removing the existing
"joke of a guard -gate" on Avenida Fernando and building ( and
landscaping) a new guard -gate on Fernando beyond Avenida
Obregon, and another gate at the other end of Obregon. That
way their staff, their guestst and anyone visiting their
tennis club would not jeopardize our security.
5) Drainage
We have existing drainage problems which are being checked and
which may be due at least in part to Landmarks tennis courts.
It is therefore necessary that their drainage plans for this
project and for any further tennis courts they plan. to build
be carefully studied and implemented so they do not create
drainage problems on our streets.
I would like to add that I feel like I am being steam -rolled., and I
would like to feel that the City of La Quints is truly concerned about protecting
my rights as a homeowner and permanent resident here. I love my home. And
I don't want it spoiled.
Judy Blum
76-941 Calle Mazatlan
La Quinta, Ca. 92253
Tel. 564-1921
,
RECE lk " i t- Al Calle Mazatlan
OCT 16 1969La Quinta
California 92253
CITY OF LA i, uiNTA October 12, 1989
PLANNING & DEVELUMENT DEPT.
To the City of La Quinta PlanningCommission,
I want to thank you all very much for your extraordinary patience and
willingness to listen to our problems (especially at such a late hour and
involving issues not on your agenda!), and for your decision to give us
time to meet with Landmark with the hope of resolving our most pressing
issues.
I also want to "put in writing" my personal feelings about what it
looks like, to me, is happening not only in Santa Rosa Cove but in La Quinta
as a whole.
Yes, I agree I have been very "naive" about the likelihood of new
development here. Also I do not believe I could have foreseen quite this
kind of rape of the land. When I chose to buy my home in Santa Rosa Cove
(rather than at PGA West) it was because I was led to believe this cove would
retain its natural beauty and would not be "over -built." I was told
specifically that "there would be a total of just over 300 units in Santa
Rosa Cove." No mention was made of the "legendary" La Quinta Hotel changing
its image and changing this cove by adding over seven hundred units. No
mention was made of the other projected developments by La Quinta Joint
Venture --Los Estados, The Enclave, and the soon-to-be development off
Fernando. I cannot help feeling I was purposely misled, and I learned, at
the meeting on Tuesday night, that I am far from being alone. Misrepresentation
seems to be rampant among major developers here in the desert.
As it turns out this unique cove, once truthfully called "the gem of
the desert," now has buildings and projected buildings of one kind or another
packed and/or stacked on every available piece of land. I feel very strongly
that this is an assault on my home and on the land, I am not against "progress."
At the same time I am very much against spoiling a place of such natural
beauty by over -building out of pure financial greed. In our hearts I feel
those of us who live here because we love it (and not because our property
value is increasing --for now...) want it to continue to be a special place.
I also feel strongly that the City of La Quinta will not benefit, longterm,
by allowing the two largest developers in this area to assert their
political/f inancial power to essentially "take over" our community. And
I am grateful to be able to say that I feel alot better after Tuesday nights
meeting because I felt "heard," and because I feel you too are concerned.
We all understand that Sunrise and Landmark benefit our City. And we give
them great credit for their standard of design and building. But there has
to be some kind of control, now, if we are to safeguard our homes and our
lifestyle.
Landmarks La Quinta Hotel advertises itself as a "Do Not Disturb Sign."
As a permanent resident of La Quinta and, specifically, of Santa Rosa Cove,
I would really appreciate it if they would respect my home and their own
advertising.
Thank you again for listening to us,
Sincerely, I
js
Judy Blum
John W. Lucas
77-253 Calle Mazatlan
La Quinta, CA 92253
October 17, 1989
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
RECEIVED
OCT 19 1989
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Reference: Case No. EA 89-141, Specific Plan 121E, Amendment #2,
Plot Plan 89-421
Dear Commissioners:
This letter follows the Planning Commission Public Hearing which was
held on October 10th on the Reference item which is the request by
Landmark Land Company to be allowed to construct 77 hotel units on
the west side of Avenida Obregon at the La Quints Hotel.
My condominium is at 77-253 Calle Mazatlan in Santa Rosa Cove. We
believe that this is one of the finest developments and we feel that the
hotel adds greatly to it.
First of all, I am a member of the Hotel Tennis Club and I am concerned
that this request will mean that the present championship court as well
as other tennis courts will be razed. When I became a member it was my
understanding that courts were to be added rather than taken away. I
hope this is not a new trend but that new courts will be added as was
stated at the hearing.
As I told you at the hearing, I am especially concerned about water
drainage as this project goes ahead. The entire area surrounding the
proposed site is almost flat. Currently water is pumped periodically
from the Tennis Club through a pipe which empties onto the east side of
Calle Mazatlan just to the south of the existing tennis villas. The
recent addition of an employee parking area and a utility area just
north of the site have added to drainage problems. The proposed
construction will only make them worse unless, as Landmark
representatives stated at the Hearing, they have a plan for disposing
of the additional run-off. I respectfully ask that you make sure that
Landmark has a workable plan and that it is implemented.
It is my understanding that my neighbors are sending you letters
addressing other issues which must be resolved such as traffic, parking,
security and entrance gates.
I want to take this opportunity to thank each of you for your personal
time in helping to keep La Quinta a gem in the desert.
Sincerely,
cc:ally Dowd
Melissa Layton
Elaine Lloyd
Jane Redner
Dale Walter
RECEIVED
OCT 19 1989
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PLANNING & DEVELOPME!VT DEPT.
La Quinta Planning Commission
La Ouinta, CA 92253
77321 Camino Quintana
La Quinta, CA 92253
After the last marathon meeting of gripes and emotion,
ourrespect and admiration for the members of this commission has
magnified. You displayed knowledge of the situations discussed
and maintained control of the meeting with tact and authority.
We, too, have a lot of respect for Landmark and their
developments. The main reason we bought in Santa Rosa Cove
was the proximity to and availabilty of their facilities.
However, in their pursuit of profits, to which we fully
acknowledge they are entitled, we feel they are sacrificing some
of these amenities without fully considering the residents of the
Cove, their neighbors. They seem to be viewing their added units
to the hotel and now the motel only from the commercial aspect
and insensitive to the already existing parking problems,
especially on Los Arbolles. I walked down Los Arbolles this
morning, October 14, 1969, at 7:10 a.m. and at that time there
were 16 cars parked along the street on the hotel side. This is
only one time and one example. I� /ri���� io u�•��.fr_ �►z�ic„� � c,�hy arc
Ae c'Rr3
One concern voiced by Landmark at the last meeting seemed to
be with the proposed relocation of the Fernando gate below the
turn at Obregon, as outlined in the staff report, also, a new
gate to be installed at the south end of Obregon. If their
problem is with the movement of their service vehicles with
proposed gate barriers, a possible solution would be to install
gates such as the one at the entrance to The Enclave. These
gates would not need to be as large nor as elaborate. Small
service vehicles could then move freely, yet auto traffic would
be controlled. In addition, and very important to us, it should
reduce traffic through the front gate by routing motel traffic
via Fernando.
Landmark indicated they did not feel i•t feasible to request
a motel resident to drive all the w_al out to Fernando, to
Eisenhower and the front gate, thence to the golf club, yet these
same people undoubtedly drive an average of ten miles to get to
their golf course in their home area. If this re^ ally_ would be an
item, the motel/hotel should offer van or small vehicle
transportation to and from the pro shop, a service already being
done by the hotel.
With regard to noise pollution, some better control should
be exercised at the many outdoor festivities of the hotel. We
live close to the Tennis Club, La Casa, and now the motel and
benefit from the fall -out on all of these many occasions.
Several evenings there were two such parties and on one occasion
I recall there were three bands, one at La Casa, one at the
Tennis Club, J one outside at
stop at 10 p.m., however there
have played longer. Recently
California had signed a bill
carried more than a distance of
exceeds that.
the hot Most times they do
have been times when the bands
I read that the Governor of
prohibiting outdoor music that
fifty feet. The hotel certainly
Others have already mentioned the need for additional
security and traffic control. We are not secure if the Fernando
is inoperable, as it has been so much of time. All of us are
extremely concerned and will support your efforts in helping
solve these problems.
Respectfully,
�� !^ Y ANDSTROM
iVELS E. SANDSTROM
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989
ITEM: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121-E (AMENDMENT $2)
PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421
APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
(LA QUINTA HOTEL)
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
ELIMINATION OF CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT AND
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND
PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77
HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE ON THE
SITE WHERE THE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT
PRESENTLY EXISTS ON 1.7+ ACRES.
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY
MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE
MAZATLAN ON THE LA QUINTA HOTEL SITE.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE)
EXISTING
ZONING: R-3* (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, 1,200 SQ. FT.
MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE REQUIRED).
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-141'HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT.
ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED BY
REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT AND IMPOSITION TO
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED.
BACKGROUND:
The original Specific Plan No. 121-E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club)
was approved by Riverside County in 1975. The Plan authorized
construction of 637 condominiums, 496 hotel rooms, golf course
with clubhouse, and service facilities. The Plan was
subsequently amended in 1982. The City Council authorized the
addition of 279 condominiums and 146 hotel rooms (Council
Resolution No. 82-54 - Specific Plan 121-E, Revised). The
revised Specific Plan was approved to increase project acreage
and to add additional dwelling units and hotel rooms.
In December, 1987, Plot Plan No. 87-387 was approved by the City
expanding the hotel by 336 rooms to 609 units of which 603 rooms
were constructed.
BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 1 -
in September, 1988, Plot Plan No. 88-393 and Specific Plan 121-E
(Amendment #1) was granted which permitted a new maintenance
facility and overflow employee parking lot just south of the
site presently under consideration.
In May, 1989, Plot Plan No. 89-412 was approved expanding the
hotel by 38 rooms to a total of 641 rooms.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Applicant is proposing to eliminate the championship tennis
court, a small Tennis Club building, and several adjacent
parking spaces and replace them with a 43,065 square foot
two-story, 77 -room hotel addition. Additionally, a small
mechanical room addition is proposed to be added to the adjacent
maintenance building to the south and several tennis courts to
the west will need to be relocated to the west to accommodate
the new hotel units.
Adjacent land uses are as follows:
North: Tennis Club
South: Maintenance Facility
East: Hotel Units (detached)
West: Tennis Courts & Vacant Land
The hotel structure would be rectangular in shape with a large
central courtyard reminiscent of a Spanish hacienda. The
courtyard would have a pool, spa and sunning area. The typical
guest room would be 495 square feet with one 2 -room suite with
990 square feet. All units would have a balcony or patio.
Materials for the Spanish style building would match the 1989-90
hotel expansion.
44 new parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the proposed
construction.
ANALYSIS•
1. The building would replace a championship tennis court
that is no longer needed since major tournaments are not
held there any longer.
2. The architecture and materials would be compatible with
adjacent existing buildings.
3. The recently approved maintenance building and overflow
parking area have been completed. A weekday morning
inspection of the parking lot found it to be 78-85 percent
full. It appeared to be used by employees and/or
construction workers.
BJ/STAFFRPT.016
- 2 -
4. Over the past there has been problems due to hotel
employees and to an extent guests driving through the
condominium area to the south. The proposed expansion may
increase the concerns. This can be greatly alleviated by
restricting access to the condominium area by installation
of an "emergency only" vehicular gate across Avenida
Obregon at or near the border between the hotel and
condominium area. Additionally, relocation of the
existing Avenida Fernando gate arm to the area west of
Avenida Obregon will facilitate access for hotel guests
and employees while maintaining security for the
residential areas west of Avenida Obregon. A condition
requiring this has been drafted to achieve this.
5. The 44 new spaces are proposed in front of the new hotel
rooms on both sides of Avenida Obregon. This will provide
convenient parking for most of the new rooms. The new 154
space lot and other nearby lots could provide additional
parking.
6. Environmental Assessment No. 89-141 has been prepared in
conjunction with this request. No significant affects
will be created that cannot be mitigated through the
recommended conditions of approval.
7. The proposed plans indicate a small landscape strip
between the new parking spaces on the west side of Avenida
Obregon and the patio walls of the proposed building.
Staff feels this landscape strip should be increased by
10 -feet as required for front yards in the R-3 Zone. This
will decrease the mass of the building, provide a more
attractive streetscape, and increase distance between
patios and parked cars.
FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to approve the amended Specific Plan No.
121-E can be supported and found in the attached Resolution.
The findings necessary to approve Plot Plan No. 89-421 are as
follows:
1. The proposed hotel units are consistent with revised
Specific Plan No. 121-E.
2. The proposal is consistent with the standards of the R-3
Zone and Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, as
conditioned.
3. Environmental impacts from the proposed project will not
have a significant impact on the environment provided
traffic impacts as noted are mitigated through new and
relocated gate locations.
BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 3 -
sa.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the
following action:
1. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -
recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan
121-E, Amendment #2, subject to approval of Plot Plan No.
89-421.
2. By minute motion, approve Plot Plan No. 89-421, subject to
the attached conditions.
Attachments: 1.
2.
Location map
Letter from Applicant dated September 6,
1989.
3.
Comments from various City Departments
and other agencies.
4.
Initial study for Environmental
Assessment No. 89-141.
5.
Plans and Exhibits for SP 121-E
(Amendment #2) & PP #89-421.
6.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -
recommending SP #121-E (Amendment #2).
7.
Recommended conditions of approval for PP
#89-421.
BJ/STAFFRPT.016 — 4 —
a
CASE MAP
NORTH
CASE Nm SP 12.1-E
PP 89-421 SCALE:
LOCATION MAP NTS
I
September E; 1989
Stan Sawa
Planning Dep`.
CITY OF LA QUIN?A
78-105 CaJ.1F ratado
La Quiritd, CL ?2253
Dear St -n,
RlEr V i` V
SEP 7 1989
"CITY OP ZN QUINTA
'iANN'Nf, R DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Landman: L=ad '.;;,;r,;,any is prOf,osing a 7; room addition to the La Quirta
Hotel w.`.i.ch will include several tennis Suites, a courtyard with swimming
pool and spas, and additional pai'Aing.
The che;n J- C?,sn it ; �:;:�i
s cl•-Ib and T.^e ba.::=r;,p c. .^,a:,ta Rosa
Cove F-_vi=p p,aasant and relaxed s�' n,� 4 c
Courtyard. �ti. f..:•._ the _par.ich
Y
The Spar, -;c;-. Al---hii'ectural motif is m0-;ejcd aftf-r
existing thF stzr�P of the
'r.c4ci. :he Courtyard a] lows for a i►a-iet•r or i:ses including
large gr nupt, intimate part 4 e�� t
► o. .,ri .> e L ar.� : ` .
The guest roortrs
1 °o} dor n --ntw 3 landscaped courtya rel f&ate} c i;iy a {] � c
sun:.inw r.re4, arge p �1. spa, and
Private cues rc•,:^� ar:^ Su4tes i,ncl,,;oe 4;;n terraces and
balconies fOr entertaining while vc�:�i-;g ;�. terxr.T .', s�r,�
bei^w. s and courtyard
Addi ti :nal parking for the ex n ., : .% ,
`+4:iC�sG11 !4i• t *die new parking +�+ w_, hvendia
�p4 ..cer,. :P.+� b} t: 7, Cs rF;Gxrlteriance
faC+. L�Cf'. :acres., t.o the parking �: ~�� �' r.�Nt:`, C.:.;:" 7P. b �'crewa�r Cr the
sGuthwwat--•rner of the b'uildi: . •'Z
Hotel Park4 nc Study, the addi.tl ont'9 4,$ �•+�� La QUlnta
hotel !:i. = ��'u="� :rir:c; tae total
•9 count to 1065 spaces, :=?aC.: W:,th The City 0
La zoning ordinance chalptk--r
Sire - rely,
Alex ondos
Landmark Land Design i Planni::c
Cc: Stephen Caplinger Paul Qui1I
Forrest Heag Ge
Gary Gary i!erney ATTACHMENT
iANDMAW LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNA INC.. Lancs Planning. Engineering. Design & ConsItuction
78-150 Colle Tampico. P.O. Box 1000, La Siuinta, California 92253 (619) 564-4540 FAX (619) 564-8052
q61
AT�Eil ESTABLISHED IN 191• A5 A PUBLIC AGENCY
STR1Ci
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 3982651
TORS OFFICERS
DIRECTORS
TELL CODEKAS. PRESIDENT THOMAS E LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY
JOHN P POWELL KEITH H. AINSWORTH. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHY M NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J. FISH
August 29, 1989
�►j� File; 0163.1
Planning CommissionO
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box '1504 �4 r4,sti Q;A- =
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen: n 7�..&r� �
Subject: Plot Plan 89-421, Portion of Southwest
Quarter, Section 36, Township 5 South,
Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes
maintained by the developer, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows
except in rare instances.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are subject to change.
Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to
Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring
efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer,
extension 264.
RF:gh
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
46-209 Oasis Street
Indio, California 92201
You s very truly,
C
Tom Levy
General Manag
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
ineer
/A` 6 1ATIELTiT.-M i
RMEIVED
AUG - 91989
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
RECEIVED
AUG 2.91989
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PLANNING & DEVEWMENT DEPT
cc 1711/1 (cri is 041, / 1Ail /t/ F/ �W)"et) T � f'/, -f � �,, A i� - yli
Che
!`Tu )-fnn•S 151,11A.S L SPP A-,0
1,04 f/s i pN 10ahliC SiuilClJ C�iol 7
/A
� rrt mem aP-C e'"177 Ar 4 larrPes E cl 1, raj P c I cu ,
..�r�9cze{er -eel s{'nyICal1ids.
Zell, * I "t/ �/
Ride P4,41d 16 f /414 emillip
a-tv� 7-elmes
SFf/-tl vp
RECEIVED
AUG 22 M
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PUNNING &DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Rennin$ 8 Enineen Offke
46-209 Oasis Street, Suite 405
Indio, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
To: City of La Quinta
Planning Division
Re: Plot Plan 89-421
RIVER -SM COUNTY
F1RL DEPARTMDrT rf o
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN NEWMM
FIRE CHIEF 1`rtT Mt 4d
Rammg 6 %neenm O&E
August 21, 1989 4080 Lawn Sweet, Suite 11 L
I iva9de. CA 92501
RECEIVED (714) 787-6606
AUG 2 3 1959
CITY OF LA QU 1 NTA
PLANNING b DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Plot Plan,
the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in —
accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and/or recognized fire protection standards:
1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for
a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available
before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
2. The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification
from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and
that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for
a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system
currently does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to
provide them.
3. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 21" x
2}") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any
portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways.
The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in
the system.
4. Applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans
to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant
types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer
and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that
the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed
by the Riverside County Fire Department."
5. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and
operational prior to the start of construction.
6. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with
a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for. review. A statement
that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included
on the title page of the building plans.
City of La Quinta - Planning Div.
Re: Plot Plan 89-421
11/21/89
Page 2.
7. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform
Building Code.
8. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform
Building Code and National Fire Protection Association.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than
2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement
of equipment.
10. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, 1503.
11. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code.
12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
13. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates,
barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate
access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department.
All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio -
controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a
special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped
with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All
controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved
by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum
vertical clearance of 13'6".
14. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to
the development. These shall be an illuminated diagramatic representation of
the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators,
unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories
shall be a minimum 4' x 4' in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units
shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information
and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and
Engineering Staff.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check
fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the
Fire Department Planning & Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
a
By 2�1 -
im Reeder
Fire Protection Specialist
to
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gaS COMPANY
mi LUGONu NEwA. REDLANM CALIFORNIA
MAILING ADDRESS P 0 6M 3003 REDLANDS CALIFORNIA 923T3-0306
August 18, 1989
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California 92253
ATTENTIONt Stan Sawa
REQ Specific Plan 121E
The Southern California Gas Company has a gas main in Eisenhower Drive near the
project. Distribution lines could be extended from these mains to serve the
proposed development without -any significant impact. on the environment. The
service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on
file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual
arrangements are made.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based
upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public
utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the
California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of
federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects
gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be
provided in accordance with revised conditions.
Typical demand use ford
a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearl
Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit
Multi -Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit
Multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit
These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by
Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular
home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy.
b. Commercial
Due to the fact that construction varies so Widely (a glass building
vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a Wide variation
in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is
not available for this type of construction. Calculations Would need
to be made after the building has been designed.
To insure the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the new development,
an ,engineering study will be required. Detailed information including tract maps
and plot plans must be submitted to the Gas Company Market Services Representa-
tive, 1-800-624-2497, six months prior to the actual construction of the natural
gas pipeline.
We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide
assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation
techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of
our energy conservation programs, please contact our Area Harket Services Manager,
P.O. Box 3003, Redlands, CA 92373-0306, phone 1-800-624-2497.
RIB:vjs
cc: Environ Affairs - ML209B
r
Sincerely,
Roger L. B
Technical Supervisor
I.
II.
clri of U QUM& PP
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CiECKLIST FORM v141
-
BACKGR04ND
1. Name of Proponent: LAfk, L&yk4 _C,
2. Address d Phone Number of Proponent: E42 60.9 OCC L2, Cig
5
3. Date of Checklist: O Ei
—
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: �T�4_ "A
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: f,,44 }`
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers L required on attached sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Haybe No
a. unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil? _ X
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands,
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake? X
S. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? 1�
3. Mater. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? .Y..
c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood
waters? JL
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any X
water body? _
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ K
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
ATTA(:HMFNT
Yes Maybe No
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
�1
I.' Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as floading or
tidal waves?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Y
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
X(
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
S. Animal Life. will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (birds, land animals,
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of animals?
_ k
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
x
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
X
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
_ K
7. Liet and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
A i
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any renewable
natural resource?
10. Risk of 2Fset. Does the proposal involve a risk
o7 an explosion or the release of hazardous sub-
stances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
UENution, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
x
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Trans ortation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
X
Yes MaAe NO
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
x
da Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
X
14.
Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15.
'Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
x
16.
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
Tor neer systeas, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
�(
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
4
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
x
e. Storm water drainage?
�—
f. Solid waste and disposal?
~
17.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
x
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
�(
18.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
—
o station of Any scenic vista or vier open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea-
tional opportunities?
20.
Archeolo ical/liistorical. Will the proposal result
a
in an alcerat ono significant archeological
or historical site, structure, object or building?
21.
Mandatory Findin of Si ificance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially re-
duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plan or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
)(
(S)
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en-
vironmental goals? (A short -tern impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
IV. DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Yes �!& No
,..
On the basis of this initial evaluation;
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
k I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this use because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MILL BE PREPARED.
Date: 10-.3
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
0
RESPONSE TO "YES" AND "MAYBE"
ANSWERS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO, 89-141
FOR
PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421
6.a. Noise: During the demolition and construction phase
there will be a temporary increase in noise levels.
Mitigation Measure: Developer shall comply with
prescribed work hours permitted by City ordinance to
minimize nuisance caused by noise impacts.
7.a. Light & Glare: New building and exterior lighting will
be provided with proposed construction.
Mitigation Measure: Developer shall submit exterior
lighting plan in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky"
ordinance, emphasizing minimization of light and glare
impacts to surrounding properties.
8. Land Use: The proposed hotel use of the site will alter
the existing recreational use (tennis court) of the site.
Mitigation Measure: Amendment of the Specific Plan to
allow the hotel use will mitigate any adverse impacts.
13.a.b.Trans ortation/Circulation: The proposed use will
generate additional hotel and employee traffic hazards
and parking demand on Avenida Obregon and surrounding
streets.
mitigation Measures: Existing security 'gate arms on
Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing
location to Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular
security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near
southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking
lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic.
Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational
prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition.
19. Recreation: The proposed construction will
necessitate removal of at least two tennis courts.
Mitigation Measure: The extensive number of tennis
courts mitigates the loss of the two tennis courts.
Additionally, they may be relocated.
BJ/RSPCMT.001 - 1 -
PROP MiD l6AW W
.r
r �+
•r r
rte. M.
r.....r rww.
wiM
.a.rr......rr-
r �.r
.•rn.. w•pwr
rr.r. r•.+.r
....r r.ww
—r.a ■A Sti
W
J
W
g
l�
LEWND
�,... a J-
EXHIBIT
~CASA NO,
:. '..��..� .moi,.+ ►..fir,...4l. L'�9�.. R9�..
fir fir• fes• 1:#r r� 1� �• rl�► r�R :�► � �\ '�• fR]Af•
owu.a +r•feowyowYsri srw rsr yri+pwWier .Pw •mow °Y�i+nrY••�
fl fr
6
rl rr
r
CI •
rr fr
r
f r ►
f •
r
RECEIVED
SEP 2 6 1959
CITY OF LA QUINTA
3LANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
.
14444— �A
kd. Lom o
fm.
1r1M
9
OZ�
b
�a
FIRST FLOD
PLAN
RECEIVED
v000m Lao CD
SEP 2 6 1989
~�
CITY OF LA QUINTA
'LANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT
61
---Li ----fl SECOND FLOOR
PLAN
COTTAGE WHITCMISSION CLAY TILE
SMOOTH CIN. PLASTER F TO MATCH 1988/89 HOTEL EXPANSION
Ijlllllllillll�ljllllll'VIII111illill;lllfilllp l Il°11i!!Illlhl f�iiillill I Il�;oil Ilia I[ HClllllgkl j lif I!I I �' ` il[ i II II Ili i; l I
mmrI .� r �.., .1 I . • ..__ I 1 �� �l r
FRONT (AVENIDA OBREGONI ELEVATION
; II Illn, a lrll I H! 111'I1'te� • I
. _ . ---- Illi Hlllli plgklr;ilsl•s�±��llill'}!+I!'•'�11111IIrl(1i II fq Ili Iii I}pl li I I 111NIiulll illlik nslgsdl lil Illi I f f Ili I!
--
^I.�.sL..�ii:itii Ell.t
4� � � - t I� G� 1' I� I�' �� I�`l+ I� �► � � I ��I ��f'1! I'1'�► ISI^l� !��I I I I � f
r.11.., I. I.: ;; 1r1—t I- Y ( rvT 1
,•14
Allilli Itl tildffimwi I i Illul III I ix ff
pi nn, I m Pill I m m
RECEIVED
SEP 26 196
CITY of LA Qu
4KNING & DEVELOPME
*'
NORTH FI FVAI ION
l IM I"i'` I t. } . I; II 1 t�`1 m1 1,11. T 1� I'"o; II jai
1i i!t !11 t�t(
REAR ELEVATION
m
a
m Iml III
w
PH -3
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989
ITEM: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121-E (AMENDMENT #2)
PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421
APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
(LA QUINTA HOTEL)
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
ELIMINATION OF CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT AND
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND
PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77
HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE ON THE
SITE WHERE THE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT
PRESENTLY EXISTS ON 1.7+ ACRES.
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY
MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE
MAZATLAN ON THE LA QUINTA HOTEL SITE.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE)
EXISTING
ZONING: R-3* (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, 1,200 SQ. FT.
MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE REQUIRED).
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-141 HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT.
ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED BY
REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT AND IMPOSITION TO
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED.
BACKGROUND:
The original Specific Plan No. 121-E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club)
was approved by Riverside County in 1975. The Plan authorized
construction of 637 condominiums, 496 hotel rooms, golf course
with clubhouse, and service facilities. The Plan was
subsequently amended in 1982. The City Council authorized the
addition of 279 'condominiums and 146 hotel rooms (Council
Resolution No. 82-54 - Specific Plan 121-E, Revised). The
revised Specific Plan was approved to increase project acreage
and to add additional dwelling units and hotel rooms.
In December, 1987, Plot Plan No. 87-387 was approved by the City
expanding the hotel by 336 rooms to 609 units of which 603 rooms
were constructed.
BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 1 -
In September, 1988, Plot Plan No. 88-393 and Specific Plan 121-E
(Amendment #1) was granted which permitted a new maintenance
facility and overflow employee parking lot just south of the
site presently under consideration.
In May, 1989, Plot Plan No. 89-412 was approved expanding the
hotel by 38 rooms to a total of 641 rooms.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Applicant is proposing to eliminate the championship tennis
court, a small Tennis Club building, and several adjacent
parking spaces and replace them with a 43,065 square foot
two-story, 77 -room hotel addition. Additionally, a small
mechanical room addition is proposed to be added to the adjacent
maintenance building to the south and several tennis courts to
the west will need to be relocated to the west to accommodate
the new hotel units.
Adjacent land uses are as follows:
North: Tennis Club
South: Maintenance Facility
East: Hotel Units (detached)
West: Tennis Courts & Vacant Land
The hotel structure would be rectangular in shape with a large
central courtyard reminiscent of a Spanish hacienda. The
courtyard would have a pool, spa and sunning area. The typical
guest room would be 495 square feet with one 2 -room suite with
990 square feet. All units would have a balcony or patio.
Materials for the Spanish style building would match the 1989-90
hotel expansion.
44 new parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the proposed
construction.
ANALYSIS:
1. The building would replace a championship tennis court
that is no longer needed since major tournaments are not
held there any longer.
2. The architecture and materials would be compatible with
adjacent existing buildings.
3. The recently approved maintenance building and overflow
parking area have been completed. A weekday morning
inspection of the parking lot found it to be 78-85 percent
full. It appeared to be used by employees and/or
construction workers.
BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 2 -
4. Over the past there has been problems due to hotel
employees and to an extent guests driving through the
condominium area to the south. The proposed expansion may
increase the concerns. This can be greatly alleviated by
restricting access to the condominium area by installation
of an "emergency only" vehicular gate across Avenida
Obregon at or near the border between the hotel and
condominium area. Additionally, relocation of the
existing Avenida Fernando gate arm to the area west of
Avenida Obregon will facilitate access for hotel guests
and employees while maintaining security for the
residential areas west of Avenida Obregon. A condition
requiring this has been drafted to achieve this.
5. The 44 new spaces are proposed in front of the new hotel
rooms on both sides of Avenida Obregon. This will provide
convenient parking for most of the new rooms. The new 154
space lot and other nearby lots could provide additional
parking.
6. Environmental Assessment No. 89-141 has been prepared in
conjunction with this request. No significant affects
will be created that cannot be mitigated through the
recommended conditions of approval.
7. The proposed plans indicate a small landscape strip
between the new parking spaces on the west side of Avenida
Obregon and the patio walls of the proposed building.
Staff feels this landscape strip should be increased by
10 -feet as required for front yards in the R-3 Zone. This
will decrease the mass of the building, provide a more
attractive streetscape, and increase distance between
patios and parked cars.
FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to approve the amended Specific Plan No.
121-E can be supported and found in the attached Resolution.
The findings necessary to approve Plot Plan No. 89-421 are as
follows:
1, The proposed hotel units are consistent with revised
Specific Plan No. 121-E.
2. The proposal is consistent with the standards of the R-3
Zone and Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, as
conditioned.
3. Environmental impacts from the proposed project will not
have a significant impact on the environment provided
traffic impacts as noted are mitigated through new and
relocated gate locations.
BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 3 -
RECOMMENDATION:
It, is recommended that the Planning Commission take the
following action:
1. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -
recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan
121-E, Amendment #2, subject to approval of Plot Plan No.
89-421.
2. By minute motion, approve Plot Plan No. 89-421, subject to
the attached conditions.
Attachments: 1.
2.
Location map
Letter from Applicant dated September 6,
1989.
3.
Comments from various City Departments
and other agencies.
4.
Initial study for Environmental
Assessment No. 89-141.
5.
Plans and Exhibits for SP 121-E
(Amendment #2) & PP #89-421.
6.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -
recommending SP #121-E (Amendment #2).
7.
Recommended conditions of approval for PP
#89-421.
BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 4 -
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL
PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421
LANDMARK LAND COMPANY
NOVEMBER 21, 1989
GENERAL•
1. The development of the site shall be in substantial
compliance with Exhibit "A" for 77 hotel rooms as
contained in the file for Plot Plan 89-421, unless
,otherwise amended by these conditions.
2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year
time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
construction of any building or use contemplated by this
approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or
clearances from the following public agencies:
o City Fire Marshal
o City of La Quinta Public Works Department
o Planning and Development Department, Planning and
Building Divisions
o Coachella Valley Water District
o Desert Sands Unified School District
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the
above-mentioned agencies shall be presented to the
Building Division at the time of the application for a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
4. Provisions -shall be made to comply with the terms and
requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee
Program in effect at the time of issuance of building
permits.
5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121-E, as
amended to date, shall be complied with.
6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other
development permit or final inspection, the Applicant
shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning
and Development Director demonstrating compliance with
those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of
Plot Plan No. 89-421 and Environmental Assessment 89-141,
which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any
permits/final inspections. The Planning and Development
Director may require inspection or other monitoring to
BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 1
assure such compliance. Said inspection --or monitoring may
be accomplished by consultant(s) at the -discretion of the
Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne
by the Applicant/Developer.
TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE:
7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be
subject to approval of the City Engineer.
A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm) on-site.
Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and
retention which may conflict with proposed plans.
8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the
Applicant shall document access/egress on Avenida Obregon
and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of
Engineering Department.
9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be
relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west
of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency, only" vehicular security
gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be
installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of
recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel
traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by
City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy
approval of new 77 -room addition.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES:
Fire Marshal:
10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi
residual operating pressure which must be available before
any combustible material is placed on the job site.
11. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to submit
written certification from the water company noting the
location of the existing fire hydrant and that the
existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm
fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20- psi residual
operating pressure. If a water system currently does not
exist, the Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to
provide written certification that financial arrangements
have been made to provide them.
12. A combination of on-site and off-site fire hydrants (6" X
4" X 2-1/211) will be located not less than 25 feet or
more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as
measured along approved vehicular travelways. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent -
two hydrants in the system.
BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 2 -
13. Applicant/Developer shall furnish one bludline copy of the
water system plans to the Fire Department -for review.
Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location
and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a
registered civil engineer and the local water company with
the following certification: "I certify that the design
of the water system is in accordance with the requirements
prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department."
14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall
be installed and operational prior to the start of
construction.
15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R.
Fire Department connection shall be located to the front,
within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet
from the building(s). System plans must be submitted
with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department
for review. _ A statement that the building(s) will be
automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the
title page of the building plans.
16. Install a supervised waterflow alarm system as required
by the Uniform Building Code.
17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required
by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection
Association.
18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet
#10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact
certified extinguisher company for proper placement of
equipment.
19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform
Building Code, #503.
20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative
Code.
21. Certain designated areas will be required to be
maintained as fire lanes.
22. Whenever access into private property is controlled
through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar
means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by
emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire
Department. All controlled access devices that are power
operated shall have a radio -controlled over -ride system
capable of opening the gate when activated. by a special
transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall
be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in
the event of power failure. All controlled access
devices that are not power operated shall also be
BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 3 -
approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width
shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of
13 -feet, 6 -inches.
23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to
each roadway access to the development. These shall be
an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual
layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building
designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations
within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum
4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings
and units shall conform, to the Riverside County
Addressing Policy. Additional information and details
may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department
Planning and Engineering Staff.
24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans
are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire
Department at the time building plans are submitted.
Coachella Valley Water District:
25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems
shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for
review. This review ist"., for ensuring efficient water
management.
SITE DESIGN:
26. All on-site utilities shall be installed underground in
accordance with City standards and requirements.
27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant
shall submit to the Planning Division for review and
approval a plan (or plans) showing the following:
A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing,
locations, and irrigation system for all landscape
areas. Desert or native plant species and drought
resistant planting materials shall be incorporated
into the landscape plan. The plan shall also
indicate methods for shading of the parking and
pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees.
B. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or
required walls.
C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any
adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing
minimization of light and glare impacts to
surrounding properties.
BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 4 -
Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans
shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site
plan (Exhibit "A") on filewith the Planning and
Development Department. The plans submitted shall include
the acceptance stamps/signatures from the Riverside County
Agricultural Commissioner's office and CVWD. All plant
materials to be used shall be consistent with those
species identified in the VSP.
28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces peri` City requirements
shall be provided in conjunction with proposed
construction.
29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to
approval of the Planning and Development Department.
I
BJ/CONAPRVL.019. - 5 -
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-064
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
121-E, REVISED.
CASE SP 121-E, AMENDMENT #2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta
did adopt Specific Plan No. 121-E, Revised, as set forth in
City Council Resolution No. 82-54, on October 5, 1982, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta did, on the 10th day of October, 1989, hold a
duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark
Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to
to allow additional hotel units, more particularly described as
follows:
A portion of the east half of the
southwest one-quarter of Section 36
T5S, R6E, SBBM, and;
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with
the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside,
Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La
Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director
conducted an initial study, and has determined that the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify
the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment:
1. That Specific Plan No. 121-E, Amended No. 2, as
conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals,
policies, and intent'of the La Quinta General Plan and
revised Specific Plan No. 121-E.
2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the
orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No.
121-E.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning
Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
BJ/RESOPC.020 -- 1 -
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and
constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this
case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of
Environmental Assessment No. 89-141, indicating that the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any
significant environmental impacts, and that a Negative
Declaration should be filed;
3. That it does hereby recommend to. the City Council approval
of the above-described Amendment request to allow 80 hotel
units subject to approval of a Plot Plan for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in the
map labeled Exhibit "A", on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting
of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10th day of
October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Moran, Bund, Steding, Zelles,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Walling
ABSTAIN: None
CLIA MORAN, Vice qhairman
ty of La Quinta, lifornia
ATTEST:
ERRY ERMAN, Planning Director
ity o,f La Quinta, California
BJ/RESOPC.020 -- 2 -
ENV.
[raj`
cm or u Quan PP At
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM VA-
I. BACKGRO40
1. Name of Proponent: c
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: FAX 1�
rrE
i 01 0 L
3. Date of Checklist: O -
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: _4::'4f4
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: yam, +U sYNIA - -j
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.)
1. Earth. will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures? A-
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil? X
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands,
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake?
S. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? _ X
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
e. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Hater. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course of flaw of flood
waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any X
water body? _ _
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of &rouznd waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
,_, ATTACHMENT
ii♦
Yes Maybe No
h. Substantial reduction in the anoint of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
T
I.* Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
X
C. plant Life. will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
�(
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
X
e. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
~
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (birds, land animals,
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of animals?
k
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
X
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
)(
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
Ught or glarof
Xglare_
8. Land use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteritiion of the present or planned land use of an
area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any renewable
_
natural resource?
10. Risk of peset. Does the proposal involve a risk
U an explosion or the release of hazardous sub-
stances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
stri ut on, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
x
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
1C
ii♦
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
da Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
ld. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Hater?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
la. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
v station of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea-
tional opportunities?
20. krcheolo ical/Historical. Will the proposal result
n an alteration oa significant archeological
or historical site, structure, object or building?
21. Mandatory Findinj of Si ificance.
a. Goes the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially re-
duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plan or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
(S)
Yes Maybe No
X
A
D
X
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long -tern, en-
vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually liaited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly.?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
IV. DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Yes Lk a Ib
._, ------ x
On the basis of this initial evaluation;
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
x I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this use because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
—I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRON),T TAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date: lo -.3 — 8
RESPONSE TO "YES" AND "MAYBE"
ANSWERS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-141
FOR
PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421
6.a. Noise: During the demolition and construction phase
there will be a temporary increase in noise levels.
Mitigation Measure: Developer shall comply with
prescribed work hours permitted by City ordinance to
minimize nuisance caused by noise impacts.
7.a. Light & Glare: New building and exterior lighting will
be provided with proposed construction.
Mitigation Measure: Developer shall submit exterior
lighting plan in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky"
Ordinance, emphasizing minimization of light and glare
impacts to surrounding properties.
8. Land Use: The proposed hotel use of the site will alter
the existing recreational use (tennis court) of the site.
Mitigation Measure: Amendment of the Specific Plan to
allow the hotel use will mitigate any adverse impacts.
13.a.b.Trans ortation/Circulation: The proposed use will
generate additional hotel and employee traffic hazards
and parking demand on Avenida Obregon and surrounding
streets.
Mitigation Measures: Existing security gate arms on
Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing
location to Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular
security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near
southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking
lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic.
Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational
prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition.
19. Recreation: The proposed construction will
necessitate removal of at least two tennis courts.
Mitigation Measure_: The extensive number of tennis
courts mitigates the loss of the two tennis courts.
Additionally, they may be relocated.
BJ/RSPCMT.001 - 1 -
rAi
- - . . ■ mw 104L
- EXHIBIT I
CASE No.
C?1 .
CITY OF LA QUINTA
'LANNING k nFUFl APMFNT I1FPT
0
FIRST FLOOD
PLAN
��
RECEIVED
� �a
SEP 2 6 1989
CITY OF LA QUINTA
'LANNING k nFUFl APMFNT I1FPT
0
FIRST FLOOD
PLAN
in ■
L w.,
RECEIVED
SEP 2 6 1989
CITY OF LA QUINTA
'LANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
f4 31�
Lom Go
SECOND FLOOR
PLAN
�- COTiAGE'N�ITE
MISSION CI AY TIL[ L
:��
iKk�,l..;
:I
a ID ED
f ¢r.4+r'1L'
{IIlflllll I II'�I!I'Illilh !Ili?rII I Iflfi�i 3i IIII 111h1119111g11 Il9 ill I f '' I{ I ZL11 �1� E,�V ! I]!Y9II I l it
+i111111i•ulhlllg9l I Ilpilllljf;T.
tf,As4''aA�� ,.3a," 'yt ��S!' �;��5•�y�i!R �� 3w�' 'f{s g.'.w:4 Ts:'� C,}fidC, '.i:!' 4;,,.L?y4w
FRONT (AVENIDA OBREGON) ELEVATION
ItI tlI16s,nI(I E111p(:i''1b��
-- ---- , I I hlllh IPNI11r�rlk.+;�rl,r{I{•IiIII�.'lld InIIII�IIi, li lill i Cll iii lllll II I 1 Ih �luull� 111+eI InI+III k� IIII i l 191
nl= r-7 ------ -- 4--- F `Pi + r rip r•• �F.kr�•r X52 �° k,. t' r• r 11',' i
I L.:a:lilikI;utLIIiIIiL...L: i:i: ,:i.sl€,il :tt � Vii€[€�i€if :�.«.Lti;Lii jtj.l lLlfflqt LU l €
I�11 1' M M I, ISI i' I `1� I�ll�->I �I� 1C1! I'1!�► gyri �il��ll ! I m
NORTH FI FVAT ION
RECEIVED
SEP 26198
CITY OF LA QU
PLANNING & DEVELOPME
REAR ELEVATION
EXTERIOf
ELEVATIOf
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
121-E, REVISED.
CASE SP 121-E, AMENDMENT #2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta
did adopt Specific Plan No. 121-E, Revised, as set forth in
City Council Resolution No. 82-54, on October 5, 1982, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta did, on the 10th day of October, 1989, hold a
duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark
Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to
to allow 77 additional hotel units, more particularly described
as follows:
A portion of the east half of the
southwest one-quarter of Section 36
T5S, R6E, SBBM, and;
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with
the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside,
Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La
Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director
conducted an initial study, and has determined that the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify
the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment:
1. That Specific Plan No. 121-E, Amended No. 2, as
conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals,
policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and
revised Specific Plan No. 121-E.
2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the
orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No.
121-E.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning
Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
BJ/RESOPC.020 - 1 -
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and
constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this
case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of
Environmental Assessment No. 89-141, indicating that the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any
significant environmental impacts, and that a Negative
Declaration should be filed;
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of the above-described Amendment request subject
to approval of Plot Plan No. 89-421 for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in the map
labeled Exhibit "A", on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting
of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10th day of
October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JOHN WALLING, Chairman
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
BJ/RESOPC.020 - 2 -
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN. NO. 89-421
LANDMARK LAND COMPANY
OCTOBER 10, 1989
GENERAL:
1. The development of the site shall be in substantial
compliance with Exhibit "A" as contained in the file for
Plot Plan 89-421, unless otherwise amended by these
conditions.
2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year
time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
construction of any building or use contemplated by this
approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or
clearances from the following public agencies:
o City Fire Marshal
o City of La Quinta Public Works Department
o Planning and Development Department, Planning and
Building Divisions
o Coachella Valley Water District
o Desert Sands Unified School District
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the
above-mentioned agencies shall be presented to the
Building Division at the time of the application for.a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
4. Previsions shall be made to comply with the terms and
requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee
Program in effect at the time of issuance of building
permits.
5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121-E, as
amended to date, shall be complied with.
6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other
development permit or final inspection, the Applicant
shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning
and Development Director demonstrating compliance with
those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of
Plot Plan No. 89-421 and Environmental Assessment 89-141,
which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any
permits/final inspections. The Planning and Development
Director may require inspection or other monitoring to
BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 1
assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may
be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the
Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne
by the Applicant/Developer.
TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION DRAINAGE:
7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be
subject to approval of the City Engineer.
A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm) on-site.
Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and
retention which may conflict with proposed plans.
8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the
Applicant shall document access/egress on Avenida Obregon
and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction.of
Engineering Department.
9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be
relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west
of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security
gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern
boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to
separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates
to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior
to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES:
Fire Marshal:
10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi
residual operating pressure which must be available before
any combustible material is placed on the job site.
11. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to submit
written certification from the water company noting the
location of the existing fire hydrant and that the
existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm
fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20 psi residual
operating pressure. If a water system currently does not
exist, the Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to
provide written certification that financial arrangements
have been made to provide them.
12. A combination of on-site and off-site fire hydrants (6" X
4" X 2-1/211) will be located not less than 25 feet or
more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as
measured along approved vehicular travelways. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
two hydrants in the system.
BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 2 -
13. Applicant/Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the
water system plans to the Fire Department for review.
Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location
and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a
registered civil engineer and the local water company with
the following certification: "I certify that the design
of the water system is in accordance with the requirements
prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department."
14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall
be installed and operational prior to the start of
construction.
15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R.
Fire Department connection shall be located to the front,
within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet
from the building(s). System plans must be submitted
with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department
for review. A statement that the building(s) will be
automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the
title page of the building plans.
16. Install a supervised waterf low alarm system as required
by the Uniform Building Code.
17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required
by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection
Association.
18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet
#10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact
certified extinguisher company for proper placement of
equipment.
19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform
Building Code, #503.
20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative
Code.
21. Certain designated areas will be required to be
maintained as fire lanes.
22. Whenever access into private property is controlled
through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar
means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by
emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire
Department. All controlled access devices that are power
operated shall have a radio -controlled over -ride system
capable of opening the gate when activated by a special
transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall
be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in
the event of power failure. All controlled access
devices that are not power operated shall also be
BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 3 -
approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width
shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of
13 -feet, 6 -inches.
23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to
each roadway access to the development. These shall be
an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual
layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building
designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations
within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum
4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings
and units shall conform to the Riverside County
Addressing Policy. Additional information and details
may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department
Planning and Engineering Staff.
24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans
are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire
Department at the time building plans are submitted.
Coachella Valley Water District:
25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems
shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for
review. This review is for ensuring efficient water
management.
SITE DESIGN:
26. All on-site utilities shall be installed underground in
accordance with City standards and requirements.
27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant
shall submit to the Planning Division for review and
approval a plan (or plans) showing the following:
A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing,
locations, and irrigation system for all landscape
areas. Desert or native plant species and drought
resistant planting materials shall be incorporated
into the landscape plan. The plan shall also
indicate methods for shading of the parking and
pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees.
B. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or
required walls.
C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any
adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing
minimization of light and glare impacts to
surrounding properties.
HJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 4 -
Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans
shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site
plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and
Development Department. The plans submitted shall include
the acceptance stamps/signatures from the Riverside County
Agricultural Commissioner's office and CVWD. All plant
materials to be used shall be consistent with those
species identified in the VSP.
28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces per City requirements
shall be provided in conjunction with proposed
construction.
29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to
approval of the Planning and Development Department.
BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 5 -
October 10, 1989
As a permanent resident of Santa Rosa Cove since February 1986, I am
deeply concerned about Landmark's intention to build a further 77-80 hotel
units on Avenida Obregon..
As a concerned homeowner, I would like to call your attention to the
following facts and comments:
1) Property owners were given minimal notice of this project.
2) This meeting was scheduled at a time when very few property owners are
able to attend.
3) Inspite of Landmarks considerable political "clout," as property owners
we have rights that need to be respected and addressed and action taken
to implement BEFORE this project is allowed to commence.
The issues that need to be dealt with in order to protect our rights are:
1) Parking 80 units/14 parking spaces? Please clarify.
2) Traffic Santa Rosa Cove should not be subjected to hotel traffic --either
employee or guest.
3) Density The project description states "Medium density residential
4-8 dwellings per acre. Net acreage 1.7." Please clarify,
Between Landmark and La Quinta Joint Venture, Santa Rosa Cove
is beginning to look more like a city than a beautiful desert
community. This "progress" undoubtedly brings in dollars,
but over -developing a unique area does not enhance the City
of La Quinta longterm.
4) Security It is imperative, if Landmark goes ahead with this project,
that they first ensure our security by removing the existing
"joke of a guard -gate" on Avenida Fernando and building (and
landscaping) a new guard -gate on Fernando beyond Avenida
Obregon, and another gate at the other end of Obregon. That
way their staff, their guests, and anyone visiting their
tennis club would not jeopardize our security.
5) Drainage We have existing drainage problems which are being checked and
which may be due at least in part to Landmarks tennis courts.
It is therefore necessary that their drainage plans for this
project and for any further tennis courts they plan to build
be carefully studied and implemented so they do not create
drainage problems on our streets.
I would like to add that I f eel like I am being steam -rolled, and I
would like to feel that the City of La Quinta is truly concerned about protecting
my rights as a homeowner and permanent resident here. I love my home. And
I don't want it spoiled.
Judy Blum
76-941 Calle Mazatlan
La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Tel. 564-1921
RESPONSE TO "YES" AND "MAYBE"
ANSWERS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-141
FOR
PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421
6.a. Noise: During the demolition and construction phase
there will be a temporary increase in noise levels.
Mitigation Measure: Developer shall comply with
prescribed work hours permitted by City ordinance to
minimize nuisance caused by noise impacts.
7.a. Light & Glare: New building and exterior lighting will
be provided with proposed construction.
Mitigation Measure: Developer shall submit exterior
lighting plan in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky"
Ordinance, emphasizing minimization of light and glare
impacts to surrounding properties.
8. Land Use: The proposed hotel use of the site will alter
the existing recreational use (tennis court) of the site.
Mitigation Measure: Amendment of the Specific Plan to
allow the hotel use will mitigate any adverse impacts.
13.a.b.Transportation/Circulation: The proposed use will
generate additional hotel and employee traffic hazards
and parking demand on Avenida Obregon and surrounding
streets.
Mitigation Measures: Existing security gate arms on
Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing
location to Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular
security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near
southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking
lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic.
Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational
prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition.
19. Recreation: The proposed construction will
necessitate removal of at least two tennis courts.
Mitigation_ Measure: The extensive number of tennis
courts mitigates the loss of the two tennis courts.
Additionally, they may be relocated.
BJ/RSPCMT.001 - 1 -