2005 06 28 PCp� QJ•
5
4
or9 Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-guinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
JUNE 28, 2005
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2005-029
Beginning Minute Motion 2005-009
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
11. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled
for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of June 14, 2005.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc
V. PUBLIC HEARING:
For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must
be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission
consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested
the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time.
Any person may submit written comments to the La Quinta Planning Commission
before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to,
the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any
project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City
at, or prior to the public hearing.
A. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-827
Applicant.......... Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture, Inc. for Innovative
Resort Communities
Location........... The southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60
Request............ Consideration of architectural plans and conceptual
landscaping plans for four prototypical residential plans
and clubhouse for use in Tract 31732
Action .............. Application withdrawn - no action required
B. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-828
Applicant.......... Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture, Inc. for Innovative
Resort Communities
Location........... The northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61
Request............ Consideration of architectural plans and conceptual
landscaping plans for four prototypical residential plans
and clubhouse for use in Tract 31733
Action .............. Application withdrawn - no action required
C. Item ................ CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-733
ADDENDUM, AND SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029,
AMENDMENT NO. 4
Applicant.......... Stamko Development Co.
Location........... East of Adams Street, south of Auto Centre Drive
Request............ Consideration of an Addendum to a previously certified
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and approval
of a new driveway access on Adams Street with a design
change to the internal circulation pattern, access, and
retention basin.
Action .............. Resolution 2005- and Resolution 2005-
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc
D. Item ................ SIGN APPLICATION 2005-892
Applicant.......... Imperial Sign Company for Lamppost Pizza and Backstreet
Brewery
Location........... The north side of Highway 1 1 1, east of Washington
Street, within the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center
Request............ Consideration of a sign for a 5,000 + square foot
restaurant/brewery
Action .............. Minute Motion 2005-
E. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-535 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33336
Applicant.......... GLC/Duc La Quinta, LLC
Location........... The north side of Avenue 58, 1,950 ± feet west of
Madison Street
Request............ Consideration of a request to certify a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact and the subdivision
of eight acres into 23 single-family lots, and other
miscellaneous lots.
Action .............. Resolution 2005- , Resolution 2005-
VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Review of City Council meeting of June 21, 2005.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular
Meeting to be held on July 12, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare
that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of
Tuesday, June 28, 2005, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber,
78-495 Calle Tampico, the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office,
Chamber of Commerce, and Stater Bros. 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, on Friday, June 24
2005.
DATED: June 24, 2005
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special
equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at
777-7025, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations
will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning
Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City
Clerk's office at 777-7025. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a
Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all
documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for
distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00
p.m. meeting.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 14, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
0068
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul Quill
and Chairman Kirk.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant
City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer,
Consulting Planner Nicole Criste, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate
Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
IL PUBLIC COMMENT:
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of May
24, 2005. There being none, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Daniels/Alderson to approve the minutes as submitted.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental assessment 2005-544, General Plan amendment 2005-
104, Zone Change 2005-124, and Site Development Permit 2005-826; a
request of the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for certification
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, change to
the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential, and approval of an 80-unit
multi -family residential project, located west of Adams Street, on the
north side of Miles Avenue.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Community Development Director Doug Evans presented
the information contained in the staff report. Staff introduced
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
Frank Spevacek and Jon McMillen of RSG, who elaborated on the
project and introduced the rest of the design team.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked what the opportunities were to create
a pedestrian walkway from the development to the City park.
Staff stated originally there was an access, but after discussing
the project with the Sheriff's Department it was their
determination not to have access to the City park. Commissioner
Daniels asked if children would be allowed in the development.
Staff stated yes. Commissioner Daniels asked what they would
have to do to access the park. Staff stated they walk out the
front gate and around the corner to get to the park.
3. Commissioner Alderson asked if the merged retention basins
would be grass. Staff stated the existing basin would remain turf
with the new basin transitioning from a more native material to the
grass. Commissioner Alderson asked if there were any legal
ramifications to joining the two. Staff stated no, as the City owns
both basins.
4. Commissioner Quill asked the size of the living space of the units.
Also, what will happen to the large Oak tree next to the retaining
wall? Staff stated that will be resolved in the final design stages.
Mr. Jon McMillen, RSG, stated the church did want to leave it
there in the beginning. Now it is dying and they are going to
remove it to locate a storage facility in this location. Ms. Robin
Vettraino, gave the dimension of the units.
5. Commissioner Alderson asked if each unit had their own storage
unit. Ms. Vettraino stated there is one per tenant.
6. Chairman Kirk asked about the blank walls facing the internal
streets on Plan 2; were popouts or some other type of
architectural treatment considered. Ms. Vettraino explained the
pedestrian traffic is directed to the paseo walkway between the
units to keep the drive aisle as simple as possible. Chairman Kirk
asked about having windows face the drive aisle. Ms. Vettraino
explained the landscaping with larger trees to break the exterior
unit wall and give relief. This would create a pattern to keep it
simple.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
7. Commissioner Ladner asked where this style came from. Ms.
Vettraino stated the design team originated from San Diego. The
idea was to create a simple, clean design for the least amount of
maintenance.
8. Chairman Kirk stated the project request is to approve a General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Why not take advantage of
the density bonus? Why not designate it Medium High Density.
Staff stated it could be increased. The Commission could make
the findings to increase the density. Chairman Kirk asked who
internally reviewed the project. Staff stated it is the same level of
review for any development and in this instance probably more.
Chairman Kirk asked if we were reducing the number of affordable
units. Mr. Frank Spevacek, RSG, City's Redevelopment
consultant, explained the City's Redevelopment Agency (RDA)
purchased the property and even though the City may reducing the
total number of units currently by 13. Under State law this would
be converted to a different project if the Agency did not buy it and
any affordable units would be lost. From the RHNA numbers, we
would gain 80 affordable units.
9. Commissioner Quill asked if the density is increased the applicable
number of units that could be allowed, do we negate what has
been done in terms of the Environmental Assessment. Assistant
City Attorney Michael stated no because the approval is specific to
the request being sought.
10. Commissioner Daniels asked why the basketball court and picnic
area were not reversed in regard to their location to put the noise
closer to the street. Staff stated the basketballs could end up in
the street and staff did not want to break up the picnic areas.
11. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr.
Jim Sherman, 78-825 Nolan Circle asked about the current
retention wall as it has been compromised and caused numerous
problems. Also, he would strongly urge the development be open
to the City park. He asked if the RDA will own the project and
who will run it. Staff stated the Agency will build it, then sell it to
a non-profit agency specializing in affordable housing. The Agency
will set the criteria as to how it is run and selection of the tenants.
Mr. Sherman asked if there was a criteria set up to monitor the
number of tenants in each unit. Staff clarified the number of
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
people in each unit would be predetermined and overseen by the
management company. You can have restrictions, but there are
laws against discrimination, so the Agency will need to well define
the criteria. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated you
can have pure numerical restrictions, but there are certain
discrimination laws that apply. Mr. Sherman asked when they
anticipate the Park being closed. Mr. Spevacek stated it is
anticipated to have the Park closed by the end of the year. In
regard to merging the two retention basins it is due to the CVWD
irrigation requirements. In regard to the access to the City park, it
was designed to keep it open, but based on the Sheriff's
Department comments, the access was closed.
12. There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
13. Commissioner Alderson commended the use of solar panels and
stated he liked the architecture.
14. Commissioner Quill stated he too likes the architecture. He does
question the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee
(ALRC) condition in regard to the Date Palm trees. He does not
believe it is a big enough safety issue to have them removed. He
has strong objection to having the tenants closed off from the City
park when there is a direct access available. He asked who the
reviewing agent would be for the rental documents. Staff stated it
will be part of the selection process the Agency will go through to
select a firm to manage the site.
15. Commissioner Ladner commended those who are working on this
project as there isn't enough affordable housing in the Valley. She
understands the need for maintenance free units, but has a
problem with the architecture. In regard to the gate to the park,
she too strongly believes the tenants should have access. If it
becomes a problem, the management company can control it. She
asked if the basketball court would have restricted hours. Staff
stated it is anticipated it would be. Commissioner Ladner
suggested it not be lighted.
16. Commissioner Daniels stated he too believes the tenants should
have access to the City park. There is a potential of having 96
children in this development. This should off -set any concerns
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
raised by the Sheriff's Department. He would suggest the
basketball court be moved no closer than 15 feet from the front
property line. This will also give a larger picnic area.
17. Chairman Kirk stated he too strongly agrees the connection
between the City park and this development should be open. The
Date Palm trees should be kept; he agrees with Commissioner
Daniels comments on the basketball court. In regard to the
architecture, he likes that it is different, but it still is not appealing.
Besides all the paseo and courtyard area, the streetscape still
needs some architecture detail added. The site design is well done
and sensitive to the neighboring community.
18. Commissioner Ladner stated she believes this architecture is much
less than what was turned down at the last meeting.
19. Commissioner Quill stated it is a contemporary design and
computer generated pictures do not always do justice.
20. Commissioner Alderson stated that to introduce a window on the
streetscape would put a window in the living room and dining
room and he would believe this would be advantageous to the
home. Mr. Spevacek stated they did not want the windows to
reduce heat load and air conditioning costs.
21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-020 recommending
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-544.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-021 recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2005-104, as recommended
and amended:
a. Change the zoning from Medium Density to Medium High
Density.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Alderson to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-022 recommending
approval of Zone Change 2005-124, as amended
a. Change the zoning from Medium Density to Medium High
Density.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Alderson to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-023 recommending
approval of Site Development Permit 2005-826, as recommended
and amended:
a. Add Condition: An open connection shall be provided to the
City park at the north end.
b. Condition #81: Delete reference to the deleting the date
palm trees.
C. Condition added: The basketball court shall be moved to
the south 15 feet from property line.
d. Condition added: Plan 2 elevation shall be modified where
possible to add windows to the east. If not possible on the
west, some other type of architecture treatment shall be
added.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: Commissioner Ladner. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
B. Environmental Assessment 2005-536, Zone Change 2005-123, and
Tentative Tract Map 31434; a request of Monroe Dates for consideration
of a request to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact, a Zone Change from Low Density/Agriculture-Equestrian
Residential to Low Density Residential, and the subdivision of 28.7 +
acres into 118 single-family lots for the property located on the west side
of Monroe Street at Avenue 61.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked if the lots that abut Trilogy are single -
story homes. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Daniels asked if
Trilogy had a condition limiting them to one-story. Staff stated the
homes were approved under the County and not reviewed by
staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the open space lots would
remain open. Staff stated they are defined as play/recreation or
common area lots. Commissioner Daniels asked that they remain
open space. He asked about the traffic calming methods and why
36-foot wide streets were needed on streets with a traffic calming
effect. Staff stated they would be restricted to parking on one
side of the street if the streets are narrower.
3. Commissioner Alderson asked if the emergency access would also
be the construction access. Staff stated yes, and it would be
gated for fire and police access only at the completion of the tract.
4. Commissioner Ladner asked about the density change in regard to
what Trilogy is zoned. Staff explained.
5. Commissioner Quill asked if the height restriction for the
residences on the lots would come to the Commission. Staff
explained that if it were a custom lot subdivision, the elevation
plans would not come to the Commission. Staff would review
them to ensure they would not exceed the height limitation.
6. Chairman Kirk asked for clarification that the applicant was asking
for a density change from three to four units to the acre. Staff
stated yes. Chairman Kirk asked for the justification to the zone
change. Staff stated basically there would be no agricultural or
equestrian uses that would warrant the existing zoning.
7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Craig Knight gave a presentation on the project.
8. Commissioner Daniels asked about the roundabout or restriction
for traffic calming. Mr. Knight stated they determined the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
restriction was a better method. Lot " Y' has nothing planned for it
specifically. It is an open space with landscaping.
9. Commissioner Alderson asked if the grades had import fill due to
the neighboring project. Mr. Knight stated yes, and more inf ill will
be needed to reach the same height for a shared wall for the entire
site.
10. Commissioner Daniels asked why he was requesting 36-foot wide
streets. Mr. Knight stated he had no particular reason except to
have the ability to park on both sides of the street.
11. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr.
Candelario Felix, 65-575 Orchid Court stated he lived about a half
mile from this project and had no objection to the project.
12. Mr. Mike Keebler, representing CVUSD, stated the District is
requesting a bus turn -out on Monroe Street.
13. Ms. Natalie Levi, 81-730 Sun Cactus Lane, stated one concern is
that there are no CC&R's or HOA for the proposed tract, and
asked who would be responsible for the common areas. These
could be significant impacts on their community.
14. Mr. Nick Pandullo, 60-680 O'Rourke Circle, stated his concern
was that his home is 150 feet from the retention basin. Retention
basins are problematic and it should be redesigned as a detention
basin. Retention basins create mosquito breeding places if water
is retained which presents an environmental detriment. Who is
going to maintain the basin? There is no pathway for emergency
overflow. Another issue is noise pollution that will be created by
the lots being located right behind their wall. Lastly, they would
like the Commission to consider rearranging the units away from
their rear wall.
15. Mr. Kenneth Biba, 81-749 Sun Cactus Lane, addressed concerns
contained in the Environmental Assessment in regard to how this
tract is building upon the tracts in the area. This tract is nothing
like the other homes in the area.
16. Ms. Linda Gibbs, 81-857 Sun Cactus Lane, stated her concern
was also the retention basin concern, standing water nuisance,
noise pollution, and that it is not zoned compatible with the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
adjoining communities. She requests it be reconfigured to be more
compatibility by allowing more space between the two
communities. Lastly, they would like to request that one palm tree
be planted for each tree removed.
17. Mr. Robert Schultz, 60-402 Chelsea Court, stated he agrees with
what has been stated.
18. Mr. Tom Sullivan, 79-440 Citrus Street, represents two home
owners at Trilogy. He does believe the property owner has the
right to develop his property, but also, the existing property
owners have the right to protect their property. He then submitted
an alternative design for the project.
19. There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
20. Commissioner Daniels stated his confusion as he has never heard
of putting a street next to someone's back yard. On the issue of
CC&R's and a HOA, he is not clear as to how the applicant intends
to maintain these facilities. In addition, a condition needs to be
added to accommodate Coachella Valley Unified School District's
request for a bus turnout. As to the retention/detention basin
issue, he would like to have staff assure no ponding would be
created.
21. Commissioner Ladner stated any gated community must have a
CC&Rs to define the maintenance responsibilities. She too agrees
she would prefer a backyard to a backyard than a street. In regard
to the retention basin, Trilogy has a golf course that will always
have standing water somewhere. The retention basin has a lesser
chance of having standing water than the golf course.
22. Commissioner Alderson stated he visited the site and was
impressed with the wall and with the height limitation. He does
not agree the retention basin will be a health issue. He does agree
with the inclusion of palm trees back into the project. He also
believes the developer has been sensitive to his neighbors in the
design and layout of the tract.
23. Commissioner Quill stated there is a greater risk of West Nile from
the agricultural uses in the area than a retention basin that is
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
required to be maintained by CC&R's. In regard to someone
buying a house next to a wall with vacant land, this is an issue of
a buyer beware. The tract lacks any form of creativity in the
design. Lot sizes are significantly small for the area. Does not like
the layout as there are no cul-de-sacs, traffic calming methods in
the curvilinear streets are insignificant in regard to performing the
function they are proposed. The application is inadequate and
poor and he is not impressed.
24. Chairman Kirk stated he too agrees with the lack of creative layout
on project. He is not in agreement with the neighbors concerns.
He agrees this is not a thought out design. He is concerned about
the project entrance. He needs to see a lot more detail. Lot J is
not identified as to its use and how it is to be designed. He also is
not convinced this project needs to go from three to four dwelling
units per acre. For density increases the Commission should see
something special and he does not believe it is.
25. Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant would prefer to have a
continuance. Discussion followed regarding potential action by the
Commission.
26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to
remove the application from the calendar. Staff would renoticed
the public hearing when revised plans are submitted. Chairman
Kirk provided the following direction to the applicant:
a. Provide narrow streets, no parking on street or one side;
b. Provide a design for the project entry; and
C. Identify the miscellaneous lots and their uses.
Unanimously approved.
Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 9:07 and reconvened at 9:17 p.m.
C. Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 4; a request of Stamko
Development Co. for consideration of a new driveway access on Adams
Street and a design change to the internal circulation pattern, access, a
retention basin, high density housing with an affordable component, for
the property located on the east side of Adams Street, south of Auto
Centre Drive.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
1. Chairman Kirk noted the applicant had requested a continuance of
the project. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Daniels/Alderson to continue Specific Plan 97-027, Amendment
No. 4 to June 28, 2005, as requested by the applicant.
Unanimously approved.
D. Site Development Permit 2005-835; a request of Stamko Development
Co. for consideration of development plans for a multi -tenant retail store
consisting of 23,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of
Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Community Development Director Doug Evans presented
the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was
on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked staff to clarify the ownership of the
property. Staff clarified it was currently owned by the City's
Redevelopment Agency and is in the process of being sold to
Stamko Development Co.
3. Commissioner Alderson asked about the sky blue awning. Staff
indicated the location of the awning on the site plan.
4. Chairman Kirk asked about Figure 8, the Circulation Plan; the
pedestrian traffic between the two centers is lacking on the
design. Staff suggested increasing the planting on the parking
islands to make a linkage. Chairman Kirk asked about the delivery
access. Staff noted their location on the rear of the building.
5. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a bus turnout west of
Dune Palms Road. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Daniels asked
if there could be a cutout in the Highway 1 1 1 landscaping to allow
pedestrian traffic to enter this site. Staff stated this could be
addressed in the final landscape plan. Commissioner Daniels asked
if it would be better to move the driveway further to the north.
Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the General Plan
requires it to be 150 feet from the intersection. Currently, it is
designed at about 250. There does need to be a throat and it
would be difficult if it were moved further north. There is some
opportunity to move it. Commissioner Daniels asked if the gas
station could have a shared access and eliminate the landscaping
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
on the east end. Staff explained the circulation pattern.
Commissioner Daniels asked if the building should be flipped.
Discussion followed regarding building layout.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Chris Clarke gave a presentation on the project
and addressed the concerns raised by the Commission. She
clarified that where it states the color as blue, it is now green.
Ms. Clark asked that the Sign Program be considered at this time.
7. Chairman Kirk stated the sign program was not part of the
application before them. Ms. Clarke stated she would like to
request a continuance to include the sign with this application.
8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to
continue Site Development Permit 2005-835 to July 12, 2005.
Unanimously approved.
E. Environmental Assessment 2005-541 and Tentative Tract map 33597; a
request of R. T. Hughes Co., LLC for consideration of a request to certify
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and
development plans for the subdivision of 22.97 acres into 57 single-
family lots, as well as lots for streets and retention basins located at the
southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department. Staff requested the
Commission add a condition to allow one master Minor Use Permit
for all the casita units.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked there could be a hammer -head instead
of the full cul-de-sac on Lots 6, 7, and 8 and again at 14, 15, 16,
to cut down the amount of pavement. Staff stated that if it meets
the Fire Department requirements, it would be possible.
3. Commissioner Quill asked if this project would not be reimbursed
for the cost of a signal if the Travertine project moved forward.
Ms. Criste stated there is not a condition for reimbursement.
Commissioner Quill questioned the realignment of a significant 60
foot irrigation line that has never been relocated before. The loss
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
of one or two lots would be less than moving this line. He noted
the City has not received any communication from CVWD or the
Bureau of Reclamation as to whether or not this line can even can,
or will be relocated. Staff noted CVWD did require the relocation
be approved. Commissioner Quill asked if this would be a full
improvement of Avenue 60. Staff stated it will be a half street
width. Commissioner Quill asked who would be responsible for
finishing the street widening if the property to the south is never
developed. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated there are
other tracts in the process that will complete the street
development.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Richard Hughes, the applicant, gave a
presentation on the project and stated he had a problem with the
condition regarding bonding for the circulation issues. If Travertine
is never built he is left with the bonding for the construction of a
street that will never be built. This street is an issue for the
Travertine project and not his. In regard to the irrigation line, they
would not like to move it, but they are trying to resolve the issue
with CVWD. Mr. Jerry Green, engineer for the project, spoke
regarding the Madison Street improvements. He stated it has no
benefit to this project and they do not believe they should be
burdened with the cost. He explained the work that would be
necessary to construct the street.
5. Commissioner Quill asked if Travertine is not developed, and this
developer is required to construct the street, the maintenance of
this street could be a waste of public funds as it goes no where.
He asked if that were the case, would the street then be deeded
back to this developer. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated
there are other land owners on the other side of the dike in
addition to Travertine. Staff does not expect this developer to
widen this street unless a developer on the other side does
develop. Staff is requesting a bond be kept in place until such
time as this street is removed from the General Plan. Community
Development Director Doug Evans stated there is a very significant
parcel of land that can be developed without restrictions on the
south side of the dike. The only issue for Travertine is the trail. It
is becoming realistic that Travertine may be developed. In any
other instance a developer would be required to develop the street
adjacent to their project. The issue here is the grade difference.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 13
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant had considered extending the
lots and having the slope be a part of the lot. Mr. Green stated
they have a drainage swale to catch the drainage and they would
prefer it be maintained by the HOA. Chairman Kirk asked if the
CVWD water efficient landscaping calculations had been
submitted. Mr. Green stated no.
7. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment.
There being none, the public hearing was closed and open for
Commission discussion.
8. Commissioner Ladner commended the applicant on the design.
She questioned the condition for bonding.
9. Commissioner Quill stated he would like staff to tighten -up the
condition in regard to the irrigation line relocation.
10. Commissioner Alderson stated that in regard to the configuration
of the land, it is an excellent land planning design.
11. Chairman Kirk commended the applicant on the design. He would
prefer to see the submittals after they go through the water
calculations. Staff stated landscaping plans are not required at the
tentative tract submittal. There being no further discussion, the
public participation was closed.
12. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Alderson to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-024, recommending
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-541, as
recommended:
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
13. Commissioner Quill questioned the reason this developer is being
required to pay for the cost of the Madison Street improvements
when it is not to his benefit. Staff explained that if the condition
is not required, then there is no one to pay for the improvements.
Discussion followed regarding alternatives and solutions to the
cost of the street improvements and whether or not they should
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 14
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
be required to bond for the grade.
14. Chairman Kirk stated he would like to see the perimeter
landscaping plans at this stage. Community Development Director
Doug Evans stated that it has not been the practice of staff to
require that at the tentative tract map submittal stage. If the
Commission wants to do this, the application process would need
to be changed. Staff would discuss this further with the
Commission at a future date. Discussion followed regarding
alternatives to street improvements.
15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-025, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 33597, as recommended and
amended:
a. Condition #54.A.1.a. The applicant shall bond for the cost
of widening only, Madison Street to its ultimate street width
or provide a cash amount. The applicant shall grant and
deed to the City the necessary right of way for the future
Madison Street, if asked to do so by the City, prior to the
final map recording. If this widening has not been
completed within five years of this approval it shall not be
required.
b. Condition added: A master Minor Use Permit shall be
submitted for all the casita units.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
F. Environmental Assessment 2005-533 and Site Development Permit
2005-822; a request of KKE Architects for consideration of a request to
certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and
review of development plans for Phase 1 (44,300 sq. ft.) of a 61,650
square foot center on a 6.38 acre site, for the property located on the
north side of Highway 1 1 1, 1,300 + feet east of Dune Palms Road.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 15
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked the distance from Highway 1 1 1 to
the rear of the building. Staff estimated 70 feet. They are
required to berm and screen the drive -through lane.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if the doors on the rear would open into the
drive-thru lane. Staff stated they were emergency only doors and
would open on a concrete stoop.
4. Commissioner Alderson asked the number of trash enclosures.
Staff indicated the location of the four on the site. Commissioner
Alderson questioned whether or not the applicant had an easement
with the property owner to the west. Staff stated to date, it has
not been consummated. Commissioner Alderson expressed his
concern that if the applicant were unable to reach an agreement, it
would require a reconfiguration of the site plan.
5. Chairman Kirk asked if a reconfiguration were required, would it
come back to the Commission. Staff stated it would depend on
the extent of the revisions.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Mark Giles, representing the applicant, stated
he was available to answer any questions.
7. Commissioner Quill asked if there would be berming in the 50-foot
landscape setback along Highway 111. His concern was the
grade of the drive through paving in respect to the curb and cutter
along Highway 1 1 1, and what is the pad grade in respect to the
existing Highway 1 1 1 curb and gutter. What is their relation to
Highway 1 1 1. Mr. Dan Reese, The Keith Companies, engineer for
the project, explained the relationship between the street and drive
through is within three feet. Commissioner Quill stated his
concern is that if the elevation of the curb and gutter and the
elevation of the drive through lane is significantly different, it can
be difficult to screen the cars. Mr. Reese stated he would need to
refer to the landscape architect.
8. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment.
There being none, the public participation portion of the hearing
was closed and open for Commission discussion.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 16
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
9. Commissioner Alderson stated that if the front building is going to
have a drive -through, he is concerned about the doors opening into
the drive through. Mr. Giles stated there is a five foot sidewalk
between the doors and drive -through.
10. Commissioner Quill stated he wanted to be sure the cars in the
drive -through are hidden from view from Highway 1 1 1.
11. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicants could be required to submit
full landscaping plans at the time they submit their Site
Development Permits. Staff stated grade differential information
could be required at the time of submittal.
12. Chairman Kirk stated that although the applicant has done a nice
job designing the site, he does not like the building backing onto
Highway 111.
13. It was moved by Commissioners Alderson/Ladner to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-026, certifying a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2005-533, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
14. It was moved by Commissioners Alderson/Daniels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-027, approving Site
Development Permit 2005-822, as recommended and amended:
a. Condition added: Retail Buildings "A" through "D" with the
exception of Pad 1.
b. Condition added: The applicant shall obtain approval of the
access to the adjoining property to the west.
C. Condition added: The applicant shall submit a more detailed
elevation and landscaping plan for Pad 1.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G. Site Development Permit 2005-830; a request of John Garrison, GSR
Andrade Architects for consideration of development plans for
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 17
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
construction of a + 36,000 square foot, two-story medical office
building, located on the east side of Washington Street +400 feet south
of Avenue 47.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Alderson asked staff to clarify what appears to be
utility boxes, at the northeast corner of the site and the
Architecture and Landscaping Review Commission
recommendation which staff did.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Garrison, the architect for the project,
stated they are utility boxes.
4. Commissioner Quill stated he would prefer they not add any more
architectural detail as the simpler, the better when trying to
achieve the Mission look.
5. Commissioner Ladner stated she agrees with Commissioner Quill.
The smooth texture does make the difference.
6. There being no further discussion or public comment, Chairman
Kirk closed the public hearing.
7. It was moved by Commissioners Quill/Alderson to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 2005-028, approving Site Development
Permit 2004-830, as recommended by staff and as amended:
a. Condition #73.13: Amended to require a two-piece mudded
clay Mission tile.
b. Condition added: No anodized metal shall be used on the
windows but rather the window frames shall be a powder
colored aluminum or bronze.
C. Allow date palm trees to remain as proposed.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 18
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2005
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Review of City Council meeting of June 7, 2005.
B. Department report:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Ladner/Daniels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on June 28, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 1 1:30 p.m. on June 14, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 19
PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 28, 2005 CONTINUED FROM MAY 24, 2005
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-827
APPLICANT: COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL ARCHITECTURE, INC. FOR
INNOVATIVE RESORT COMMUNITIES
ARCHITECT: COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL ARCHITECTURE, INC.
REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR
FOUR PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PLANS AND CLUBHOUSE
FOR USE IN TRACT 31732
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 60
WITHDRAW OF APPLICATION:
The applicants have informed us that they have sold the property to KB Homes
(Attachment 1). Therefore, they are not proceeding with this application. KB Homes
will submit a new application for their home and landscape designs in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION:
Withdraw application from the agenda.
Attachment:
1. Communication from Innovative Resort Communities
Prepared by:
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
pAstan\sdp\sdp 2005-827 pc rptl.doc
Page 1 c
3n Sawa ATTACHMENT #1
)m: Barbara Preece [Barbara.Preece c@InnovativeCommunities.com]
nt: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:15 AM
Stan Sawa
Brad Fomon
bject: Sale of La Quinta 31732 and 31733
3e be advised that IREC/Pac-La Quinta, LLC, a subsidiary of Innovative Resort Communities, Inc., sold the above-referenc
5 to KB Homes effective June 3, 2005. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
►ara R. Preece
legal
native Resort Communities, Inc.
E. Washington Avenue, Suite 100
indido, CA 92025
) 839-8238
) 839-8248 Fax
3/2005
PH #B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 28, 2005 CONTINUED FROM MAY 24, 2005
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-828
APPLICANT: COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL ARCHITECTURE, INC. FOR
INNOVATIVE RESORT COMMUNITIES
ARCHITECT: COLBOU,RN-CURRIER-NOLL ARCHITECTURE, INC.
REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR
FOUR PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PLANS AND CLUBHOUSE
FOR USE IN TRACT 31733
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 61
WITHDRAW OF APPLICATION:
The applicants have informed us that they have sold the property to KB Homes
(Attachment 1). Therefore, they are not proceeding with this application. KB Homes
will submit a new application for their home and landscape designs in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION:
Withdraw application from agenda.
Attachment:
Communication from Innovative Resort Communities
Prepared by:
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
p:\stan\sdp\sdp 2005-828 pc rptl.doc
Page 1
an Sawa
om: Barbara Preece [Barbara.Preece@lnnovativeCommunities.com]
!nt: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:15 AM
Stan Sawa
Brad Fomon
abject: Sale of La Quinta 31732 and 31733
ATTACHMENT #'
se be advised that IREC/Pac-La Quinta, LLC, a subsidiary of Innovative Resort Communities, Inc., sold the above-referer
s to KB Homes effective June 3, 2005. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
)ara R. Preece
legal
vative Resort Communities, Inc.
E. Washington Avenue, Suite 100
mdido, CA 92025
) 839-8238
) 839-8248 Fax
3/2005
PH #C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 28, 2005
CASE NOS.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-337-ADDENDUM,
AND SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY
CERTIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SCHEDULE NO.
9701 1055) FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-337,
FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND A NEW DRIVEWAY ACCESS
ON ADAMS STREET AND A DESIGN CHANGE TO THE
INTERNAL CIRCULATION PATTERN, INTERNAL ACCESS,
AND A RETENTION BASIN
LOCATION: EAST OF ADAMS STREET, SOUTH OF AUTO CENTRE
DRIVE
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
ENGINEER: THE KEITH COMPANIES
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
REVIEWED THIS PROJECT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA), AND HAS DETERMINED THAT NEITHER THE
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, NOR ANY NEW
INFORMATION EXISTS THAT WILL RESULT IN THE
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, OR THE
SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OF
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN CERTIFIED EIR SCH
NO. #97011055, AND AN ADDENDUM TO THE EIR HAS
BEEN PREPARED.
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
SOUTH: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RH)/ AVENTINE
APARTMENTS
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC staff prt SP97-029, Amd. 4.doc
EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)/ LAKE LA
QUINTA
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
The City Council approved, under Resolution, No. 97-64, Centre at La Quinta Specific
Plan 97-029. The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan as amended includes property
between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road south of Highway 111 and
approximately 1000 feet north of Avenue 48 (Attachment 1). The Specific Plan
allows auto dealerships such as the existing three dealers and the approved Mazda
dealership and mixed regional commercial uses including Super Walmart and Sam's
Club. The General Plan allows High Density Residential use with an affordable
component if it is 600 feet south of Highway 1 1 1.
Applications Under Consideration
The Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 requests a new right -in and right -out access
driveway into the commercial Center on Adams Street, realigning the internal
circulation in Planning Area 2 (the southwest portion of the center), reconfiguring a
proposed retention basin, and a new internal access to the property at the southwest
corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Dunes Palms Road.
COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
The applicant's request was sent to City departments and affected public agencies on
April 21, 2005, requesting comments be returned by May 6, 2005. No significant
comments were received.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on June 4, 2005.
All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public
hearing notice.
ANALYSIS AND ISSUES:
The proposed new driveway access on Adams Street and the proposed internal
circulation change into the commercial Center meet General Plan standards and provide
an additional entry/exit point for the vehicles using the commercial businesses in the
Center including Super Walmart and the approved Sam's Club. The proposed new
driveway also provides an additional southern street frontage for the approved Mazda
dealership. A representative of the Auto Dealer's has expressed the concern that this
driveway will take traffic off (i.e. potential customers) Auto Centre Drive. The three
existing dealers have street exposure and identity on Auto Centre Drive.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC staff prt SP97-029, Amd. 4.doc
Staff is recommending a Conditions of Approval requiring the applicant to add the
following language to the Specific Plan:
• A Traffic Study will be completed to consider operational expansion of the north
bound turn pockets on Adams Street and Highway 1 1 1. The Traffic Study and
any additional improvements needed, including reconstruction of the median
island, shall be completed within two years of the application submittal date for
the next Site Development Permit requested within Planning Area 2 in the
Centre at La Quinta.
• The applicant shall prepare a final street design including round -about design
options at intersections for the proposed new internal road and submit plans, for
approval by the Planning Commission, as an independent Site Development
Permit or concurrent with the next Site Development Permit submittal in
Planning Area 2 of the Specific Plan.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to approve the Specific Plan Amendment can be made provided
the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed per Section 9.210.010 and
Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 97-337 for
Specific Plan 97-029.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ recommending to the City
Council approval of Specific Plan 97, Amendment No. 4 allowing a new
driveway access on Adams Street and a change of the internal circulation,
access, and retention basin design, subject to conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Location Exhibit
2. Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No. 4
Prepared by:
It
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC staff prt SP97-029, Amd. 4.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
APPROVAL OF AN ADDENDUM TO A SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
(SCHEDULE NO. 97011055) FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 97-337
CASE NO.: ADDENDUM TO A SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 97-337
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
WHEREAS, an Addendum to a Supplemental EIR (Schedule No.
9701 1055) for Environmental Assessment 97-337 has been prepared and determined
that the Specific Plan Amendment as part of the Implementing Project does not trigger
the need for the preparation of an additional Environmental Assessment, pursuant to
CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the
Implementing Project does not involve:
1. Substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Environmental Addendum
which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially
increase the severity of previously identified impacts;
2. Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment
not analyzed in the Environmental Addendum; or
3. New information of substantial importance which would involve new significant
effects on the environment not analyzed in the Environmental Addendum to
substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts.
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make
the following findings to justify a recommendation to certify an Addendum to a
Supplemental EIR (Schedule No. 9701 1055) for Environmental Assessment 97-337
and;
1. The Implementing Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by the Environmental Addendum.
2. The Implementing Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Addendum to Supplemental EIR for Environmental Assessment 97-337
Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: June 28, 2005
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants
or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory in that no significant effects on environmental factors have
been identified by the Environmental Addendum.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the Implementing Project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends in that no significant effects on environmental factors have
been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
4. The Implementing Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The Implementing Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited
or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will
not be significantly affected by the proposed Project.
6. The Implementing Project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or
public services and that the Specific Plan Amendment complies with all
mitigation measures adopted in Environmental Assessment 97-337.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures are
imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 97-337
and said Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City.
9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California, 92253.
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Addendum to Supplemental EIR for Environmental Assessment 97-337
Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: June 28, 2005
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 28"1h day of June, 2005 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a
request by Stamko Development Co. for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to add
a new driveway access on Adams Street and a change of the design of the internal
circulation pattern, internal access, and retention basin the Centre at La Quinta
Specific Plan, generally located at the southwest of Highway 1 1 1 and Adams Street, a
portion of Planning Area 2 of Specific Plan 97-029, as Amended.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Sections
9.240.010 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Specific Plan Amendment,
respectively:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The Implementing Project as proposed is
consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the design,
height, scale and mass of the project is compatible with the Mixed/Regional
Commercial Land Use designation.
2. Land Use Compatibility: The Implementing Project is consistent with the
development standards of the Regional Commercial Zoning District, including
but not limited to, setbacks, architecture, building heights, building mass,
exterior lighting, parking, sign program, circulation, open space and landscaping.
3. Public Welfare: The Amended Specific Plan will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare in that the proposed
changes are compatible with surrounding development and as conditioned meet
the street design standards of the City.
4. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The
Implementing Project is consistent with the requirements of CEQA, in that an
Addendum to a Supplemental EIR (Schedule No. 9701 1055) for Environmental
Assessment 97-337 has been prepared and determined that consideration of an
Implementing Project does not call for the preparation of an additional
Environmental Assessment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public
Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Implementing Project does not
involve:
a. Substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Environmental
Addendum which would involve new significant effects on the
environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified
impacts;
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Addendum to Supplemental EIR for Environmental Assessment 97-337
Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: June 28, 2005
b. Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects
on the environment not analyzed in the Environmental Addendum; or
C. New information of substantial importance which would involve new
significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the Environmental
Addendum substantially increases the severity of previously identified
impacts.
There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information, which
would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis pursuant
to Public Resources Code Section 21166.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for approval of the Addendum to Environmental
Assessment 97-733 and this Specific Plan Amendment;
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of La Quinta
approval of the Addendum to a Supplemental EIR (Schedule No. 9701 1055) for
Environmental Assessment 97-337 and approve Specific Plan 97-029,
Amendment No. 4 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the
Conditions of Approval attached hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 28th day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Addendum to Supplemental EIR for Environmental Assessment 97-337
Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: June 28, 2005
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. EVANS
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
ADDENDUM TO SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
(SCH NO. 97011055)
(CEO.A GUIDELINE 15164)
FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 4
APPROVAL OF A NEW DRIVEWAY ACCESS ON ADAMS STREET AND A CHANGE
OF THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION PATTERN FOR THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF
THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA, SOUTH OF AUTO CENTRE DRIVE AND EAST OF
ADAMS
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of La Quinta ("City"), as lead agency under the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared
this Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164 to address the potential
environmental impacts of development of a 22 acre portion of Planning Area II of
the Centre at La Quinta Specific. The environmental impacts associated with the
development of that portion of Planning Area II of the Centre at La Quinta Specific
Plan located at the southwest portion of the center; east of Adams Street and
south of Highway 1 1 1, were analyzed in the Supplemental EIR adopted in
connection with the approval of Amendment #1 to the Centre at La Quinta Specific
Plan.
PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
This Addendum is intended to address whether changes or additions must be made
to the previously adopted Supplemental EIR. Moreover, this Addendum is intended
to verify that the proposed changes in the Specific Plan would be consistent with
the scope of development analyzed in the Supplemental EIR, and to further verify
that there have been no changes in circumstances or disclosure of new information
which would trigger the requirement to do a subsequent environmental assessment
of the project. The previous Supplemental EIR and supporting Environmental
Assessment 97-337 identified that subsequent site development permit
applications would be part of the overall project assessed at that time, namely,
disposition and development of the 22 acres of property located at the southwest
portion of the center; east of Adams Street and south of Highway 1 1 1.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the development
assumptions relied upon in conducting the environmental analysis in the
Supplemental EIR. There has been no change in the proposed development of the
site. The only difference in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment when compared
to the development assumptions reflected in the Supplemental EIR is the addition of
an access driveway into the Commercial Center and a modification of the internal
circulation. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes a requirement a
Traffic Study to be completed which considers operational expansion of the north
bound turn pockets on Adams Street and Highway 1 1 1. The Traffic Study and any
additional improvements needed, including reconstruction of the median island,
shall be to be completed within two years of the application submittal date for the
next Site Development Permit request within Planning Area 2 in the Centre at La
Quinta.
The City has compared the impacts of the proposed Specific Plan with those
impacts analyzed in the Supplemental EIR and finds as follows:
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\EA Addendum. for SP 97-029 Amd 4.doc
Aesthetics - Impacts
identical to those
previously analyzed.
The allowed land uses
(retail commercial, high
density affordable
housing, and auto
dealers) has not
changed from that
reviewed in the original
SuppOemental EIR.
Agriculture Resources -
Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The
site is in the urban core
of the City, and is not in
agriculture, nor is it
within several miles of
lands in agriculture.
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials - Impacts
identical to those
previously analyzed.
Implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan
Amendment will not
change the land uses on
the site, which will be
regulated for hazardous
materials storage and
transport by the City
and County.
Hydrology and Water
Quality - Impacts
equivalent to those
previously analyzed. The
City still requires the
implementation of
NPDES standards and
on -site retention, which
will be implemented for
the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment.
Public Services - Impacts 1
identical to those
previously analyzed. The
land uses proposed for the
site have not changed,
and will require the same
level of service as that
evaluated in the
Supplemental EIR.
Recreation - Impacts
equivalent to those
previously analyzed. The
allowed land uses will
have no impact on
recreational facilities in the
City.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\EA Addendum. for SP 97-029 Amd 4.doc
Air Quality - Impacts
equivalent to those
previously analyzed. No
changes have been
proposed in the project
which would result in a
greater number of
vehicle trips, which are
the primary source of
emissions associated
with buildout of the
project.
Biological Resources -
Impacts equivalent to
those previously
analyzed.
No physical changes are
proposed in the project.
The impacts to
biological resources will
not change.
Cultural Resources -
Impacts no greater than
those previously
analyzed. The required
mitigation associated
with the Supplemental
EIR will be implemented
with Site Development
Permits for the Project,
and will reduce impacts
to less than significant
levels.
Land Use Planning -
Impacts equivalent to
those previously
analyzed. The property
is vacant and will not
impact an established
community. The
proposed project is
consistent with the uses
contemplated and
allowed in the General
Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. It serves to
implement the Specific
Plan for the Centre at La
Quinta.
Mineral Resources — The
site does not contain
mineral resources.
Noise - Impacts no
greater than those
previously analyzed. The
land uses proposed
consist of commercial
uses which are not
sensitive receptors.
There no changes in
proposed land uses.
Transportation/Traffic -
Impacts less than or equal
to those previously
analyzed. An additional
driveway into the
Commercial Center will
provide dispersion of
traffic. Evaluation of street
designs for the project,
and determination of the
need for redesigning left
turn lane pockets which
will provide equivalent or
better traffic safety, and
that the level of service
associated with the
existing street design and
improvements will remain
at better than acceptable
levels at project buildout
based on the refined
street traffic and design
study.
Utilities and Service
Systems Impacts identical
to those previously
analyzed. No physical
change is proposed to the
project, and impacts to
utilities will be as
previously analyzed.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\EA Addendum. for SP 97-029 Amd 4.doc �1 -
Geology and Soils -
Impacts identical to
those previously
analyzed. The structures
proposed for the project
site have not changed,
and the mitigation
measures originally
approved will be
implemented with Site
Development Permits
for the Project.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Population and Housing -
Impacts identical to those
previously analyzed. The
proposed commercial land
uses will not induce
significant population
growth.
The City finds that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental MND or EIR have
occurred. More specifically, the City has determined that:
Finding 1. There are no substantial changes to the Specific Plan that would
require major revisions of the Supplemental EIR due to new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts
identified in the previous Supplemental EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding. The project has not changed substantially
from the development assumptions contained in the previously Supplemental
EIR. The Supplemental EIR assumed development of approximately 850,000
square feet of general retail, auto dealer, and high density housing uses for the
entire Specific Plan Area. A portion of the site, 22 acres is within Planning
Area II of the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment provides no change in the allowed
square footage in the adopted Specific Plan. Accordingly, the Specific Plan
Amendment is consistent with the development assumptions contained in the
Supplemental EIR. The proposed design changes i.e. a new driveway entrance
does not result in additional or more severe significant impacts since the
development potential remains the same as the in the Supplemental EIR.
Finding 2. No substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances
under which the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is being undertaken that
will require major revisions of the previously adopted Supplemental EIR to
disclose new significant environmental effects or that would result in a
substantial increase in the severity of the impacts identified in the MND.
Facts Supporting the Finding. The circumstances under which the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment will be undertaken are accurately and
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\EA Addendum. for SP 97-029 Amd 4.doc
adequately described in the previously adopted. The new driveway access
does not result in additional or more sever significant impacts since the
development potential remains the same as in the Supplemental EIR. There
have been no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment will be developed resulting in new or more
severe significant impacts.
Finding 3. There is no additional new information of substantial
importance, which was not known at the time of the adoption of the previous
Supplemental EIR, indicating that: (1) The project will have one or more
significant effects not discussed in the Supplemental EIR; (2) There are no
impacts that were determined to be significant in the Supplemental EIR that
would be substantially more severe; (3) There are no additional mitigation
measures or alternatives to the project that would substantially reduce one or
more identified significant impacts; and (4) There are no additional mitigation
measures or alternatives which were rejected by the City that would
substantially reduce any identified significant impact identified in the
Supplemental EIR.
Facts Supporting the Finding. No new information of substantial
importance to the conclusions of the previously adopted Supplemental EIR
has been identified with the analysis of this Addendum Moreover, the
previously adopted Supplemental EIR concluded that all potentially significant
impacts may be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation
of identified mitigation measures. The mitigation measures identified in the
Supplemental EIR will be adopted and implemented with Site Developemnt
Permits for the Project. Finally, no additional significant impacts are identified
pursuant this Addendum.
June 3, 2005
Signature Date
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\EA Addendum. for SP 97-029 Amd 4.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029 (CENTRE AT
LA QUINTA)
CASE: SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029, AMENDMENT # 4
APPLICANT: STAMKO DVELOPMENT CO.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California
did, on the 141h day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, and continued
said hearing to June 28, 2005, to consider a request by Stamko Development Co., to
recommend to the City Council approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to add a new
driveway access on Adams Street and a change of the design of the internal
circulation pattern, internal access, and retention basin the Centre at La Quinta
Specific Plan, located east of Adams Street, south of Auto Centre Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published a
public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on the 4th day of June, 2005, as
prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all
property owners within 500 feet of the site; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department mailed case file
materials to all affected agencies for their review and comment on the proposed
project. All written comments are on file with the Community Development
Department; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed
this ,project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and has determined that neither the proposed changes to the project, nor
new information will result in the identification of new significant impacts, or the
substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts identified in certified EIR
SCH#9701 1055, and an Addendum to the EIR has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City
Council did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify approval of said
Specific Plan Amendment #4:
Finding A - Consistency with General Plan
The property is designated Mixed/Regional Commercial. The proposed project will
be developed with commercial uses and within the development intensity (FAR)
specified for this designation as allowed under the General Plan.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\cond. PC Reso SP 97-029 Amd. 4.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment #4
Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: June 28, 2005
Page 2
Finding B — Public Welfare Enhancement
The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that
the project is designed in compliance with the City's General Plan Circulation
Element and design of the Specific Plan, as well as other County and State
standards, such as CEQA.
Findings C and D — Land Use Compatibility and Property Suitability
The project site is an already commercially designated and zoned area. The
project will provide adequate buffering through landscaping and walls to ensure
compatibility with surrounding land uses. Additionally, the project will provide
adequate perimeter landscaping and acceptable architectural design guidelines,
consistent with those requirements of the existing Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of said City Council in this case; and
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific
Plan 97-029, Amendment #4, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 281h day of June, 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tom Kirk, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\cond. PC Reso SP 97-029 Amd. 4.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment #4
Stamko Development Co.
Adopted: June 28, 2005
Page 3
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. EVANS
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\cond. PC Reso SP 97-029 Amd. 4.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO. 4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to
attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan, or any Final Map
recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense
counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Specific Plan No. 97-029, Amendment No. 4, shall comply with the requirements and
standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map
Act"), Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC") and all applicable
conditions of approval for Specific Plan No. 97-029 and Amendments No. 1, 2 and 3,
Tentative Parcel Maps 30420 and 28525 and Site Development Permit 97-603 and
Amendments No.1 and 2.
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at
www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following
agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
• SCAQMD Coachella Valley
• Caltrans
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from
the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those
improvements plans for City approval.
If previous NPDES construction permits are no longer applicable, a project=specific
NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall
submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB")
acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI" ), prior to the issuance of a
grading or site construction permit by the City.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge
Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County
Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-
DWQ.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that
disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of
land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than
one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water
Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater
Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use
in their SWPPP preparation.
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection
at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4► Tracking Control.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant
to this project.
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of
project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the
City.
5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the
proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate
or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance,
construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-ways
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific
plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this amendment shall
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Adams Street (Primary Arterial, Option A - 1 10' ROW) — No additional
right of way except for an additional right of way dedication at the
proposed realigned road connecting Adams Street and La Quinta Drive
measured 63 feet east from the centerline of Adams Street and a
minimum of 100 feet long plus a variable dedication of an additional 50
feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric
layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median
curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes,
deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be
accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the
appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact
the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape
setback requirement.
10. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-
ways shown on the approved Specific Plan are necessary prior to approval of the
Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-
of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
11. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility
easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such
easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of
IID.
12. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Adams Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final
Map.
13. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas on the Final Map.
14. Applicable to this amendment to the specific plan, direct vehicular access to Adams
Street from parcels with frontage along Adams Street is restricted, except for those
access points identified on previously recorded parcel maps and the site plan for
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
Amendment No. 4 of the specific plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these
conditions of approval.
15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
16. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of
the subject property between the'date of approval of the Specific Plan and the date
of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City
Engineer.
GRADING
17. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
18. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
19. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections
8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm
Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control
Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
20. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent
wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall
either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion
control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
21. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain
and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as
otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not
exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e.
the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted
with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb
shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the
curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All
unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half
inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
22. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider
alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
23. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by
more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the
approved Specific Plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to
the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading
plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad
certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be
organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
r)RAINA(;F
25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site
during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the
centerline of adjacent public streets and highways. The design storm shall be either
the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off.
26. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per
hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides
site specific data indicating otherwise.
Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in a
trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system approved by the City
Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain first flush storm
water and nuisance water surges from landscape area, commercial activity and off -
site street nuisance water. The sand filter design shall be per La Quinta Standard 370
with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of water feed per sand filter to accept the
abovementioned nuisance water requirements. Leach line requirements are 1.108
feet of leach line per gph of flow. Flow from adjacent well sites shall be designed for
retention area percolation by separate infiltration system approved by the City
Engineer.
27. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through
underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites
granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for
development of this property.
28. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to
Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted
with maintenance free ground cover.
29. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots
along Adams Street. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls
onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas.
The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped
with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
30. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
31. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity
to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic
drainage relief route.
32. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
33. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
34. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone
stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
35. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and
all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
36. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of
utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench
restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
37. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
38. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS , ;
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
1) Highway 1 1 1 (Major Arterial — State Highway; 140' R/W):
No additional widening on the south side of Highway 1 1 1 is required for the
Specific Plan under this amendment.
2) Adams Street (Primary Arterial; Option A, 1 10' R/W):
No additional street widening is required on the east side of Adams Street
along the Specific Plan boundary, except at locations where additional street
width is needed to accommodate:
a) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the proposed realigned road
connecting Adams Street and La Quinta Drive. The east curb
face shall be located fifty one feet (51') east of the centerline
and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the
applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin #
03-08. As a minimum, the required right of way shall be for a
length of 100 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 50
feet.
Other required improvements in the Adams Street right of way and/or adjacent
landscape setback area include:
b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
c) Reconstruct the existing 6' meandering sidewalk along the
deceleration/right turn only lane at the proposed realigned road
connecting Adams Street and La Quinta Drive.
The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure
they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices
and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks).
The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned above.
The development is eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development _Impact
Fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program.
3) The applicant shall install the traffic signal at the Adams Street and
Avenue 47 intersection as conditioned of Tentative Parcel Map 28525.
Applicant is responsible for 100 % of the cost to design and install the
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
traffic signal. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post security for 50 %
of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an
on -site grading permit; the security shall remain in full force and effect
until the signal is actually installed by the applicant.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction
plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer.
39. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure
for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be
as follows:
Parking Lot 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
40. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of
construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The
submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure.
For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six
months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming
that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not
schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved.
41. All access points and turning movements of traffic previously approved shall remain.
Additional access points and turning movements of traffic as proposed for this
amendment to the Specific Plan 97-029 are limited to the following:
A. Adams Street entry for realigned road from Adams Street to La Quinta drive
(Adams Street): Right turn in and out movements are permitted. Left turn in
and out movements are prohibited.
42. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block
street lighting is not required.
43. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
CONSTRUCTION
44. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings
have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets.
The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings
and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially
constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the
pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the
development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
45. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
46. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
47. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
48. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall
obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner,
prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
49. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no
lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public
streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
50. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
QUALITY ASSURANCE
51. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
52. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other
appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to
prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction
supervision.
53. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be
required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods
employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations.
54. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the
City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying
to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all
AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the
as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
55. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
56. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of
all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and
sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
57. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for
plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits.
58. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-029, AMENDMENT NO.4
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
59. Prior to final of approval the Specfic Plan Amendment applicant will add the following
language to the Specific Plan text:
The applicant shall prepare a final street design including round -about design options
at intersections for the proposed new internal road and submit plans, for approval by
the Planning Commission, as an independent Site Development Permit or concurrent
with the next Site Development Permit submittal in Planning Area 2 of the Specific
Plan.
60. Prior to final approval of the Specific Plan Amendment applicant will add the
following language to the Specific Plan text:
A Traffic Study will be completed to consider operational expansion of the north
bound turn pockets on Adams Street and Highway 1 1 1. The Traffic Study
and any additional improvements needed, including reconstruction of the
median island, shall be completed within two years of the application submittal
date for the next Site Development Permit request within Planning Area 2 in
the Centre at La Quinta.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\Stamko Specific Plan Amd. 4\PC COA - SP 97-029, Amend No.4.doc 13
ATTACHMENT #1
PSI #D
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 28, 2005
CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2005-892
APPLICANT: IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY (FOR LAMPPOST PIZZA AND
BACKSTREET BREWERY)
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SIGNS FOR A 5,000 + SQUARE FOOT
RESTAURANT/BREWERY
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, EAST OF WASHINGTON
STREET WITHIN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING
CENTER
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) / RC (REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL)
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311, CLASS 11, OF THE
GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR ON -PREMISE SIGNS.
THEREFORE, NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION IS NECESSARY.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is a freestanding building located along Highway 1 1 1, between PFF
Bank and Auto Zone in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Immediately to
the east of the site is a driveway to Highway 11 1 . The project is presently under
construction and will be a restaurant with a microbrewery. A sign program has been
approved for the center. These signs are being presented to the Planning Commission
for approval because they are asking for more than one sign per frontage on the north
and south sides of the building despite the fact that the uses are under one
ownership.
SIGN PROPOSAL:
The applicants are proposing signs on all sides of the building as allowed by sign
program (Attachment 1). The project when approved for construction in September,
2003, was to be called "Lamppost Pizza". They are proposing two cabinet signs on
PAstan\signs\sa 2005-892 pupt.doc
the north elevations, reading "Lamppost Pizza" and "Back Street Brewery". The
applicant indicates the restaurant and brewery operate as individual businesses in the
building despite the fact they are owned by the same owners. As such, they are
proposing separate signs to identify the two uses. These signs are multi -colored, flat
surface (vinyl) cabinet signs and match their registered trademarks. Both signs are 50
square feet or less in size, the maximum size allowed by the sign program.
On the south side of the building facing Highway 1 1 1, two signs are proposed. The
"Backstreet Brewery" sign will be the same cabinet sign as on the north side.
"Lamppost Pizza" will be internally illuminated red channel letters with gold trim and
bronze returns. This sign will be 21'-9" by 22 inches high (39.88 square feet).
On the east side, "Back Street Brewery" in red channel letters is proposed at 39.88
square feet. On the west side, "Lamp Post Pizza" in red channel letters is proposed
at 37.5 square feet.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Provided the two uses operate as separate businesses as described, staff believes the
request is acceptable. The signs are at or under the maximum allowed 50 square feet
and are designed to be compatible with the building. If this was a multi -tenant
building, there would be more signs on the building.
The Planning Commission may want to consider requiring the cabinet signs to have a
three dimensional surface to provide interest to the signs. The variety in the face
does not need to include every element, but could include major elements such as the
letters, lamp post green band (in Lamppost Pizza sign).
FINDINGS:
The signs would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and
approved sign program. Furthermore, it will be in harmony and visually related to the
signs in the center, including those in the surrounding area. The signs will be
compatible with the building they are proposed on.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2005- , approving Sign Application 2005-892, subject to
the following condition:
1. The final sign plans, including construction details and dimensions, shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to
issuance of building permit for the signs.
P:\stan\signs\sa 2005-892 pupt.doc
Attachment:
1. Sign exhibits
Prepared by:
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
PAstan\signs\sa 2005-892 perpt.doc
PSI #E
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 28, 2005
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-535 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT 33336
APPLICANT: GLC/DUC LA QUINTA, LLC
PROPERTY
OWNER: RICHARD BAKER
ENGINEER: P&D CONSULTANTS, INC. (DAN LEE)
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58, 1,950± FEET WEST OF MADISON
STREET
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBDIVISION OF EIGHT ACRES INTO
23 SINGLE-FAMILY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-535 WAS PREPARED FOR
THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE
PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT
ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT BE RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UP TO 4 DWELLING UNITS
PER ACRE)
ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND
USES: NORTH: RL / PGA WEST
SOUTH: RL/VACANT
EAST: RL / SUBDIVISION UNDER CONSTRUCTION
WEST: RL / TT 32279 SITE (APPROVED)
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pc rpt.doc
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located immediately south of PGA West and west of Santa Rosa
Trails which is under construction (Attachment 1).The site is an irregularly shaped lot
1,324-foot deep with 242 feet of width on Avenue 58 and 330 + feet of width on the
north boundary. A 1.7 acre parcel at the southeast corner of the site is being
retained by the seller of the property and is not a part of this subdivision. Tentative
Parcel Map 33609, approved at a Director's Hearing on June 15, created two parcels.
One parcel is 1.7 acres with the second being the eight acre parcel presently being
considered under this Tentative Tract Map.
To the west of the subject property is Tentative Tract 32279, a 31 lot single-family
subdivision approved for this applicant last year. These tracts will share vehicular
access to Avenue 58 via a driveway at the southwest corner of the site (Attachment
2).
PROJECT REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the eight acre site into 23 single-family
residential lots (Attachment 3). Several miscellaneous lots would be created, primarily
for a storm water retention area, landscaping and the private street.
The proposed density of this subdivision is 2.87 dwelling units per acre which is within
the maximum four dwelling units per acre range allowed in the Zoning Code and
General Plan land use designation. The existing RL zoning on the property requires a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. All lots exceed this requirement with the
smallest lot being 9,913 square feet, the largest 12,508 square feet, with the average
being 10,720 square feet. One retention basin lot of 54,904 square feet is proposed
adjacent to Avenue 58.
The project will share an entry from Avenue 58 with the adjacent tract to the west.
The project will have a single 36-foot to 40-foot wide street with security gate access
near Avenue 58. The street "bows" out at approximately the mid point of its length to
provide a turnaround and traffic calming devise. The street is shown with landscape
islands used at the cul-de-sac bulb and bow -out point. A ten -foot wide landscape
median is shown at the entry of the private street entry on Avenue 58.
The 1.7 acre parcel at the southeast corner of the property, that is being retained by
the seller, will be provided a driveway access to the private street beyond the gated
entry. It will have its own security gate at the driveway and be enclosed by a masonry
wall.
Cross sections are provided on the four sides of the site. On the east and west, which
are adjacent to residential lots, the grades on either side will be the same or just
slightly (±one foot) higher. Along the rear property line to the north in PGA West,
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pc rpt.doc
there is a landscape strip and then a private street with houses on the north side of the
street. Along this property line the subject site pad elevations are slightly (1-1.5 feet)
lower than the adjacent grades in PGA West.
All existing masonry walls will remain. It may be necessary in places to construct
short retaining walls in front of the existing wall.
Public Notice
This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 18, 2005.
All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public
hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no
comments have been received.
Public Agency Review
All written comments received are on file with the Community Development
Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the
Conditions of Approval for this case. Other comments from agencies are enclosed for
review (Attachment 4).
ISSUES:
The sharing of access to Avenue 58 was initially created when TT 32279 was
approved in 2004. At that time there was no proposal to subdivide the subject
property. This current proposal provides private street intersections which comply
with the 250 foot spacing requirements.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to recommend approval of this request can be made, as
conditioned, and contained in the attached Resolutions for the Environmental
Assessment and Tentative Tract Map.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , recommending to the City
Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact
for Environmental Assessment 2005-535; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 33336, subject to attached Findings
and Conditions of Approval.
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pc rpt.doc �,w
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Map showing TT 32279 and TT 33336
3. TT 33336 map exhibit
4. Comments from outside agencies
Prepared by:
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
P:\STAN\ttm's\tt 33336 pc rpt.doc "1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-535 PREPARED
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33336
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-535
APPLICANT: GLC/DUC LA QUINTA, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 28`h day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of GLC/Duc La Quinta, LLC for Environmental Assessment 2005-535 prepared
for Tentative Tract 33336 located on the north side of Avenue 58, 1,950 feet west of
Madison Street more particularly described as:
APN: 762-240-012
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Director has
determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and therefore, is recommending that this Mitigated Negative Declaration
of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by
Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and
WHEREAS, 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, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2005-535.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants
or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the ' F
pAstan\ttms\tt 31434 ea 05-536 peres.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Environmental Assessment 2005-535
GLC/Duc La Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or
public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-535
and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2005-535 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community
Development Department.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 ea 05-535 peres.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Environmental Assessment 2005-535
GLC/Duc La Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
3. That Environmental Assessment 2005-535 reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 28th day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. EVANS,
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 ea 05-535 peres.doc
Environmental Checklist Form (EA 2005-535)
Project title: Tentative Tract Map 33336
Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa
760-777-7125
4. Project location: North side of Avenue 58, approximately 1,950 feet west of Madison Street.
Project sponsor's name and address: GLC/DUC La Quinta LLC
14107 Winchester Blvd., Suite H
Los Gatos, CA 95032
6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
Residential
Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
A proposal to subdivide a 8 acre parcel into 23 single family lots of at least 9,900 square feet
or more, including the inclusion of an existing single family home. The parcel is 8 acres. A
single cul-de-sac is proposed for the center of the site. Access to Avenue 58 is proposed to be
shared with the parcel immediately west, which was subdivided under Tentative Tract Map
32279. A large retention area is proposed for the frontage of the property on Avenue 58
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Low Density Residential, Golf Course, existing single family homes & golf
South: Low Density Residential, Avenue 58, vacant desert lands
West: Low Density Residential, vacant desert lands
East: Low Density Residential, vacant desert lands
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
X there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
MM 27, 2005
Date
-2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
proj ect.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
-3-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) The project site currently includes one single family home, and vacant lands. Avenue 58
is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor, and the project proponent will be required to
make parkway improvements consistent with that designation. There are no rock
outcroppings, trees or historic buildings on the project site. The City limits building sizes
in the Low density designation to no more than two stories. Although no homes are
proposed as part of this subdivision, the project proponent will be required to comply
with these requirements, thereby limiting the potential impacts associated with view
blockage. The site is surrounded by lands designated and subdivided (although not yet
constructed) lands, which are likely to develop in a similar manner. Impacts associated
with scenic resources and vistas are therefore expected to be less than significant.
The primary sources of light on the property at buildout of the site will be from car
headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow
lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Car headlights will represent only a
temporary and periodic minor impact to light in the area. Impacts are expected to be less
than significant.
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff. )
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
II. a)-c) The site us located in an area of the City which is rapidly urbanizing. The site is
designated for Low Density Residential, and residential and golf course development
occurs to the north and west. Agricultural lands occur to the east of the property, but are
limited and isolated. Agricultural activity is concentrated to the south and east of the site,
and not in this area of the City. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the site.
Impacts associated with agricultural resources are expected to be less than significant.
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
Project Study)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) Air quality emissions will result from both project construction, and activities of
homeowners once the site is built upon. Each of these impacts is addressed individually
below.
Construction
The City, and the Coachella Valley as a whole, are in a severe non -attainment area for the
generation of PM10, a component of fugitive dust. Fugitive dust will be generated by
grading activities on the project site. In order to improve impacts associated with fugitive
dust, the City participates in, and implements regional plans for its prevention and
suppression, including the mandatory preparation of PM10 Management Plans for
construction projects. It can be anticipated that the entire 10 acre site will be mass graded.
Under mass grading conditions, the site has the potential to generate 265.1 pounds of
fugitive dust each day. This level of fugitive dust exceeds the thresholds of significance
established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Mitigation is therefore
required, as follows:
-6-
Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
2. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
3. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
4. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Avenue 58, and the project's perimeter
wall, shall be installed immediately following precise grading.
6. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
7. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
The implementation of these mitigation measures is expected to reduce impacts
associated with grading activities to less than significant levels.
Operations
The proposed project will result in the construction of 23 new single family homes (the
existing home on the site will remain), which are expected to generate approximately 220
trips per day'. These vehicle trips will generate the following emissions.
Table 1
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
220 x 15 = 3,300
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Pounds at 50 mph 0.66 17.05 3.50 - 0.07 0.07
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 220 trips, ITE categories 210. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes
Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75°F, light duty autos, catalytic.
1 "Trip Generation, 7t' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 210, Single family detached.
-7-
As demonstrated, the buildout of the proposed project will not exceed thresholds of
significance once the site is built out. Impacts associated with vehicle emissions are
therefore expected to be less than significant.
III. d) & e) The construction of retail commercial space is not expected to generate objectionable
odors, or expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations.
-8-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service(General Plan MEA, pages 74-87)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General
Plan MEA, pages 74-87)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? (General Plan MEA, pages 74-
87)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? General Plan
MEA, pages 74-87)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance (General Plan MEA, pages 74-87)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? General Plan
MEA, pages 74-87)
-9-
IV. a)-f) The project site has been considerably disturbed. Portions of the site have been cleared,
and off -road vehicle use is in evidence. The subject property is not located in a
recommended survey area for sensitive species identified in the General Plan. Lands to
the north are developed, and lands to the east have been disturbed. Lands to the south are
isolated from this property by Avenue 58. The property is therefore isolated habitat, and
is not expected to contain sensitive species. There is no riparian or wetland habitat on the
subject property. The proposed project site is located outside the mitigation fee area for
the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in'15064.5? ("Phase I
Archaeological Survey," ECORP, January 2005)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to'15064.5? ("Phase I
Archaeological Survey," ECORP, January 2005)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Paleontological
Evaluation Report," Cogstone, March 2005)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Phase I Archaeological Survey,"
ECORP, January 2005)
V. a)-b) & d) A cultural resource survey was prepared for the project site2. In preparation for the report,
both records searches and field surveys were completed. The records search determined
that the project site has not been previously surveyed, but that previous surveys within a
one mile radius of the project site had identified 31 archaeological site, one
archaeological isolate, and two historic sites. The field investigation did not identify any
archaeological or historic resources on the site. However, the high number of sites in the
vicinity of the project site results in a potential for buried resources on the site. In order to
assure that impacts associated with these resources are reduced to less than significant
levels, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all grubbing and earth
moving activities. The archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth
moving activities to adequately investigate potential resources. The archaeologist
shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for
review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to
occupancy of the first building on the site. Any resources found on the site shall
be properly curated.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that potential impacts associated
with cultural resources are reduced to less than significant levels.
2 "Phase I Archaeological Survey Report for a Property Located at 80600 Avenue 58..." prepared by ECORP
Consulting, January, 2005.
-11-
V. c) A paleontological resource survey was prepared for the project site 3. The survey included
both records searches and field investigations. The records search determined that there
had been no collection of fossils within one mile of the project site. However, the site was
identified as having soils consistent with those associated with ancient Lake Cahuilla. The
on -site investigation identified fossilized clams and snails on the property. As a result, the
grading and trenching of the project site has the potential to significantly impact
paleontological resources, without mitigation, as provided below.
1. A qualified paleontological monitor shall be present during all grubbing and earth
moving activities in areas likely to contain resources. The paleontologist shall be
empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities to adequately investigate
potential resources. The paleontologist shall be equipped to collect fossils, so as to
minimize delays to construction. The paleontologist shall be required to submit to
the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written
report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the
site. Any resources found on the site shall be properly curated.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that impacts associated with
paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant levels.
3 "Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan for a La Quinta 9.78 Acre Parcel," prepared by Cogstone
Resource Management, Inc., March 2005.
-12-
e
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (General Plan pages 97-106)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
(General Plan pages 97-106)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General Plan pages
97-106)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan pages 97-106)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan pages 97-
106)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property
(General Plan pages 97-106)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
pages 97-106)
VI. a)-e) The site is located in a Zone III ground shaking zone as defined by the Uniform Building
Code (UBC). Significant ground shaking can be expected on the site in a seismic event.
The City implements the standards of the UBC for seismic zones, and will apply these
standards to this project. The site is flat, and is not located adjacent to slopes which might
pose a rockfall hazard.
-13-
The site is located in an area of the City subject to liquefaction. The City requires, as part
of the process of securing building permits, site specific geotechnical analysis of each
property. The project proponent will be required to submit such an analysis, and to
conform to any standards and requirements for liquefaction, should it be identified as a
potential impact on the site.
The site is not located on expansive soils, and will be required to connect to sanitary
sewer service which occurs adjacent to the site.
Overall impacts associated with geology and soils are expected to be less than significant.
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95
ff.)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? ("Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment," Earth Systems, January 2005)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
-15-
G
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The proposed project will result in the construction of 23 single family homes on the
property. These homes will utilize small amounts of cleaning products and similar
materials, but will not transport, use or store any significant amount of such materials.
The City's solid waste franchisee is responsible for the proper disposal of these products,
and implements programs for household hazardous waste as part of its contract with the
City. Impacts are expected to be insignificant.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site, because of
historic agricultural use of the southwestern portion of the property. The investigation
included research of databases, and on site investigation and sampling. The soil samples
identified small amounts of pesticides DDT and DDE, in concentrations well below
criteria established for these chemicals, and consistent with past agricultural activities.
The impacts associated with these residues were determined to be less than significant.
The site is not identified on any database as having had hazardous materials incidents.
The site is not located in the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. The site is not
located adjacent to hillsides, and is not subject to wildland fire hazards.
Overall impacts associated with hazardous materials are expected to be less than
significant.
4 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment with Supplemental Sampling," prepared by Earth Systems
Southwest, January, 2005.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. 11I-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
0 Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
-17-
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-
187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan
which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service
area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and
replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The
project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping
and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures, which
will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will
also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, which protect surface
waters from contamination. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality
and quantity will be less than significant.
The project site includes Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Lateral No 123.45-0.75, an
irrigation water line. Prior to development of the site, the line must be relocated to assure
that these waters are not impacted by project development. In order to assure that the
irrigation water is not impacted by the proposed project, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented.
1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall relocate Bureau
of Reclamation Irrigation Lateral No. 123.45-0.75 to the satisfaction of the Bureau
of Reclamation and the Coachella Valley Water District.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The proposed tract
map includes a retention basin, whose size and capacity will be evaluated and approved
by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. These existing City
standards will assure that the proposed project will meet the City's requirements for flood
control, and that impacts associated with storm water are reduced to less than significant
levels.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
-18-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The site currently is vacant, so there will be no impact to an established community. The
site is designated in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for single family residential
uses, and proposes lot sizes consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The
site is outside the fee mitigation area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
-19- 4
f p i
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
MEA p. 111 ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project(General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project(General Plan MEA p. 111
ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-0 The proposed project site is located in an area of the City which currently experiences
relatively low ambient noise levels. The project site is not expected to experience
unacceptable noise levels at General Plan buildout, particularly since the distance from
the centerline of Avenue 58 to the first structure on the site exceeds 368 feet.
Furthermore, the proposed project will include a wall, and landscaped setbacks, which
help to absorb noise.
-21-
� r -a
6 9
The construction of the single family homes has the potential to result in temporary and
periodically high noise levels associated with these construction activities. The location
of a perimeter wall, and the sparse development surrounding the site, will not be
significantly impacted by these noise levels, which are limited by the City's Municipal
Code to the less sensitive daytime hours.
The site is not located within the area of influence of an airport or air strip.
Overall impacts associated with noise are expected to be less than significant.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The construction of 23 single family homes will not induce substantial population
growth. The construction of the homes will not displace existing housing or people.
Impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a)Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed
project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract.
Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax and sales tax which will offset
the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government.
The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of
issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The development of commercial space is not expected to have any impact on recreational
facilities in the City.
-25-
4
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Proposed site
plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency X
access? (Proposed site plan)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
(Proposed site plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The proposed project will result in approximately 2,791 daily trips. This number is likely
to be conservative, insofar as no reduction has been taken for pass -by trips, and the type
of development within the project is likely to generate pass -by trip activity. The
anticipated square footage on the site, 65,000 square feet, is less than the potential 97,200
square feet that could be constructed on the site, based on the 35% building coverage
allowed in the City's Zoning Ordinance. The total trip generation, therefore, is likely to be
-26-
,t
less than that analyzed in the General Plan traffic study, which considered the types of
uses currently proposed for the site. The traffic study concluded that this section of
Highway 111, and the City's general circulation system, would operate at acceptable
levels of service at buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is
expected to have a less than significant impact on circulation and traffic.
The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The proposed project
parking will be calculated based on the City's Zoning standards, which allow flexibility
based on the mix of uses and the preparation of supporting documentation for variations
from its standards. Overall impacts associated with transportation are expected to be less
than significant.
-27-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project=s
projected demand in addition to the
provider=s existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project=s solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
7
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-28-
a
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity
and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect
connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The construction
of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility
providers.
-29- `
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a)
XVII. b) The proposed project will provide additional commercial services and products for City
residents, consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies.
XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction
of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts, insofar as it is expected to
result in a lower square footage than that anticipated in the General Plan.
XVII. d) The impacts associated with air quality, noise and hazards are all expected to be less than
significant. Impacts to human beings are therefore expected to be less than significant.
-30- s
t
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Environmental Assessment 2004-508 was used in this Study.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-31-
w
0
°
a
0
on
0
U
w
0
'd
o
z
ai
o
I
N
a
U
�
cww
oEn
v da
daa�d
�a
M
M
�
tn
o
H
-�
N
°°
>
M
e
o�
®z
z
a�
w
A
U
W
d
a
F
d
A
A
a�x
U
UU
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ou
°
U
U
W
U
U
cad
U
a
oz
a�
o.
W-iO
o
A
zz
a
a
ss
a
a
a
Q
Q
Q
�
aas
c
c
Y
b
f V N
�aj
o
too
o
cf)
dju
`7'3
�
�?lull
}.
u
3
�,
a
�
a o
�
¢
4
3
� -d
a
ci) o
W
Q
A
Q�
A
a
Ox
UU
Q
F
o
�
o
U
U
C�
z
�.
cq3
b
Q
Q
a
wz
0
ai
Y
ap
Q
Q
b
b
an
z
cd
0-4
O
I
� 0
a
o Q
�W
axa.
C
on e
O
0
to o
0 En
I
r
co
to
U _
u. :
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
THE SUBDIVISION OF EIGHT ACRES INTO 23
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 33336
GLC/DUC LA QUINTA, LLC
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 281h day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to
consider the request of GLC/Duc La Quinta, LLC. for the subdivision of eight acres
into 23 single-family residential lots and other miscellaneous lots, located at on the
north side of Avenue 58, approximately 1,950 feet west of Madison Street, more
particularly described as:
APN 763-240-012
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community
Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2004-535 for
this Tentative Tract Map in compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development
Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact
on the environment and therefore, is recommending that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact be certified; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard,
said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of Approval
to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 33336:
1. The Tentative Tract Map and its improvement and design are consistent with
the General Plan in that its street design and lots are in conformance with
applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size, and
will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities.
2. The design of the subdivision and its proposed improvements are not likely
to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife
or their habitat because mitigation measures and conditions have been
incorporated into the project approval to mitigate impacts where needed.
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc La Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
3. The design of the subdivision and subsequent improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems because urban infrastructure
improvements are existing, or will be installed based on applicable local,
State, and Federal requirements.
4. The design of the revised subdivision and the proposed types of
improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at
large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that
none presently exist and access is provided within the project and to
adjacent public streets.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Tentative
Tract Map 33336 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of June, 2005, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc La Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. EVANS
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33336
GLC/DUC LA QUINTA, LLC
ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2005
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to
attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final
Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense
counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with
the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58
(the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code
("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at
www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following
agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
• SCAQMD Coachella Valley
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from
the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those
improvements plans for City approval.
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge
Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County
Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-
DWQ .
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that
disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of
land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than
one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water
Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
The applicant or his/her designer can obtain the California Stormwater Quality
Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their
SWPPP preparation.
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection
at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant
to this project.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 2
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of
project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the
City.
5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the
proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate
or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance,
construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-ways
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific
plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Avenue 58 (Secondary Arterial, 88' ROW) — The standard 44 feet from
the centerline of Avenue 58 for a total 88-foot ultimate developed right
of way. The deceleration/right turn only lane conditioned of Tentative
Tract Map No. 33279 at the shared entry with this Tract Map has been
retracted by the Public Works Department.
9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-of-
ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
A. PRIVATE STREETS
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 3
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
Property line shall be placed at the back of curb similar to the lay out and
typical street section shown on the tentative map.
Private Residential Streets without Median. Measured at gutter flow line to
gutter flow line shall be 36 feet.
B. CUL DE SACS
1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map
with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric
layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median
curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes,
and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient
professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn
pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of
the project and the associated landscape setback requirement
12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-
ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of
the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary
right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
13. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility
easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such
easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of
IID.
14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Avenue 58 (Secondary Arterial) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 4
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final
Map.
15. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas on the Final Map.
16. Direct vehicular access to Avenue 58 from lots with frontage along Avenue 58 is
restricted, except for the shared entry conditioned in Tentative Tract Map No.
32279. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final map.
17. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. This shall include
reciprocal access agreement to the shared entry with Tentative Tract Map No. 32279
and this tentative tract map.
18. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of
the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the
date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City
Engineer.
FINAL MAPS
19. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard
AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program.
Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -
image file of such Final Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 5
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
20. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
21. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line
item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale
specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be
prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the
applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here
pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
B.
PM 10 Plan
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
C.
SWPPP
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently.
D. Off -Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
E. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal
The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn
at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming
design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area.
F. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
NOTE: D through F to be submitted concurrently.
(Separate Storm Drain Plans if applicable)
The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for
review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless
otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be
prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 6
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here
pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
G. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or
a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit
Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs
at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as
approved by the Engineering Department.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top
Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover,
or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
22. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction on the Public Works Online Engineering Library at
www.la-quinta.org.
23. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files
shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through
a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a
file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 7
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
24. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site
improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and
executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction
of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree
to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
25. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the
applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion
of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
26. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any
existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed
improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation.
27. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail
to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have
the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections,
withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the
surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
29. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
30. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc $
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm
Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control
Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
31. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent
wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall
either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion
control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
32. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain
and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as
otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not
exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e.
the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted
with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb
shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb,
otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All
unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half
inches 0.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
33. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the
pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of
Approval.
34. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from
the building pads in adjacent developments.
35. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider
alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
36. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by
more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the
approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading
changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
37. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading
plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad
certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be
organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
nRAINAnF
38. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site
during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. At a minimum, the tributary drainage area shall
extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The applicant or his design
professional may be required to demonstrate acceptance of additional upstream
tributary storm water. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour
event producing the greatest total run off.
39. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property and upstream street
facilities shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic
downstream drainage relief route.
40. For properties where sump conditions exist, the applicant must either define a
diversion/overflow strategy or retain upstream stormwater as required for existing as -
built conditions from all off -site tributary flow from the respective high points. The
applicant must provide either on -site retention or alternative facilities of
diversion/pass through, if selected. Historical flow paths should be identified and
routing provided in the hydrology analysis equivalent to historical flow direction. As
local topography allows, tributary areas may exceed limits of property lines adjacent
to public roads. The 100-year storm shall be the governing event in the designer's
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 10
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
evaluation.
41. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per
hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides
site specific data indicating otherwise.
42. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water
shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent system
approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to
contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5
gpd/1,000 sq. ft. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain
nuisance water surges from landscape area, residential unit, and off -site street
nuisance water. Flow from adjacent well sites shall be designed for retention area
percolation by separate infiltration system approved by the City Engineer. The sand
filter design shall be per La Quinta Standard 370 with the equivalent of 137.2 gph of
water feed per sand filter to accept the abovementioned nuisance water
requirements. Leach line requirements are 1.108 feet of leach line per gph of flow.
43. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by
the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
44. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to
Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted
with maintenance free ground cover. For retention basins on individual lots, retention
depth shall not exceed two feet.
45. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots.
Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will
be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback
and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and
mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
46. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
47. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity
to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic
drainage relief route.
P:\Reports - 3C\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 11
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
UTILITIES
48. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
49. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone
stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
50. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and
all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
51. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of
utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench
restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
52. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
53. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Avenue 58 (Secondary Arterial, 88' ROW):
a) Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to
the Tentative Tract Map boundary to its ultimate width on the
north side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 12
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing
roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from
a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial
design standard to include structural pavement sections and
profile grades. The north curb face shall be located thirty two
feet (32') north of the centerline. The deceleration/right turn only
lane conditioned of Tentative Tract Map No. 33279 at the shared
entry with this Parcel Map has been retracted by the Public
Works Department.
Other required improvements in the Avenue 58 right or way and/or adjacent
landscape setback area include:
b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
c) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall
have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and
convex curves with respect to the curb line that touches the
back of curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk
curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each
point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in
creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into
the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the
perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet.
d) Lighting at the project entry. The applicant shall design and install
a single street light or equivalent landscape lighting at the shared
entry. Additionally, the applicant or Home Owners Association
shall pay for the perpetual maintenance of the street light or
landscape lighting.
The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure
they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices
and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks).
Pursuant to the aforementioned condition to rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing
roadway pavement to La Quinta's urban arterial for street profiles, the applicant shall
work with neighboring developments in attaining continuity along the public streets
affected. Additionally, the applicant along with the neighboring developers shall
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 13
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
utilize a common referenced benchmark in the design and construction of street
improvements. For purposes of these conditions, neighboring shall include adjacent
development as well as development on the opposite side of the public streets.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
Private Residential Streets. Measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line
shall be 36 feet.
C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS
1) Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative
map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb similar to the layout
shown on the rough grading plan. The minimum grade at the end of cul
de sacs shall be 1 % high point to bulb.
54. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound
traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a
scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain
entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around out onto the main
street from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane
shall be dedicated for residents and one lane for visitors.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved
construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the
City Engineer.
55. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure
for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be
as follows:
Residential
Secondary Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
4.0" a.c./6.0" c.a.b.
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
56. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of
construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The
submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure.
For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six
months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming
that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not
schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved.
57. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
Shared Entry with Tentative Tract Map No. 32279 (Avenue 58): Full turn movements
are permitted.
58. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks.
59. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
CONSTRUCTION
60. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings
have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets.
The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings
and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially
constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the
pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the
development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
61. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
62. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
63. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
64. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD) and Planning Commission, prior to plan checking by
the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the
applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
65. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no
spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along streets.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
66. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
67. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other
appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to
prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction
supervision.
68. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be
required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods
employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations.
69. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the
City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying
to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all
AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the
as -built conditions.
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 16
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
MAINTENANCE
70. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
71. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of
all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and
sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
72. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for
plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits.
73. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
74. Quimby in -lieu park fees shall be paid prior recordation of Final Map per City Code
requirements. The fees may be paid per Phase or for the entire tract.
75. Within 24 hours after final approval by the Planning Commission, applicant shall
submit to the Community Development Department a check for $1,314. (made out
to the "County of Riverside"). This check will accompany the required Notice of
Determination filed by the City of La Quinta.
MISCELLANEOUS
76. The Tract Map shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to
submission to the City of any plan for plan check.
77. Proposed street names with a minimum of two alternative names per street shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. Names are to
be approved prior to recordation of final map.
78. All mitigation measures contained in Environmental Assessment 2005-535 shall be
met.
P:\Reports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2005-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 33336
GLC/Duc LA Quinta, LLC
Adopted: June 28, 2005
79. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit to the Community
Development Department for review, a copy of the proposed Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions (CC and R's) for the project.
80. This Tentative Tract Map shall expire two years after City Council approval, unless
recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of Division 13 of
the La Quinta Municipal Code.
81. Production home designs and associated landscaping, including perimeter wall design
require approval of a Site Development Permit application by the Planning
Commission.
PAReports - PC\2005\6-28-05\TT 33336 et al GLC Duc LQ\tt 33336 pccoa.doc 18
FF=r�-
ATTACHMENT
E
1 Mta w6
1
�.
MtOwt
1 ha, wa
1 nrtw wrt �
1 Ibtoi yrt
I
12
O
M1t
1 /tnf wM1 �
�fo
C-77
AVENUE ^4
z
I
Mar
its 71
i
04�u OR V i
4 �
I' J.
LOT D
w �1
A
AVENUE 58
N
ATTACHMENT #4
y �.IATE& 0 •
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
O/STRIG�
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-3711
DIRECTORS: OFFICERS:
PETER NELSCN. PRESIDENT
STEVEN B. ROBBINS,
PATRICIA A. LARSON, VICE PRESIDENT
GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS
MARK BEUHLER,
JOHN W. MCFA.DDEN
ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
RUSSELL KITAHARA March 7, 2005
RYMANAGER
DAN PARKS,, ASST. TO GENERAL
REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
File: 0163.1
0421.1
0721.1
E "EME
,n MAR 2 1 2005
Gentlemen: uuCITY ()F LAOUINTA
COMMLIN! DF-VFLOPMENT
Ph
,io�
Subject: Environmental Assessment No. 05-535
and Tentative Tract Map No. 33336
This area is protected from regional stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and
may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at
this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the District does not need
to review drainage design further.
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.
Additional domestic water pipelines will have to be installed by the subdivider in order for
the District to provide service to all parcels.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 55 and 82 of the District for
sanitation service.
There are existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities not shown on the development plans.
There may be conflicts with Irrigation Lateral No. 123.45-0.75. We request the appropriate
public agency to withhold the approval of a tract map until utility clearances have been
completed with the District.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
0 •
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta -2- March 7, 2005
Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for
review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management.
If you have any questions, please contact Kesi Sekhon, Stormwater Engineer,
extension 2290.
Yours very truly,
Mark L. Johnson
Director of Engineering
cc: Jeff Johnson
Riverside County Department of Public Health
82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209
Indio, California 92201
KS:md\eng\sw\mar\tt-33336
060721-4
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A dlvhfon of
Imperial Irrigation District
81-600 Avenue 58 . La Quinta, CA 92253 • www.iid.com
IIDPD-DDC March 28, 2005
City of La Quinta
Mr. Martin Magana
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92247
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 05-535 AND TENATIVE
TRACT MAP 33336.
Dear Mr. Magaiia:
We assessed the impact this project will have on electrical service to the area. We found
that the impact is moderately significant, the cumulative impact of projects of this size
do increase the electrical demand on the Imperial Irrigation District's (IID's) system.
Although the Imperial Irrigation District has received these preliminary plans for impact
assessment, we will not begin to engineer nor derive cost estimates for this project until
the owner/developer/contractor applies for electrical service. This procedure helps
eliminate wasted manpower spent on projects that never reach construction stage.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if I can be of further assistance, please
contact me at (760) 398-5863
Sincerely,
Guillermo Barraza
Distribution Planner
WRITTEN MATERIALS
AND/OR
CORRESPONDENCE
Dual Residents Enjoy
Best Of Both Worlds
■ By Tea sa T"aco
For Gary Lesser and Sarah Murr, almost
every weekend is a desert vacation filled
with sunshine, golf, movies and barbecues
with friends and family.
A married couple, who both work for The
Boeing Company, Lesser and Murr live in a
Long Beach apartment during the work-
week. But on most Fridays, they retreat to a
second home in La Quinta, a desert resort
community 25 miles from Palm Springs.
"Probably about 80 percent of the week-
ends we're over there just because it feels
more like home," Lesser says.
They are among a growing number of
Americans who own second homes. These
"dual residents" often have condos or apart-
ments in the cities where they work and
larger homes in the country or suburbs.
"The market is rising," says Walter
Moloney, spokesman for the National
Association of Realtors (NAR). "It's an
important component that's not going to
go away. It's driven by baby boomers. The
typical age frame in which somebody buys
a second home has tended to be mid to late
40s and tended to be middle income."
There are nearly 3.6 million "seasonal
homes" in the United States, according to a
housing survey conducted by the U.S.
Census Bureau in 20g3. About 2.4 million
of them are used for recreational purposes.
But these are no longer merely vacation
homes used once or twice a year as a brief
respite from daily life. Increasingly, dual resi-
dents are literally dividing their time between
both homes and ultimately creating a unique
lifestyle and atmosphere in each place.
Kathy and Bill Cleary split their time
between a two -bedroom condo in San
Francisco's upscale Pacific Heights neighbor-
hood and a 6,000-square foot home in
Saratoga, about an hour south of San
Francisco. The majority of their weekends
are spent in San Francisco, where they enjoy
dining out, movies, ballet, symphony and
opera. During the week, the Clearys live in
Saratoga, which has a population of nearly
33,000. Saratogas quieter suburban lifestyle
is ideal for spending time with Bill's three
sons. Aged 13, 12 and 5, the two older boys
spend every other week with him and Kathy.
"In Saratoga, our life revolves around the
kids and their life and their sports activi-
ties," Kathy says. "Weekends, most of it
revolves around adult outings."
Bill, 58, and Kathy, 38, enjoy having
their urban, low -maintenance condo in the
city, which has become a popular gathering
spot for friends and family in the Bay Area.
"It's a great situation," says Kathy, who
has a chiropractic office near San Francisco.
Bill owns an advertising agency.
"It's a great second home," she
says. "We could have a townhouse
with a yard, but that ... would
have defeated the whole purpose."
Sunshine was the whole pur-
pose for Lesser and Murr. Before
moving to Southern California,
they lived in the Seattle area,
where they eventually grew weary
of the gloomy, rainy weather.
"We needed sunshine," Murr
explains.
The Boeing executives bought a
house in La Quinta and vaca-
tioned there a few times a year.
But the avid golfers longed to live
in the sunny climate year-round.
After we bought the house in
the desert, we started taking vaca-
tions down there," Lesser says. A
year went by and we were back in
Seattle in the winter watching
some golf tournament in the very neighbor-
hood where our house is — live. We said, `We
should really be down there more often.' "
After a year and a half of waiting for job
openings and arranging transfers to Boeing
in Southern California, they sold their
house in Mukilteo, Washington, and made
the sunshine dream come true. Lesser, 54,
now works for Boeing in Long Beach as
senior manager, Media Relations, for the
Boeing C-17 Aircraft Program; Murr, 49,
works in Boeing's Seal Beach office as an
arts and culture community investor.
Lesser and Murr live with their two cats
in a one -bedroom, 700-square-foot apart-
ment in Long Beach. But their real home is
in La Quinta — a 2,800-square-foot desert
home with a red the roof, three bedrooms
and a yard that opens out onto a golf course
(Lesser says he was able to play golf 95
times last year).
During an interview at their Long
Beach apartment, Lesser and Murr
describe their two homes and lives. They
finish one another's sentences and convey
their contentment in the arrangement.
"This is our work life," Murr says of
Long Beach.
"We're here to support our professional
life," Lesser continues. "We both love
what we do. But we're able to segment:
`This is our professional life.' And then
on weekends, we flip the switch and we're
in the ... "
.. fun, play mode," Murr interjects.
Lesser adds: "Every Friday afternoon we
say, 'We're on vacation.'"
They have the logistics down to a science.
They take food back and forth in a wheeled
cooler. They keep two sets of clothes at each
residence — lots of shorts, T-shirts and polo
shins in La Quinta and suits and career
outfits in Long Beach.
"You end up with two sets of everything,"
Lesser says.
That includes bills such as gas and elec-
tricity. Still, the pros outnumber the cons.
"Whatever the negatives are, they are far
outweighed by the joys of being able to
spend our weekends like were living in a
resort," Lesser says.
Financially, they managed the dual resi-
dences by "big time" planning. The fact
that they fall into the "DINK" category
"In Saratoga, our life
revolves around the kids and
their life and their sports
activities. Weekends, most
of It revolves around adult
outings. It's a great situation.
Itt a great second home."
— Kathy CleaM "Duel Resident'
(Saratoga 6 Paelftc Heights►
San Franelsco
(Double Income, No Kids) also gives
them more discretionary income.
"People say, 'How can you afford that?' "
Lesser says. "Well, we're not putting kids
through college."
When they sold their home in Mukilteo,
the couple made a healthy down payment
on the La Quinta house. Today, they rent
their apartment for $1,500 a month and
pay about $1,200 a month on the desert
home, which is proving to be a wise invest-
ment. Purchased in 2000 for $440,000, the
La Quinta home is probably worth about
$700,000 today.
In fact, many people who buy second
homes do it for that very reason, says
Moloney of the NAR
"Purchasing second homes is an invest-
ment," Moloney says. "The investment
component appears to have overtaken the
recreational component ... The appreci-
ation now is quite healthy. The perception
of second homes as an investment has
become positive."
Lesser and Murr aren't the only ones zip-
ping between Long Beach and the desert.
Retirees Dick and Melva Miller divide their
time between their Alamitos Heights
neighborhood and a home near the Palm
Desert Country Club.
Dick, 71, inherited the Palm Desert
house from his father. The couple decided
to keep it as a second home, vacation place
and gathering spot for family and friends.
They have hosted Thanksgiving meals
there, had their five grandchildren over for
weekend visits and entertained golfing
friends with dinner and a game of Mexican
Train dominos. The Millers — she's a retired
kindergarten teacher; he's a former high
school history teacher, swimming coach,
lifeguard and director of beaches and mari-
nas in Long Beach — visit the desert about
twice a month, a respite from their involve-
ment in the Assistance League, Long Beach
Yacht Club, the Marine Advisory
Commission and other organizations.
"We love to just kind of veg and read and
relax, catch up on some of the shows we
haven't seen because of the busy life we have
here in Long Beach," he says. "We're really
low key ... Our lifestyle drops down prob-
ably from a 10 to a 5."
And although Lesser and Murr only
spend weekends at the house in La
Quinta, they have come to view it as their
true home.
"The weeks just fly by because we're so
busy with work," Murr says. "And then
Friday's here before you know it. And we
pack our one little bag and refrigerator
stuff and get the cats ready and we go. It
is a lot of fun."
Lesser agrees.
"We thought for a while of buying a place
[in Long Beach]," he says. "Part of why we
decided not to was because then we'd feel
like we'd get attached to two places. This is
just a place we rent. The other place is real-
ly home. It's almost as if we live in La
Quinta; we just happen to work here." ■
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
78-060 Calle Estado
Suite 5
La Quinta, CA 92253
760-777-7686
June 28, 2005
Mr. Doug Evans
Director of Community Development
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
11DE
JUN L1�
��z� ZooS
co N�T1!R p p7IMENT
Re: Postponement of June 28, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing On Specific Plan
97-029, Amendment #4
Dear Mr. Evans:
Please consider this letter Stamko Development's formal request to postpone the
scheduled hearing on the above referenced Specific Plan. This hearing is presently
scheduled before the Planning Commission on June 28. Stamko wishes to postpone the
hearing to the Commission's meeting on July 26.
We are requesting this postponement to allow our attorney to review the conditions and
compare them with the original Development Agreement, Specific Plan and subsequent
amendments to same. Please consider this letter also our request for a meeting as soon as
possible between our attorney, Richard Zeilenga, and the City Attorney, Ms. Cathy
Jenson.
If you have any questions, please contact Christine Clarke at 310-874-4800 or myself at
777-7686.
Res tfully,
Russ Beckner, Advisor
Stamko Development Co.
CC: Ms Christine F. Clarke
Mr. Richard Zeilenga, Esq.