2003 10 28 PCTq 4 .fw a9mrcu
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
OCTOBER 28, 2003
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2003-082
Beginning Minute Motion 2003-019
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. 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 of the regular meeting of October 14, 2003.
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Item ................. CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2003-479, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-
094, ZONE CHANGE 2003-115, AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 31348 — POINT HAPPY RANCH
Applicant .......... Madison Development, LLC
Location ........... 46-201 Washington Street
Request ............ Consideration of: 1) certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2)
General Plan Amendment and 3) Zone Change to
change in the land use and zoning designations
from Medium Density Residential and Community
Commercial to Low Density Residential; and 4) the
subdivision of 37.72 acres into 73 lots.
Action .............. Resolution 2003- Resolution 2003-_,
Resolution 2003-_, Resolution 2003-_
B. Item ................. SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-063, TENTATIVE TRACT
MAPS 31310 AND 31311, AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 2003-766 AND 767
Applicant .......... Santa Rosa Development
Location ........... Northwest corner of Avenue 48 and Adams Street
Request ............ Consideration of two residential projects; a 149
unit senior residential project and a 36 unit single
family market rate project on 31.51 acres.
Action .............. Resolution 2003-_, Resolution 2003
Resolution 2003-_, Resolution 2003-_,
Resolution 2003-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ............... USE INTERPRETATION FOR ZONING CODE
SECTION 9.65
Applicant ........ City of La Quinta
Location ......... Village Commercial District
Request .......... Consideration of whether a car war is an allowed
use
Action ............ Provide staff with direction
B. Item ............... APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE 9693
Appellant ........ Robert and Barbara Valdivia
Location ......... 54-360 Avenida Juarez
Request .......... Appeal of a public nuisance determination
Action ............ Minute Motion 2003-
PC/AGENDA
C. Item ............... SEMI -PERMANENT DOWNTOWN VILLAGE SIGN
PROGRAM
Applicant ........ City of La Quinta
Location ......... Village Commercial District
Request .......... Consideration of a modification
Action ............ Provide staff with direction
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Review of City Council meeting
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular
Meeting to be held on November 25, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 14, 2003 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Quill to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Rick Daniels, Paul Quill, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer,
Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate
Planner Wallace Nesbit, Greg Trousdell, Martin Magana, and Executive
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Mr. Ted Newell, 77-160 Avenida Fernando, La Quinta, asked the
Commission to add his request to the Agenda for Commission
consideration. He explained he was in the process of purchasing a parcel
of land on Calle Tampico for a drive-thru carwash and needed to know if
there would be any objections to his proposed use before purchasing the
land. He has two days to complete his due diligence before purchasing.
1. Commissioner Daniels asked if an item could be added to the
agenda. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated
emergency items could be added to the agenda and explained the
process.
2. Commissioner Tyler asked if this was an allowed use. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated it is not specifically
defined in the Zoning Code as a permitted, or non -permitted use
for this zone, therefore it is at the discretion of the Commission.
3. Chairman Kirk stated he was not sure this qualified as an
emergency item that could be added to the agenda. Assistant City
Attorney Michael Houston stated he would take a short recess and
research the issue and bring it back to the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
1. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
September 23, 2003. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 6, under
Correspondence and Written Items be corrected to read, "Mr. Wells
Marvin spoke to the Commission regarding the Zoning Code in regard to
overhangs and covered walkways. The way the Code is written now,
the way you do a covered walkway, the Building and Safety Department
charges you a permit as if it were an interior space. Therefore, the
permit cost is higher than it would be if it were a trellis. This contributes
to bad architecture; people designing buildings that are two feet deep
archways to mimic an old archway/walkway. As they designed real
archways, they were required to pay extra on their permits as if this was
an interior space. They, in turn are not able to charge a tenant for this
space, yet it cost them to build it. This process unnecessarily penalizes
people who are trying to do authentic architecture. Staff explained this
was an issue for the Building and Safety Department." There being no
further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Daniels/Tyler to approve the minutes as amended with Commissioner
Abels abstaining. Unanimously approved.
2. Department Report: None. Chairman Kirk asked the status of the process
to retain a design guideline consultant for the commercial zones. Staff
stated they had spoken to the City Manager's office and it was
anticipated a consultant would be hired by the end of the year.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Continued — Site Development Permit 2003-777; a request of St. Francis
of Assisi for consideration of a request to allow the demolition of the
existing structure and construction of a 3,012 square foot Youth Center
and related improvements on a .027 acre site located at 46-895 Highland
Palms.
1. Chairman Kirk noted this item had been withdrawn and no action
was needed.
B. Environmental Assessment 2002-462, Specific Plan 2002-062, and Site
Development Permit 2002-754; a request of Edward Barkett/Jefferson-
Waring, LLC, for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact; review of development principles and design
guidelines for a commercial shopping center; and review of development
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
plans for a 50,000 square foot market, 18,432 square foot drug and
retail store, 20,970 square feet of retail shops, 10,000 square foot
restaurant uses, and a 3,000 square foot gas station, to be located at the
southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magana 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 Tyler asked if the "no build zone" was a new
requirement. Staff stated no. It is a requirement of the Uniform
Building Code as a fire buffer for any building over 50,000 square
feet. Commissioner Quill explained this was an issue regarding
building materials. Staff confirmed. The request is to restrict the
use of a portion of the property to the west which belongs to the
City to prevent the City from constructing any buildings in this
location in order to maintain the buffer. The applicant is therefore
requesting a covenant, or some type of document, be recorded
whereby compensation will be made to the City.
3. Commissioner Daniels asked staff to explain where the building
had been previously located on the site plan. Staff indicated the
location changes on the site plan.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to indicate where the 150-foot line
from Fred Waring was located. Staff indicated where it would fall
on the site plan. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant had
any objections to moving the loading docks. Staff stated they
would let the applicant address this question. Commissioner Tyler
asked that the deliveries for the market be restricted as well. Staff
noted the Specific Plan did not list any time restrictions for the
market. Commissioner Tyler asked that they be added. He also
asked if the 92KV power lines could be undergrounded. Assistant
City Engineer Steve Speer stated Imperial Irrigation District will not
accept them to be undergrounded as they are not equipped to
handle them. The City Council has made a determination that if
the 92KV poles stay up, anything hanging on them could remain.
5. Chairman Kirk asked staff to explain the underground retention
facility. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the City is not
opposed to undergrounding retention basins, but does have some
concern about how to keep it from silting. Chairman Kirk asked
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
staff to explain what uses were included in this site development
permit. Staff explained it included the drug store, market and
retail shops. It does not include the restaurants and gas station.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked about the circulation for the gas station.
Staff explained a throat was required to allow better access to the
gas station from of Jefferson Street. Commissioner Tyler stated
his concern was a vehicle entering from Fred Waring Drive and
traveling through the parking lot to get to the gas station.
7. Chairman Kirk asked if the access from Fred Waring Drive was as
close to the intersection as it could be, or could it be closer.
Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained it has to be 250
feet back from the intersection. To move it would take it out of
alignment with the rest of the center. A repeat customer will find
the quickest way in and out of the center to the different uses.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked what portion of the paving of Jefferson
Street was the responsibility of this applicant. Staff stated they
will pay a cash fee for the outside 20 feet, and they will construct
the sidewalk, and perimeter landscaping. They will make no
improvements to Jefferson Street except for their connection.
Jefferson Street will be improved under the Phase II plans for the
Jefferson Street improvements.
9. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Keith Gregori, Dudek Associates, engineers for
the project, stated the underground retention basin is an approved
and better retention basin than previously used and gave an
explanation. The Public Works Department is conditioning them to
add filters to handle any unwanted debris. There are a series of
manholes for maintenance. In regard to the loading dock, it was
originally facing further north and became a visual issue for Fred
Waring Drive and therefore, moved further south. It could be
moved back toward the north so as not to conflict with the truck
traffic. The truck traffic would enter off the most westerly drive
from Fred Waring Drive and exit the same way. The proposed
landscaping plans were approved by the Architecture and
Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) requests. In terms of the
delivery times, staff has placed them in the staff report. All on -
site power lines will be undergrounded. The on -site gas station
circulation is primarily off of Jefferson Street. Landscape islands
should prevent vehicles from crossing through the parking lot.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
10. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Tyler asked about the additional landscaping
requested by the ALRC. Mr. Gregori stated that to the west, the
City park is typically five feet above this site and then there is an
eight foot wall, so the rear of the building is somewhat obscured.
11. Commissioner Quill stated he finds the elevation to the west a
greater concern as there is a park next door.
12. Mr. Edward Barkett, owner of the property, stated they have been
working with staff to address their issues. It is their impression
that with the landscaping and wall, the rear elevation is fine as
designed. Their biggest concern is a limitation on the delivery
hours for the market. If they were placed on the project it would
be a detriment to the market operations.
13. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was any objection to moving
the trash enclosure. Mr. Barkett stated that as long as the trucks
are able to make that turn, they have no objection.
14. Commissioner Quill asked about the rock wainscott on the base of
the building. Mr. Wasero, architect for the project, stated the idea
is to create a stone veneer to break up the stucco.
15. Commissioner Daniels questioned the truck circulation in regard to
the loading dock. Also the location of the trash compactor. Mr.
Gregori explained with the buildings being moved further south,
there was not enough room to turn the trucks around.
16. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment; there
being none, the public hearing was closed and open for
Commission discussion.
17. Commissioner Tyler asked about the secondary City gateway sign.
Staff explained the General Plan does not give any specifications
for the sign and the applicant is only required to provide the land
and maintain the landscaping until the City installs the sign.
Commissioner Tyler asked if accessways could be provided for the
residential properties to the west.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10-1 4-03WD.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
18. Commissioner Daniels stated he would be concerned with truck
loading area. He would want to minimize the impact of the
southwest corner of the site to move the activity out of this area
and more to the north end. This would eliminate the need for any
restriction on delivery times.
19. Commissioner Quill stated he has a concern with the south and
west elevation, the loading dock and requiring the lighting to be
hooded so not to flood the backyards of the adjoining properties.
He agrees pedestrian access on the southwest portion of the site
would be a good idea if it could be worked out.
20. Chairman Kirk asked if there was a need to reach a legal
agreement between the City and the applicant on a
covenant/easement. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston
stated yes. That before recommending approval to the City
Council consideration should be given to the constitutional
prohibition against the use of public sources and public funds for
private purpose without compensation. An easement, or other
interest in a public park, would be included in that. So should the
Commission be disposed to go along with this type of scenario, it
should be noted that some sort of compensation or other
meaningful exchange is necessary to comply with the
constitutional restrictions on local government actions and should
be documented in a particular type of document sufficient to the
City Council. He would recommend a restrictive covenant which
would prohibit the use of the property for a particular purpose,
meaning that it should be kept open so the developer cannot claim
enforcement rights, to the detriment of the City. Chairman Kirk
suggested that instead of seeking a financial payment, ask the
applicant to fund an extension of the pedestrian access through
the wall to the site. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston
stated yes, as long as it is crafted correctly. The key is that the
area of the park that is restricted for the benefit of the developer is
not done for free, but some type of compensation is made.
Discussion followed.
21. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-076, recommending certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2003-462, as submitted.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-14-03WD.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-077, recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2003-062, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-078, recommending
approval of Site Development Permit 2003-754, as amended:
a. Condition added: A covenant shall be entered into between
the City and the developer for some means of compensation
whether financial or by means of providing an access from
the park to the Center in the southern portion, and
landscape design shall accommodate this access provided
as well between Buildings 1 and 2. This shall be done to the
satisfaction of the City Council with no use of public funds.
b. Condition added: The truck access shall be moved to the
north and minimize any truck traffic to southwest corner of
the site.
C. Condition added: Stone veneer shall be added to the
bottom of the facade on the south and west elevations.
d. Condition added: The applicant shall work with staff to
improve the design and south and west elevations.
e. Condition added: Hooded lighting or some other form of
reducing light glare shall be considered on the south end of
the site to prevent any glare to the homeowners to the
south.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
Chairman Kirk asked the Assistant City Attorney if he had reached a decision
regarding the request to place an item on the agency as an urgency item.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston explained there were two exceptions
whereby an item could be placed on the agenda and based on those exceptions
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
his recommendation is that this request would not qualify. On a two-thirds vote
an urgency/immediacy item could be placed on the agenda. Following
discussion, it was determined this request would not be added to the agenda.
C. Sign Application 2002-618, Amendment #2; a request of Stamko
Development Co. for consideration of an amendment to a planned sign
program for the shop buildings sign regulations for the property located
on the south side of Highway 1 1 1, between Adams Street and west of
Dune Palms Road.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman 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 third building would have
signage. Staff stated yes. This would double the signage, but the
number of buildings has increased. Discussion followed regarding
the signage allowed on each of the buildings.
3. Commissioner Tyler questioned the need for the PetSmart sign on
the rear of the building as it would not be visible from Highway
111. Discussion followed regarding what signs had been
approved for the site.
4. Chairman Kirk asked what property was to the east of the site and
why was there a need for signage on the east elevation. Staff
explained the property to the east is owned by Joe Hammer and
family and is currently vacant. In regard to the signage, this was a
question for the applicant.
5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Russ Beckner, representing the applicant, gave
an explanation of the request, and stated he was available to
answer any questions. In regard to the signs on the east, these
buildings do not face Highway 1 1 1 and visibility is important to
the tenants. The property to the east is commercially zoned
property and this is in keeping with the overall site. The
monument signs will only have signage for Marshalls and WalMart.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
6. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Tyler questioned how the PetSmart sign on the rear
of the building will be seen when it is recessed behind the
Marshall's building. Mr. Beckner stated it is important to
PetSmart.
7. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk
asked if there was any other public comment. There being none,
Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the matter for
Commission discussion.
8. Chairman Kirk stated the maximum letter height on these is on par
with some of the largest buildings such as WalMart and asked if
this was appropriate. Commissioners agreed with the height with
Commissioner Tyler reviewing signs on other buildings throughout
the Valley. Chairman Kirk stated he is concerned with the east
elevation signage. If it is important for visibility, they it should be
seen and be attractive.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Daniels to adopt Minute Motion 2003-016
approving Sign Application 2002-618, Amendment #2 as
recommended. Motion passes with Chairman Kirk and
Commissioner Tyler voting no.
D. Development Agreement 2003-007; a request of Centex Destination
Properties for consideration of a Development Agreement to establish
operational guidelines for a proposed 280-unit residential resort
development on 44.61 acres as required by Condition 14 of City Council
Resolution 2003-065, for the property located northwest of the
intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Coachella Drive.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci 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 Tyler asked about Condition #14 which requires the
applicant to enter into an agreement with a local hotel for only ten
years and the Development Agreement is in effect for 50 years.
What happens when the one disappears? Staff stated the purpose
of the 50 years is to protect the revenue rights. This agreement
would satisfy the 10 year requirement in Condition #14.
GAWPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
Commissioner Tyler asked what the mitigation fees were
mitigating. Staff explained they are mitigating the fact that this
project was developed under the Tourist/Commercial designation,
but the project is in fact, individually owned; therefore, in order to
make certain the City receives the revenue due under that
designation, it is important to see that the units produce the
revenue. The concern was that the units could be used as
individual dwelling unit.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if the CPI adjustment was tied to the 1982 -
1984 Index. It was explained that this was the name, not a year.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Olivia stated he was available to answer
questions.
5. There being no questions of the applicant, and no other public
comment. Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
6. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-079 recommending approval of Development
Agreement 2003-007, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
E. Site Development Permit 2003-786; a request of Washington 1 1 1, LTD
for consideration of development plans for two commercial buildings
located on the south side of Highway 1 1 1, west of Adams Street within
Washington Park.
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 Tyler asked that Coachella Valley Unified School
District be removed from the conditions.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
3. Commissioner Daniels asked why all the Architecture and
Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) conditions were not
included. Staff stated they are material changes only and would
not affect the look.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if stacked stone differed from stone veneer.
Commissioner Quill answered no; it is just the way it is laid in.
5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Michael Kareti, architect for the project, stated
that in regard to the ALRC conditions, he believes they have
addressed them in their revisions, but would like to be relieved of
the condition requiring the stacked stone and steel trellis. They
are trying to maintain a uniform look as well as not having to incur
the added cost of the light -weight steel for the trellis feature.
6. Mr. Bill Sanchez, owner representative, stated the building permits
have been pulled on two of the earlier buildings and to require
them to use the stacked stone at this time would be a financial
hardship.
7. There being no questions of the applicant, and no other public
comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
8. There being no further discussion, It was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-080 approving Site Development Permit 2003-
786, as amended:
a. Conditions #50 & 51: deleted
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
F. Sign Application 2003-725; a request of Superior Electrical Advertising,
Inc., for McDonalds Restaurants for consideration of a deviation from the
111 La Quinta Center Sign Program to allow non -channel letters for the
property located at 78-962 Highway 111.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
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 Tyler asked how the pre -sale signs would fare in the
intense heat. Staff explained the material to be used.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. George Tadros, one of the co -owners, stated
the new sign is smaller than the existing signs and questioned why
he would have to remove the logo sign. He went on to explain the
need for the freestanding signs.
4. Mr. Roy Ramirez, representing Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc.,
the sign company, stated the menu signs already have a shield on
them for protection against the weather elements. They are
reducing the square footage and would like to retain the logo
cabinet sign.
5. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Quill asked why they were changing the sign. Mr.
George stated it is getting old and the script lettering is no longer
associated with McDonalds.
6. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other
public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and
opened the matter for Commission discussion.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Minute Motion 2003-018
approving Sign Application 2003-725, as recommended.
Unanimously approved.
G. Sign Application 2003-727; a request of Paragon Signs, Inc., for Dr.
Matthew Werner for consideration of a sign program for 47-250
Washington Street for the property located on the east side of
Washington Street, north of Omri & Boni Restaurant.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
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. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Dr. Werner
stated he was available to answer any questions.
3. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public
comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Daniels to adopt Minute Motion 2003-019
approving Sign Application 2003-727, as recommended by staff
for both buildings. Unanimously approved.
H. Zoning Code Amendment 2003-077; a request of the City for
consideration of an Amendment to the La Quinta Zoning Code pertaining
to the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci 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 Quill asked if there is any opportunity for a variance
to these requirements. What would a developer do if he could not
meet the requirements? Staff stated it is reviewed on a project by
project basis. Commissioner Quill asked how this would apply to a
golf course. Staff stated they have to conform and can meet the
requirement by varying their plant palette and irrigation methods.
3. Commissioner Quill asked if both the City and CVWD have to
review and approve the landscaping plan. Staff explained yes both
agencies will review the plan, but it is a joint.
4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if
there was any public comment.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 13
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
5. Commissioner Quill thanked Mr. Robbins, General Manager for
CVWD, for the recent signing of the QSA to secure water usage
for the Valley for many years to come. Mr. Robbins, CVWD,
thanked the Commission for their support and stated the approval
of this Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance is an integral part of
continuing the Valley's lifestyle with responsible water usage. It
does not apply to the individual home builder, but to the tract
developer. In regard to variances, there is no allowance, but the
different uses have different water allowances.
6. Chairman Kirk asked how much more restrictive Palm Desert's
Ordinance was than what is proposed here. Mr. Robbins stated
about 10% more restrictive.
7. Mr. Ed Kibbey, representing Building Industry Association, stated
they had worked with CVWD and City staff in the formation of the
Ordinance and supports its adoption.
8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the
public hearing and opened the matter for discussion.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-081 approving Zoning Code Amendment 2003-
077, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None
I. Zoning Code Amendment 2003-076; a request of the City for
consideration of an Amendment to certain sections of the Zoning Code
pertaining to front and side yard setbacks as well as home sizes within
residential zones.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Commissioner Tyler stated that due to the direction of the
City Council at the last joint meeting, he would move to table any
further discussion regarding this subject. Commissioner Abels
seconded the motion.
GAWPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 14
Planning Commission Minutes
October14, 2003
2. There being no further discussion and no other public comment,
Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing and opened the matter for
Commission discussion.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
X. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
1. There was no report of the City Council meeting of September 16, 2003.
XI. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Quill to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on October 28, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 10- 1 4-03WD.doc 15
PH #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2003
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-479
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-094
ZONE CHANGE 2003-1 15
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ENGINEER:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC
1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND
2) APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE LAND USE AND ZONING
DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL; AND
3) APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 TO
SUBDIVIDE 37.72 ACRES TO ALLOW 72 LOTS (73
SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT)
46-201 WASHINGTON STREET (APNS: 604-050-009 & 010;
643-170-001 & 002).
MORSE DOKICH SCHULTZ (MDS) CONSULTING
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-
479; BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT MAY
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT; HOWEVER, MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE
BEEN IMPOSED ON THE PROJECT TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS; THEREFORE, A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED
FOR CERTIFICATION.
PC Stf Rpt 2 TTM 31348
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
BACKGROUND:
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC); LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (LDR); MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR);
OPEN SPACE -HILLSIDE OVERLAY (OS)/ COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL (CC); LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL);
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM); OPEN SPACE -
HILLSIDE OVERLAY (OS)
NORTH: VONS SHOPPING CENTER
SOUTH: SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
EAST: LA QUINTA COURT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
WEST: HILLSIDE/SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
The project site is an irregularly shaped property consisting of approximately
± 37.72 acres of which 16.62 acres are steep, mountain terrain. The site is
located between the City limits to the west, retail commercial to the east, single
family residential uses to the south, and Von's shopping center to the north
(Attachment 1).
The area is known as the "Point Happy Ranch" site and was used to raise Arabian
horses and later to grow dates and citrus trees. The site improvements include five
residential units, a barn, date palms and citrus trees. A single-family home is
located on top of the hillside to the northwest, which is not a part of this proposal.
The lot for this home was processed through a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA 03-397)
which, was approved in May 2003.
In 1999, a project proposal for a retirement assisted living community and office
complex was submitted for this site. The project included a General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change to change land use and zoning designations. The
project was later withdrawn by the property owners due to a disagreement with the
applicant of the site.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (Attachment 2)
and Zone Change (Attachment 3) to change land use and zoning designations from
Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial to Low Density
Residential, and a Tentative Tract Map (Attachment 4).
PC Stf Rpt 2 TTM 31348
The following table shows the gains and losses of land uses and acres as a result
of the proposed project.
Existing
General Plan/Zoning
Designation
Existing
Acres
Proposed
General
Plan/Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Acres
Difference
CC/CC
05.56
CC/CC
0
- 05.56
MDR/RM
06.67
MDR/RM
0
- 06.67
LDR/RL
08.87
LDR/RL
21.10
+ 12.23
OS-HO/OS-HO
16.62
OS-HO/OS-HO
16.62
00.00
Totals
37.72
37.72
00.00 di
CC = Community Commercial
MDR = Medium Density Residential
RM = Medium Density Residential
OS-HO = Open Space -Hillside Overlay
LDR = Low Density Residential (up to 4 dwelling units per acre)
RL = Low Density Residential (up to 8 dwelling units per acre)
The applicant requests approval of Tentative Tract Map 31348 to subdivide the
property into 72 single-family residential lots. The lots range in size from 8,133 to
16,409 square feet with pad elevations ranging between 70 to 78 feet above sea
level. Based on the proposed residential acreage of 21.1 acres, the maximum
number of lots allowed would be 84. With 72 lots proposed, the project falls
within the density allowed under the Low Density Residential Land Use designation
of up to four dwelling units per acre. The 16.62 acre open space lot is shown as
Lot 73.
Access
The applicant is proposing a private development with key access gates at both
entrances of the property. One is from the existing Highland Palms Drive, which
dead ends at the south boundary of the site. This would be an extension of the
existing roadway (Highland Palms Drive) north through the site. The other is from
the existing Washington Street entrance.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC):
This project was presented to the Historic Preservation Commission at their
September 18, and October 16, 2003, meetings. At the meeting, the Commission
expressed concerns relating to the site's historic context and the preservation of
the "historic" gates fronting onto Washington Street.
PC Stf Rpt 2 TTM 31348
The Commission requested that the applicant provide a more detailed
historic/cultural report in terms of its historic significance from a regional
perspective and to prepare a technical report on its eligibility for the National
Register of Historic Places.
The applicant has agreed to submit a revised Phase I Cultural Resources Report
regarding the regional significance of the site in terms of its historical context,
including but, not limited to, its relationship to the Bradshaw Trail, the stage coach
line, water wells, and prehistoric Indian villages and trails. This report would be
completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and be brought back to be
considered by the Historic Preservation Committee at a future date. The applicant
also agreed to prepare a technical report on the eligibility criteria for National
Register.
The Commission also requested that the applicant provide information regarding the
"historic" significance of the gates on Washington Street. The Commission
requested that research be conducted to determine if the existing gates were
original or recent replacements. The Commission stated that if the existing gates
were determined to be historic, that they be left in place, and that the project
entrance be redesigned to accommodate the gates. If the gates were determined
not to be historic, then the gates could be removed.
Per State Historic Preservation Guidelines, resources may be considered historic if
they are at least fifty years old. Based on research from Riverside County Building
Permits, the existing gates were installed in 1977, and therefore, not considered
historic. The applicant is proposing to design new gates, similar to the existing
gates, but much bigger and more elaborate to cover the entire entrance. The name
"Point Happy Ranch" will be incorporated into the gate. The applicant will also
place a plaque on, or near, the gates, commemorating the site and its Historic
significance to the City and region. The applicant also proposes to name streets
within the development after those individuals historically associated with the
property.
Based on the meeting, it was determined that the following mitigation measures be
imposed on the project to protect historical and archaeological resources.
1. An Oral History Program shall be prepared by a qualified Historian at the
applicant's expense, in cooperation with the La Quinta Historical Society.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised Phase I Cultural Resources Report
regarding the regional significance of the site in terms of its historical
context, including, but not limited to, its relationship to the Bradshaw Trail,
the stage coach line, water wells, and prehistoric Indian villages and trails.
The Phase I Cultural Resources Report shall be completed prior to issuance of
PC Stf Rpt 2 TTM 31348
the first Certificate of Occupancy and be considered independently by the
Historic Preservation Committee at a future date.
3. The applicant shall prepare a technical report on the site's eligibility for the
National Register of Historic Places.
4. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough
grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors
shall be given to the City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing
permit. A final mitigation monitoring report shall be submitted to the Historic
Preservation Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first
production home for the project.
5. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all
within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and
delivered to the City prior to issuance of the first building permit for the
property. Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes
and records, primary research data, and the original graphics.
The Commission adopted Minute Motion 2003-012 accepting the Point Happy
Ranch Phase I Cultural Resources Report with the above -mentioned conditions.
Public Notice:
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 13, 2003,
and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no letters
have been received from surrounding property owners. Any written comments
received will be handed out at the meeting.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve General Plan Amendment 2003-094, Zone Change 2003-1 15
and Tentative Tract Map 31348, can be made and are contained in the attached
Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution 2003- recommending to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2003- 479.
PC Stf Rpt 2 TTM 31348
2. Adopt Resolution 2003-_ recommending to the City Council approval of
General Plan Amendment 2003-094.
3. Adopt Resolution 2003-_ recommending to the City Council approval of
Zone Change 2003-1 15, and
4. Adopt Resolution 2003- recommending to the City Council approval of
Tentative Tract Map 31348, subject to conditions.
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Existing and Proposed General Plan Amendment
3. Existing and Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
4. Tentative Tract Map 31348
Prepared by:
Martin Magana
Associate Planner
PC Stf Rpt 2 TTM 31348
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-494, ZONE
CHANGE 2003-03-115 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-479
APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 23`d day of September and on the 28" day of October, 2003,
hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-
479 for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change land use and
zoning designations from Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial
to Low Density Residential, and for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide ± 37.72
acres into 73 lots (72 single-family residential lots and one open space lot),
generally located on the west side of Washington Street at 46-201 Washington
Street, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in
that the Community Development Department has prepared an Environmental
Assessment 2003-479, and has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact is recommended for certification; and,
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 recommending to the City Council
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels.
PC RESO EA 03-479.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2002-462
Jefferson -Waring, LLC
October 14, 2003
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 in that the project site has been conditioned to
mitigate impacts to biological and cultural resources to less than significant
levels.
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 wildlife depends in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any
wildlife resources on the site.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
significant effects on environmental factors will be reduced to less than
significant levels as identified in 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 in that the site will be developed
with less intensity than the current land use designations under the General
Plan.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the
Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant impacts 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 in that mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-
479 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
PC RESO EA 03 479
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2002-462
Jefferson -Waring, LLC
October 14, 2003
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.
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 2003-479 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file
in the Community Development Department and attached hereto.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-479 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28`h day of October, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
PC RESO EA 03 479
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2002-462
Jefferson -Waring, LLC
October 14, 2003
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PC RESO EA 03 479
Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: General Plan Amendment 2003-094, Zone Change 2003-115, Tentative Tract
Map 31348
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
4. Project location: West side of Washington Street, immediately south of the Vons Shopping
Center, and north of Crestview Drive
APN: 604-050-009, -010, 643-170-001, -002
5.
31
Project sponsor's name and address: Madison Development
71361 San Gorgonio Rd.
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
General plan designation:
Current: Low Density Residential, Medium
Density Residential, Community Commercial and
Open Space
Proposed: Low Density Residential and Open
Space
7. Zoning:
Current: Low Density Residential,
Medium Density Residential,
Community Commercial and Open
Space
Proposed: Low Density
Residential and Open Space
8. 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.)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to amend the land use designations on 43.1 acres
from Community Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential and
Open Space to Low Density Residential and Open Space. The Open Space designation occurs
on the western half of the property. The Community Commercial designation occurs on the
northeasterly portion of the property, and represents approximately one eighth of the acreage.
The Medium Density Residential designation occurs on the northcentral portion of the
property, and represents approximately one quarter of the property. The balance of the site,
along the eastern section of the property, is designated Low Density Residential. The
proposed change would result in Low Density Residential designations on all lands currently
designated Community Commercial, Medium Density Residential and Low Density
Residential, totaling 37.7 acres. The Open Space designation, which occurs immediately west
of the toe of slope, will remain as currently designated.
Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of 37.7 acres into 74 single family lots. Access
to the project will be provided from both Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive. An
area of approximately 0.4 acres will be dedicated to on -site retention. 25 of the lots have a
minimum lot size of 8,125 s.f., and 49 of the lots have a minimum lot size of 8,220 s.f.
-1-
A draft and final EIR were previously prepared for a commercial project on the site. This
document, although not certified by the City, provides important technical background data
on the project site, and has been used in preparation of this environmental document.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Existing commercial retail shopping center (Vons)
South: Existing single family residential development
West: Vacant, Open Space lands
East: Washington Street, existing commercial retail shopping center (La Quinta Court)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-2-
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
X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Date '
Signature
-3-
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
-4-
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
]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)-c) The proposed project site has previously been a residential and agricultural site. An
orchard is still present on the project site, as are some small structures. The proposed
project will consist of single family residential dwelling units, which may be one or two
stories in height. The proposed change in land use designation will result in a lowering of
potential impacts associated with scenic resources, since the structures can be expected to
be smaller than those which would be constructed for a commercial project or a medium
density residential project, both in bulk and height. The property is immediately adjacent
to the toe of slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains. However, the construction of single
family homes, either one or two stories in height, will not represent a significant
obstruction to the slopes of the Santa Rosas. Overall impacts to aesthetic resources are
expected to be less than significant.
I. d) The project site will generate light from residential outdoor lighting, on a property which
currently does not generate light. All lighting on the site will be regulated by the City's
lighting ordinance, which ensures that lighting levels do not spill over onto other
properties. This standard, combined with the low lighting levels generated by residential
land uses, will ensure that impacts from light and glare are less than significant.
-5-
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:)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
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?
(Project description, site photos.)
II. a)-c) The proposed project site is still planted with date palms and fruit trees, and is at least
partially in production. The site is not, however, considered to be prime agricultural land
either in the City's General Plan, or in regional and state documents. The site is an
isolated parcel now surrounded by urban development, and has limited potential for
continued agricultural use. The significance of the site as an agricultural concern is
primarily associated with potential historic issues, which are discussed further in Section
V., Cultural Resources, below. The site will be converted to residential land uses which
have the potential to maintain the character of an orchard, however, through the planting
or relocating of date palms and fruit trees. This issue is discussed further in Section V.
As an isolated and low -production date farm, the site has limited value for agricultural
production, and is surrounded by urban land uses, and impacts associated with the loss of
this parcel to agriculture are expected to be less than significant.
U.
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)
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, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed project will
consist of the development of 74 single family residential units and associated
improvements. The residential units will generate approximately 708 vehicular trips per
day at buildout. These trips will generate the following emissions of criteria pollutants.
-7-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day
Ave. Trip
Total
Length (miles)
miles/day
708
x 7
=
4,956
Pollutant ROC
CO NOX PM10
PM10
PM10
Exhaust
Tire Wear
Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 446.04
11,597.04 2,378.88 -
49.56
49.56
Pounds at 50 mph 0.98
25.60 5.25 -
0.11
0.11
SCAQMD Threshold 75
550 100
150
(lbs./day)
Assumes 74 market rate homes, ITE categories 210. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions
Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty autos, catalytic
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for criteria pollutants. Impacts associated with these
pollutants are therefore expected to be less than significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and as an on -going issue.These
measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These
include the following control measures.
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 995.3 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a
PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In order to
mitigate the potential impacts associated with PM10 dust generation at the site, the
following mitigation measures shall be implemented.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
-8-
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Washington Street and Crestview Terrace
shall be installed with the first phase of development.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
10. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of
grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the
2002 PM 10 Management Plan.
M
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,
X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.,
Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch,
September, 2001)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.,
Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch,
September, 2001)
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? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR,
The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September,
2001)
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? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR,
The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September,
2001)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
-10-
policy or ordinance? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at
Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001)
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? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is currently an underutilized date farm, and has been for almost
90 years. The probability of species of concern occurring on the project site are therefore
extremely low. The site is designated within the critical habitat boundary for the
Peninsular bighorn sheep, but those areas on the Valley floor are not appropriate for
sheep habitat, and those areas above the toe of slope will be preserved as open space.
]Finally, the site's proximity to Highway 111, and the lack of sheep activity recorded in
the hillsides north of Avenue 48 (extended), make it unlikely that sheep frequent this
area.
A biological field survey was conducted for the previously proposed commercial project
for this site'. Although some natural communities were identified in this analysis, they
were clearly highly disturbed, and have little value. The only portion of the site which is
still relatively undisturbed, and which will continue to be so, is the hillside proposed for
preservation as open space. As such, impacts to biological resources on this portion of the
site are expected to be minimal.
The study did find, however, that potential habitat for loggerhead shrike occurs on the
property, particularly nesting and foraging habitat. The EIR further identified indirect
impacts to bighorn sheep as being possible for this site. The development of single family
residential dwellings will provide a different type of development on the project site, but
will ultimately have the same potential impacts to biological resources, insofar as the site
will be substantially altered from its current state.
One design change proposed by the applicant is a favorable improvement to the previous
proposal, and has eliminated the need for one mitigation measure. Specifically, the
applicant proposes the installation of a six foot high perimeter wall on all sides of the
property, including the adjacent lots to lot 75. With this design feature, the potential need
for a perimeter wall to protect sheep from the project site has been eliminated, and it has
not been included in the mtigiation measures below.
Impacts to biological resources could be significant, without the implementation of the
following mitigation measures:
1. Should demolition, grubbing, earth moving or construction be planned for
initiation between February 15 and September 30, a field survey shall be
conducted to determine whether birds under the jurisdiction of the Migratory Bird
"Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pointe at Point Happy Ranch," prepared by Impact Sciences, September
2001.
-11-
Act are nesting on the property. Should such nests be identified, buffer areas in
conformance with the Act, but no less than 50 feet in all directions, shall be
established where no construction activity is allowed, until such time as the
biologist determines that the nesting birds have discontinued use of the nest. The
required field survey shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first permit for
demolition, grubbing, grading or building on the site.
2. The project applicant shall provide an easement to the City, to be approved by the
City prior to recordation of the final map, ensuring the preservation of lot 75 as
open space in perpetuity.
3. Blasting and pile -driving, or other excessively loud construction activity, shall be
prohibited from January 1 through June 30 of each year.
4. All lighting on the project site shall be directed away from the hillsides. The
project CC&Rs shall include this prohibition for individual homeowners.
5. Plants toxic to bighorn sheep shall be prohibited on the site. The project
proponent shall secure a clearance letter from a qualified biologist, certifying the
suitability of the plant palette for the project site. The project CC&Rs shall
include this prohibition for individual homeowners.
6. The CC&Rs for the project shall prohibit dogs from running loose in the project
site.
7. The CC&Rs for the project shall include a provision prohibiting access by either
persons or animals to the adjacent hillsides.
8. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a plan
demonstrating that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers used on the
site, during both construction and operations, are not harmful to wildlife. The plan
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and
approval.
-12-
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? ("A Phase I Cultural
Resources Investigation of the Point Happy
Ranch...," McKenna et. al., March, 2001.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to '15064.5? "A Phase I
Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point
Happy Ranch...," McKenna et. al., March,
2001.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("A Phase I Cultural Resources
Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...,"
McKenna et. al., March, 2001.)
V. a), b) & d) A cultural resource study was completed for the previous project proposed for this site2,
and revised at the direction of the Historic Preservation Committee.
The study found that the site is a potentially important historical resource, insofar as it has
been in operation since the early 1920s. Potential resources on the site include residential
and farm structures, orchards and roads. All these were studied for the report, and
recommendations made as to their significance and disposition. The study found that the
site is subject to important potential oral history for the City and region. The study further
found that the structures on the site had limited or no historic value, primarily due to
significant alterations. The study did not, however, provide criteria for qualification as a
National Register structure. Finally, the study found that buried cultural deposits could
occur, and that site monitoring is warranted during earth moving activities. The
development of the residential project will have fewer impacts than that previously
proposed, however, the impacts to cultural resources will be similar, and must therefore
be mitigated, as described below:
1. Prior to issuance of any grubbing or grading permit for the site, the project
proponent shall submit an Oral History to the Community Development
2 "A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...," prepared by McKenna et. al., March,
2001, updated October 2003.
-13-
Department and La Quinta Historical Society. The oral history shall be prepared in
accordance with the City's and the Society's standards for such documents.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised Phase I Cultural Resources Report regarding
the regional significance of the site in terms of its historical context, including but
not limited to, its relationship to the Bradshaw Trail, the stage coach line, water
wells, and prehistoric Indian villages and trails. The Phase I Cultural Resources
Report shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and be
considered independently by the Historic Preservation Committee at a future date.
3. The applicant shall prepare a technical report on the eligibility criteria for National
Register.
4. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by
qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given
to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. A final
mitigation monitoring report shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation
Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first production home
for the project.
5. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all
within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and
delivered to the City prior to issuance of first building permit for the property.
Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records,
primary research data, and the original graphics.
V. c) The proposed site occurs outside the boundaries of ancient lake Cahuilla, and is therefore
not expected to contain any paleontologic resources.
-14-
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? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
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 Exhibit 8.1)
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
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a) i), iii), iv),
b)-e) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it
subject to liquefaction. The soil in the area is not expansive, and would support septic
tanks. The proposed project will have no impact on these geologic hazards.
VI. a) ii) The project site is located in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The City and project site
will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of significant seismic activity.
The City Building Department has implemented California Building Codes which are
-15-
intended to lower the potential impacts associated with groundshaking to less than
significant levels. In addition, no critical facilities will be built at the site, rather single
family residences are the only structures planned. These structures will be required to
implement the most recent building codes in place at the time of construction. Impacts
associated with groundshaking are expected to be less than significant.
VI. a) ii) The site has the potential to be susceptible to rockfall due to its proximity to the slopes of
the Santa Rosa mountains. The City Engineer requires the preparation of on -site
geotechnical studies prior to the issuance of grading permits. However, this analysis
generally does not include rockfall susceptibility. In order to assure that the homes
proposed for the site are not subject to these potential impacts, the following mitigation
measure shall be implemented.
As part of the site -specific geotechnical analysis required for the project with
submittal of building plans, the project geologist shall include an analysis of the
surrounding steep hillsides, and shall make recommendations about the stability
of these hillsides in his report, including slope modifications required to assure
that roackfall will not impact project residences. The report shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits.
-16-
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? (Application materials)
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? (Application materials)
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? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
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)
-17-
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 74 single family residences. No
concentration of hazardous materials is expected in these homes. The City implements
household hazardous waste programs through its solid waste franchisee. The site is not
located within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip, nor is it subject to wildland fires.
-18-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
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? ("The Estates at
Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report,"
MDS Consulting, July 2003)
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?
("The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and
Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2003)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
X
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? ("The Estates at
Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report,"
MDS Consulting, July 2003)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
-19-
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
X
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIE. a) & b) The construction of 74 homes will not significantly impact water supply, nor will it
violate water or wastewater requirements. The project proponent will be required to
implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, 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, requiring that potential
pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that
impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant.
VIE. c) & d) A hydrology study was prepared for the proposed project3. The proposed project will be
responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows. Because of the site's adjacency to
the Santa Rosa mountains, flows from the slopes must be accommodated within the
project. The hydrology design includes a combination of surface drains and underground
pipes, leading either to an on -site retention basin, or to a City drainage pipe which occurs
in Washington Street. These improvements will be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer to ensure that the City's standards for on -site retention of 100 year storm events
are adhered to. Conformance with these standards will ensure potential impacts are
lowered to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The construction of 74 homes will not have an impact on the City's storm drainage
system. The site is not located within a FEMA designated 100 year storm area.
3 "The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," prepared by MDS Consulting, July, 2003.
-20-
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 project site occurs adjacent to existing single family development on its southern
boundary. The proposed project will continue this type of development by constructing
single family homes. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will
extend an area of Low Density Residential further to the north. The site is located
adjacent to neighborhood commercial development, thereby facilitating easy access to the
services required by residents. The change in General Plan and Zoning designations will
lower overall impacts on the site, and provide an added opportunity for the provision of a
variety of housing types in the City. Impacts of the change in land use designations is
expected to be insignificant.
-21-
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.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE B 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? (MEA p. 111 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Project
description)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Project description)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan land use
map)
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), c) & d) The proposed project is in an area of the City where ambient noise levels are high, and are
currently estimated at 76.1 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline of Washington
Street, north of Highland Palms Drive. Further analysis performed for the previous
project on this site indicated that 2020 noise levels will reach 77.3 dBA CNEI 4. Noise
levels on lots not fronting on Washington Street are not expected to exceed City
standards, due to their distance from the roadway, and intervening structures.
4 Analysis performed by Impact Sciences for "Draft EIR for the Point Happy Ranch, September 2001.
-23-
There are two potential noise impacts associated with project development — noise
generated by the project and impacting surrounding development; and noise generated by
other sources and impacting the project site. These are discussed individually below.
The proposed project will result in the construction of 74 single family dwellings on 33.7
acres. Residential land uses are not significant noise generators, and are not expected to
significantly impact the noise environment in this area. Noise generated during the
construction process, however, has the potential to impact the residential land uses to the
south of the proposed project site, both along Washington Street and along Crestview
Terrace. Although noise impacts associated with construction will be periodic and of
short duration, it can be an annoyance and irritant to adjacent residents. In order to reduce
potential impacts associated with construction activities as they relate to these residences,
mitigation measures have been included below.
The proposed residential development is considered a sensitive receptor, and noise levels
in the outdoor areas of the homes, including back yards, may not exceed 65 dBA CNEL,
in order to meet General Plan standards.
The half -width of Washington Street at buildout is expected to be 66 feet (Augmented
Major Arterial Roadway Classification in the General Plan). The project proposes a
landscaped setback of 20 feet. This will result in backyards at a distance of 86 feet from
the centerline. Without mitigation, noise levels in the back yards of lots 9 through 13 will
be over 77 dBA CNEL at buildout, and over 76 dBA at construction. The project
proponent has included a proposed perimeter wall in the project plan. Noise levels can be
attenuated from 10 to 20 dBA by the construction of a 6 foot wall. Added attenuation can
also be achieved through the construction of walls on berms, because the berms absorb
noise impacts. It is important to note, however, that the effectiveness of the noise barrier
is directly related to its structure. A wall with any type of break, including decorative
fencing, entry gate, etc., has almost no effect.
It can be inferred that the noise barrier proposed will attenuate noise to 57 to 67 dBA at a
height of 6 feet. In order to assure that the attenuation meets the City's noise standard, a
mitigation measure has been added which also requires the addition of a 1 to 2 foot berm.
Because of the entry gates adjacent to lots 11 and 12, additional mitigation measures are
required to ensure that noise levels remain at City standards in their side yard areas, since
the gates will represent a break in the sound wall. This has also been provided below.
These mitigations measures will reduce noise levels at the street -side lots to City
standards.
1. All internal combustion equipment operating on the site shall be fitted with
properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be
located in the southwestern quarter of the site, as far away from existing homes
and the surrounding hillsides as possible.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
4. A six foot wall shall be constructed on all sides of the property, except the
frontage on Washington Street.
-24-
5. A six foot wall, constructed on top of a varying berm of 1 to 2 feet in height, shall
be constructed on the frontage on Washington Street. The wall shall be entirely of
solid construction, with no breaks or "daylight" openings. The wall and berm shall
be continued to the front yard setback line on the north boundary of lot 11 and the
south boundary of lot 12. There shall be no breaks in the wall, from the front
setback line to the connection with the wall on Washington Street.
6. Only single story homes shall be permitted on lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
7. The pad elevations on lots 9 through 14 shall be as close to 72 feet or less, so as to
limit exposure on Washington Street.
XI. b), e)-f) Residential land use will not generate ground borne vibrations. The project is not located
in the vicinity of either an airport of airstrip.
-25-
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 proposed project will result in 74 housing units, which are likely to generate about
173 residents. This increase in population is not significant, and is consistent with
projected growth in the City. No impacts are expected to population and housing.
-26-
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 which will offset the
costs of added police and fire services. The project will be required to pay the mandated
school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. Impacts to parks will be
limited, given the buildout population of 173 for the site.
-27-
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) Some private open space will be provided within the project site, in the form of retention
areas and public open space. The proposed residential lots will be of sufficient size to
allow on -site recreational facilities. The proposed project will also be included in the
City's planning for new parks once constructed.
-28-
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)? (Project
description)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Project description)
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Project description)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) Traffic analyses have been completed for the project site for both the previously proposed
commercial project, and the analysis contained in the General Plan EIRS. In addition, a
review of the traffic analysis was conducted for the currently proposed project'. The first
"The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, March, 2001; General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, City of La Quinta, March, 2002.
Letter Report prepared by Weston Pringle & Associates, signed Weston Pringle, P.E., March 18, 2003.
-29-
two analyses focused on the land uses currently allowed on the property, including
Community Commercial, Medium and Low Density residential. The last analysis,
performed for the proposed project, focused on analysis of the proposed project. The
previously completed analysis, for the commercial proposal, resulted in a daily trip
generation of 5,715 ADT. The currently proposed project results in daily trips totaling
795 ADT, or a reduction in overall trips of 4,920 ADT. The intersection of Highway 11
and Washington Street is expected to operate at Level of Service D at General Plan
buildout. Although this level of service is acceptable, the proposed project will relieve
traffic pressures at this critical intersection, and must therefore be considered a beneficial
impact on the region's traffic and circulation.
The access to the site on Washington Street will be restricted to right turn only. Access on
Crestview Terrace will also be restricted. U-turns will be available for those wishing to
change direction at both Highland Springs Drive and Highway 111, which are both
signalized intersections with left turn phasing.
The internal design of the site calls for entry gates at both entry points. The entry gates on
Washington Street will provide a stacking distance of over 90 feet, which exceeds the
City's standards for stacking distances.
Parking will be provided on -lot, as required in the Municipal Code. Bus stops are
provided immediately north and south of the project site, and will be available to project
residents.
-30-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS B 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.)
0 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
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The land use intensity will be considerably
decreased by implementation of the proposed project, and impacts will therefore be less
-31-
than those analysed in the General Plan EIR. All utilities charge a fee for connection and
service, which will be payed by the developer or homeowner when the project is
constructed. These fees are designed to recoup costs for the provision of services by the
individual providers. No significant impacts associated with utilities are expected as a
result of the proposed project.
-32-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
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?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
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) The project site is adjacent to critical habitat for the bighorn sheep, and may provide
nesting habitat for birds subject to the protections of the Migratory Bird Act. Mitigation
measures have been included in this document which will reduce these potential impacts
to less than significant levels. The site has potential significance from a historic
perspective, and may harbor prehistoric materials. Mitigation measures have been
included in this document which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant
levels.
XVII.b) The proposed project and associated land use amendments will improve traffic conditions
at a critical intersection, and will reduce land use impacts to neighboring residents by
limiting development to single family residences. The project is compatible with the
General Plan and increases the City's housing stock.
-33-
XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and will not exceed those
impacts identified in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City, or the City as a whole.
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10,
which can cause negative health effects, Section III), above, includes a number of
mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality to a less than
significant level. Noise impacts have been mitigated through the installation of walls and
the restriction of building heights in sensitive or potentially sensitive areas. Impacts have
been reduced to a less than significant level.
-34-
r
0
3
�
0
N
0o
N �
U
4.
o
0
0
�O
U
o
to
o
Cd.
0
o
d CA
0
CA
U
kn
o
CA
>
o
V
W
O
�
;QQ
,tea
x
O0
U
s��
0
x
y
y
M
O
O
+-' N
N N cis
° U
$..
Cc,o
o >
o
a
Q
s.
UCD0
ON
[}
en
O �_ M
O
Ed
OC7
.-• M
G
o
z
z
x�
�a
dd
A
U
W
d
d
A
U�
II
A
pU
°
''
o
O
° O
�v
�
a
a
•~
tin
Cod
o
�
e
°
Cd Cd a
aaaQ v�
o
�
V) N
bA
bA
03
�j
o
C7
°
tb
o
0
°
o
0
i
V
U
V
V
� C6U
bA
bb bA
En
Cd
U
`°°
Y u
v
�,)
ti v
tb 0o
v
U
0 ,A
U
.-
y0 cn cn
o W pA
to
tw
Q
�
a
aaa
wa
a�bQ
Q
41
icn
o
y
z
u
U
U
U Q m
PQ
PQ GA
y
o
0
FU+ N
0
Cd u
M
u
te.+ Q
p a
y
cd
�
N d
y
O
O
0 0
y
d�'
CA
cn
>
o
En
b
Cd
d
a
:
U
� b3�"
U
�
R. o
cd
U
U
U
U
Cd
Cci 4,
*~
'l7 .--�
U
o
a
°
oo •° o
A
c%
w ar H
�
k
A
b%
\�
§
EQ
.
.1
/
§
//2r?§ƒ
U
/ V
§ §
En
N
§
® «
\ƒ(Skgk
�ƒ
* 2
Q4 u
u P.
F/JT4�
�
0
0 0
0
§
§
§
( $
$
2
k
1
Cd
k
k
g
§
\
\
En « §
•\ o
d
o
%
Q
.\
•g
2
�4
0
2 ®
�4
to
R ® °
R
�
\
ƒ
f
\
ƒ
ƒ
00
/
ti
R
e
�\
�
§ k
//
U
d
d
A
f m gEn
g
f/
f
R
d
-
#
d
$ u
k
\
U
:
2
0rA
k
2
Q
A
t
¥
�
2
/
Cd
k
7
�
7\
C
w
Q�
/
f
k 2
u
ƒ
2
-
2
§
�
/
3
q
/
g
G
/
Cd
to
e +1
4
%
/
to)/
/
F
Q
'A
dA
A
UU
d
cd
Cd
W
b o
b .0 rn'd
•° am)
•� In
Cl)
N
4+
C0 0ad c� H � W
V� ¢ P. Ul P. � C� fa. P. Cn ~f�.
�
O
4--
Cd
U
u
U
U
i.
Cd
O
O
O
uo
O
O ti
O U
py,
a
a
0
Wz
o
0
0
lu
0
co
0 a
Uq
UQ
P
UCH
U�-1
on
z
U
C
Cd
co
C
co
z
bo
d
F—Cd
121,b
oz
cn
ri
UCA
iw
o N
�
k
A
b�
7/
/Q
g
g
g
2
2
\
3
.[
.[
0
0
0
i
2
3
2
w0
9i
�O
_
]
d
\
2Cd
P.
2
2
E E
to�
to
/
/
to
/
%
»
2
u
•§
�
\
�
E
3
§
7
A
/
cn
K
m
Cd
/ @
/
�
8/
k
*
�
cl
7
0-4
u
« w
/
cn $
/ k
§
\
/ 2
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE LAND
USE DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)
AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) TO LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-094
APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 23'd day of September and on the 281h day of October, 2003,
hold a duly noticed PuNic Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-
479 for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change land use and
zoning designations from Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial
to Low Density Residential, and for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide ± 37.72
acres into 73 lots (72 single-family residential lots and one open space lot),
generally located on the west side of Washington Street at 46-201 Washington
Street, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002
WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment 2003-094 has complied
with the requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental
Assessment 2003-479 was prepared and determined that although the project
could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to
recommend to the City Council approval of said General Plan Amendment:
1. Internal General Plan Consistency: The proposed General Plan Amendment is
internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan
in that the Amendment will provide for continued single-family development
adjacent to existing single-family development.
PC RESO GPA 03 094
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
General Plan Amendment 2003-094
Madison Development, LLC
October 28, 2003
2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not
create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general
welfare in that the proposed changes will be less intensive and consistent with
existing land uses in the immediate area south of the site.
3. General Plan Compatibility: The proposed project will be compatible with
existing and surrounding land uses in that it is consistent with development in
the immediate area and consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan.
4. Property Suitability: The proposed project will be suitable and appropriate for
the property and adjacent properties in that it will be consistent with the
permitted uses in neighboring communities and in accordance with the Zoning
Code and goals, objectives and policies of the City of La Quinta General Plan.
Urban services are currently accessible to the site which, would allow for
planned development in accordance with goals, objectives and policies of the
City of La Quinta General Plan.
5. Change in Circumstances: Approval of the proposed project is warranted
because the land has been determined to be suitable for residential
development. The change in land use from commercial to residential
development is also warranted because commercial uses currently exist
adjacent to the site that can serve the surrounding and project areas. Also,
there is additional commercial land available for future development near the
site that would serve future commercial uses to support the additional
residential development.
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; and
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan
Amendment 2003-094, as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made
a part of, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PC RESO GPA 03 094
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
General Plan Amendment 2003-094
Madison Development, LLC
October 28, 2003
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 281h day of October, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PC RESO GPA 03 094
IIIIIIIII
III IIIII / P.M.FR I
I III'IIIIIIII
I IIIIIIII ,
IIIIII IIIIIIIII - /� , ' / /
IIIIIII ?LI �Ililllll I -I �I'� - -
'III �r �I wII IIII IIIIII / �/
11 1 1 1 11 I I I I I I I
II
I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
II I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I
' IIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIItIIIIII /
IIIII IIIII I I IIIIIIIII IIIII III ' / / '/
IIIIIIII II11'II I IIIII IIIIIII / ,
I ICI II IIIIIIIII IIIII IIIIIIIII I
ICI I I l l l i l' I I I I I
I I�II II IIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIII III / '/ /
I 'I ICI I I I I I I I I I I' lil\
I I' II I I I I I I I I I I I I
WMM III III I III I I IIIII
co
11 III IIII III III II
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
7 I I I I I I I i l l l l
I i■ I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I ;,
I I l l l l l I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
�'I �� • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
'il II 1111111111111'11111 I I I I I I I
I I
'I uj I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
SI I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
CL
Ul
I i• I I II : I I I I I I I I I I I
1 IIIII 'IIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIi1I1'I'Ill lit
i� I I I I, I I II I I III l i I I I li l�
I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I
l l l l l I I
W 2 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I�
� I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
11 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
I��' I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l
I l l l j l l l l l l l l l l
I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I l i
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I III�IIIIII1111 I IIIII IIIIII .� /
I I I I I I I'I I I I I I I I I I'1 I I I I
II i I I I I I I I I I I I I I
( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 1 I I I I I I I I j
(IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
i I I l l III 11 1 1 1
I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlII11IlIlIl1111111111111 /'
I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ', /
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIII' :'/
I i l l t l l l l l l l l l l l l l
IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII( I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII /
I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j
I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I i l l l l l l l l l l l
II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �{
I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII //
E XK fIDNo IF2AC I2117
1�
1
P,4AP 1UO2H `
;:4/41-40 )
\
\ I I
I
/
\ 9MDMD PAL
I
\ I I
I
'^
PLACE
I
1-
w I
I
I
BAt� FLOWER
\ PLACE
L
I
I
% I
I
\ I I
I
PALM_DARDER+
I
c� I IF0
I c
M9 DRIVE
I
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TE CITY OF LA
QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE ZONING
DESIGNATIONS FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) AND
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(RL)
CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2003-115
APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 23rd day of September and on the 281h day of October, 2003,
hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-
479 for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change land use and
zoning designations from Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial
to Low Density Residential, and for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide ± 37.72
acres into 73 lots (72 single-family residential lots and one open space lot),
generally located on the west side of Washington Street at 46-201 Washington
Street, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002
WHEREAS, said Zone Change 2003-115 has complied with the
requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental
Assessment 2003-479 was prepared and determined that although the project
could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project to reduce impact to less than significant levels;
and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to
recommend to the City Council approval of said Zone Change:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed Zone Change is consistent
with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the Zone
Change will provide for continued single-family development adjacent to
existing single-family development.
PC RESO ZC 03 115
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Zone Change 2003-115
Madison Development, LLC
October 28, 2003
2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed Zone Change will not create
conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in
that the proposed changes are less intense and consistent with existing land
uses south of the site in the immediate area.
3. Land Use Compatibility: The new zoning will be compatible with existing and
surrounding zoning designations in that it will be consistent with development
in the immediate area and the City of La Quinta General Plan.
4. Property Suitability: The new zoning designation will be suitable and
appropriate for the subject property in that it will be consistent with the
permitted uses in the immediate area and in accordance with the Zoning Code.
Urban services are currently accessible to the area which would allow for
planned development in accordance with goals, objectives and policies of the
City of La Quinta General Plan.
5. Change in Circumstances: Approval of the new zoning is warranted because
the land has been determined to be suitable for residential development. The
change in zoning from commercial to residential development is also warranted
because commercial uses currently exist adjacent to the site that can serve the
surrounding and project areas. Also, there is additional commercial land
available for future development near the site that would serve future
commercial uses to support the additional residential development.
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; and
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change
2003-1 15, as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of, for
the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28' day of October, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
PC RESO ZC 03 115
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Zone Change 2003-115
Madison Development, LLC
October 28, 2003
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PC RESO ZC 03 115
IIII 'IIIII PARCEL MAP 'P0211
! I P.M.R. 124/41-40 /
I I I I I I �•��
IZ
gIII11111 III � - /�i, �"/fir T��•/,`�" �:
IIII1� 130 I111II I11iI / Y/,, "/ /; �, 1} /
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 ��: �' • I t
I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I
I I I I--
I-
111
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I C I I , I I I I I � .' •�'��, 1
II1 _
(I I I I I I I I I
III I l l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
IIIIIIIIIIIII IIlil11111111 II'IIIIIIIII /�,� j / � I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I
M
w! 8N01X3 PALMS DRIVE
-
W�--,-
I
-
I
I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i l l
I IIIIIIIIIII� III IIII IIII (IIIIIIIIII (IIIII �, � I I I
10
(IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIiII / -- - I �- - - - -r - -
1I
11'''' I W
7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 Q r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
'6A O DUNES „
�---
PLACE
I ( I I I I I ( I I I I I I I II I I '�� / n •..
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O
CjD
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I III I I I I i/
;� I III I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I N
I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I ,
I I I I I I I I I I
FLOWER _ �-
I-
I
I I
Ou
'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII / � / / I I
I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Itl@E
—
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I-
I PALM OARDER I e
fill
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1
I i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
IIIII I I I I I I I I I I I � I I �� r�jj
I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
�-
I
--
�� I I
c� I C,I I o f I
E'QS rwr, rPA(r attr
--- -- L
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 TO
SUBDIVIDE t 37.72 ACRES INTO 73 LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348
APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 23`d day of September and on the 28" day of October, 2003,
hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-
479 for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change land use and
zoning designations from Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial
to Low Density Residential, and for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide t 37.72
acres into 73 lots (72 single-family residential lots and one open space lot),
generally located on the west side of Washington Street at 46-201 Washington
Street, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map 31348 has complied with the
requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental
Assessment 2003-479 was prepared and determined that although the project
could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant
levels; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to recommend to
the City Council approval of said Tentative Tract Map 31348:
1. The proposed tract map will be consistent with the City of La Quinta General
Plan in that the property will be designated Low Density Residential (LDR)
which, allows single-family residential uses, and Open Space (OS) which,
allows natural open space.
2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision will be consistent with
the City of La Quinta General Plan in that all streets and improvements in the
proposed project will conform to City standards contained in the General Plan
and Subdivision Ordinance. Access for the single-family lots will be provided
PC RESO TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
October 28, 2003
from existing streets in the immediate area. The density and design for the
tract will comply with the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
3. The design of the proposed subdivision and improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife,
or their habitat in that the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed
land division and currently, development exists to the north, east, and south of
the site which has reduced the amount of habitat suitable for any fish or
wildlife.
4. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems in that the applicant will be conditioned meet all
applicable requirements of the City of La Quinta to provide a safe environment
for the public.
5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision in that there are existing streets that
will provide direct access to the site. All required public easements will
provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements
for the proposed project.
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 Tentative Tract Map;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 31348 to the
City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 281h day of October, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
PC RESO TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
October 28, 2003
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PC RESO TTM 31348
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348 - MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
OCTOBER 28, 2003
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 the 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
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 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
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 five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less
than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction
project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the
Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution
Protection PGan ("SWPPP").
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.
F. The approved SWPPP and BMP shall remain in effect for the entire
duration of project construction until all improvements are completed
and accepted by the City.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
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) Washington Street — (Major Augmented Arterial, 132' ROW) —
No additional right of way is required for the ultimate developed
right of way except for an additional right of way dedication at
the primary entry of 4 feet (75 feet from the centerline) running
laterally along the east boundary of the tentative tract from the
primary entry to its northerly end, to accommodate a
deceleration/right turn only lane conditioned under "STREET
AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS."
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:
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
A. PRIVATE STREETS
Property Dine shall be placed at the back of curb. The required right of
way shall accommodate the required roadway travel width plus the
approved curb and gutter design. Use of smooth curves instead of
angular lines at property lines is recommended.
1) Lot B and C - Private Residential Streets measured from gutter
flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 36-foot travel width
except at the entry drives.
B. CUL DE SACS
1) The cul-de-sac shall conform to
tentative map with 38-foot curb
using a smooth curve instead of
layout shown on the tentative map
the shape
radius at the
angular lines
shown on the
bulb or larger,
similar to the
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.
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. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Res6ution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall
design is approved.
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.
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 Washington Street from lots with frontage along
Washington Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on
the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of
approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded
final tract 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.
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.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
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.
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 City. 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 Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal,
1 " = 4' Vertical
B. On -Site Rough Grading/Drainage Plan 1 " = 40' 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 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.
"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.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
22. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes
for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the
applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or
construction notes from the City.
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.
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.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
27. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and
the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be
required to:
A. Construct certain off -site improvements.
B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the
reimbursement of its costs by others.
C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that
are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map.
D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by
others.
E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require.
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final
Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the
costs of such improvements.
28. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the
applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed
on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey
monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such
estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution,
or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall
also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the
Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the
applicant's detailed cost estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
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
29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050
(Grading Improvements), LQMC.
30. 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.
31. 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 or architect,
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.
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.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
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.
32. 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.
33. 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 (ie 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 (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
34. 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.
35. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one
foot from the building pads in adjacent developments.
36. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the
adjoining properties and the lots within this development.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more
than three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage,
where the differential shall not exceed five feet.
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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 (Flood Hazard
Regulations), LQMC. If any portion of any proposed building lot in the
development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on
the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to
ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of
the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95 % Proctor
Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section
65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so
located, the applicant shall furnish elevation certifications, as required by
FEMA, that the above conditions have been met.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
DRAINAGE
40. 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. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event
producing the greatest total run off.
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. The applicant shall discharge storm water not retained in the proposed
retention basin drainage system from on -site, and off -site tributary area
assigned to the development site, into the existing storm drain located in
Washington Street. The applicant shall pay a prorated share of cost to design
and install the storm drain. The prorated share shall be calculated on the
basis on the percentage of the capacity of the existing storm drain system
utilized by the development's storm water.
The applicant's designer shall submit a hydrology report and calculations of
the abovementioned capacity usage with the rough grading plan application.
43. 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.
44. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
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.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
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 storm
drain and retention basin capacity to flow out of the development through a
designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route.
48. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received
and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief
route.
49. When an applicant proposes discharge of storm water directly, or indirectly,
into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify
the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's
drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or
other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other
obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The
indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to the
issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be binding
on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in
the land within this tentative parcel map excepting therefrom those portions
required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the
indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is
approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the
final development CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations.
UTILITIES
50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110
(Utilities), LQMC.
51. 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.
52. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed
development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles
are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
53. 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
54. 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.
55. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform
with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Washington Street (Major Augmented Arterial; 132' R/W):
No additional widening on the west side of the street along all
frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary is required except
at locations where additional street width is needed to
accommodate:
a) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Washington Street
Primary Entry. The west curb face shall be located sixty two
feet (62') west of the centerline and shall accommodate an
1 1-foot wide by 150-foot long (including taper) deceleration
lane.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
Other required improvements in the Washington 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) 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 either
touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the
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.
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).
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Lot B and C - Construct full 36-foot wide travel width
improvements within a 39-foot right-of-way where the
residential streets are double loaded, except at the entry drive
areas.
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
using a smooth curve instead of angular lines similar to the
layout shown on the rough grading plan.
D. GATED ENTRY DRIVES
1) Primary Entry (Washington Street)
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
a) The gated main entry on Washington Street shall provide
for a two -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound
traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for
non -accepted vehicles.
b) 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 back out onto the main street
from the gated entry.
c) Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of
the gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents,
and one lane for visitors.
2) Secondary Entry (Highland Palms Drive)
a) The gated main entry on Highland Palms Drive shall be for
resident's entry only. 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 "U" Turn back out
onto the Highland Palms Drive from the gated entry.
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.
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 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
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
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
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:
A. Primary Entry (Washington Street): Right turn in, right turn out. Left
turn in and left turn out movements are restricted.
58. 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.
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.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
62. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
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), 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 lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along
public streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
66. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by
SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
67. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that
meet with the approval of the City Engineer.
68. 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.
69. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements,
sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
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.
70. 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
71. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
72. 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
73. 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.
74. 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).
75. Prior to completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of
the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a
reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay
the cost of such reapportionment.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
76. An Oral History Program shall be prepared by a qualified Historian at the
applicant's expense, in cooperation with the La Quinta Historical Society.
77. The applicant shall prepare a technical report on the eligibility for the National
Register of Historic Places.
78. The applicant shall submit a revised Phase I Cultural Resources Report
regarding the regional significance of the site in terms of it's historical
context, including but not limited to, it's relationship to the Bradshaw Trail,
the stage coach line, water wells, and prehistoric Indian villages and trails.
The Phase I Cultural Resources Report shall be completed prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy and be considered independently by the Historic
Preservation Committee at a future date.
79. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough
grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors
shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing
permit. A final mitigation monitoring report shall be submitted to the Historic
Preservation Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first
production home for the project.
80. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all
within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and
delivered to the City prior to issuance of first building permit for the property.
Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and
records, primary research data, and the original graphics.
81. The applicant shall design new gates, similar to the existing gates, and
incorporate the name "Point Happy Ranch" into the gates. The applicant
shall place a plaque on, or near the gates, commemorating the site and it's
relationship to the region.
82. The applicant shall name streets within the development after individuals
historically associated with the property.
PC COA TTM 31348
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31348
Madison Development, LLC
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
October 28, 2003
83. The applicant shall demonstrate that the gates along Washington Street are
not "historic" by submitting proof that they are less than 50 years old.
Should the gates not be historic, they can be removed and not preserved on
site.
84. The applicant shall make the Open Space lot a "lettered" lot and keep it
preserved as open space.
PC COA TTM 31348
-• •.� 'y� `.ATTACHMENT
1\;1, t, :t,�\. �'/. ��'t ._,,r �I _.. P.M9.''I$4�•4rT-d0�� ...r _.!_._. `�, ;;�;?-, ::�z=- __':e
'�\\r•:Y,�'\:\::;1,:,t,.i'',' '-?kt7 � � aCr�A:' r� .. ��: ,�"� _O �a' .5.,:..!_*�
F. y{\` ♦, �:`,lI `it � �t ��� '��R %'��__ .. xy: ♦ -- ... c�(w,T A. � �' ,�_ ry�t � ; , I ' ��{ C
Ci` .,?' '1't,\,`:`t tt.� \. ''b.+: t , 'Il :•'�- .%.: L' rit'`' - ,f. '' �n tt, ^� :;[ }` �'' 14
it
,1' it ('\'- .` ?�`�`���, �i\�� '' � ' * r W' N � ; � r v ty.:::.'� •1W • _- _.r.�� �,yu. 19 "!y I
.�'''•• L'u' %�; is ^ .i`', :..q. �,^•p _ ,: f ` I
�.i
:
,
• ,. .,t • ,1.,,. ®n :j ',,,'yam`•
• dDI
.. '°�� : �,;;:.,..; � 1}+ •, tag? r :} _ , �., ♦:. I t � .�,
`��.��'4;-i �,�,>,�,.•„_,',l •'t �,;i ,,'t;., ;1,1•�i 1. �, ,"s _E-' ,..A..p "� '�i1 (, J�36. '�,:.\ n' I
%'-:_-`.�. � - �`-Lnr�:!ilit!^:� `•�it� (( is 4 '�:_`' '�.ii°�e :'.'�..�.:_:_ II_... � 1 ... i ,II '� 1 I ,
/- \ v,. 'C,�:/- f ' ,' ��1i}I ! p`k'm'``'R'-,,:-: r •f'; m , m t•'%' -� n. ~` • it �.'.;,t
L
"Y,;,:, _ `:��,;`\;�1, ''4' ',,,,Ih.1.{;,::t'%�''.L :b•:oi. �_._.'�'Ir -IH f :° st: � !
1 i : '•.;j�':�'„��%�,, L`.sr ,\+-`tvf,`\ . `,., _ }iyj, .. rl - .I a;; ffi •q�y �p 6"' SI%k �:e k �, ;`^.'
,'i\\��il..'•'I,`;`.il�<7J'.rbe�R.\n:&`,,i:�:•i ,', b!`i'; ":� ., iPl - Yi:'r. - 7 s;T• 1,% - \t1...;+lil''���"`:\'}, ; \ '�-
t
\tl,'t, Y{j'' �I r;li �� : ',, �!r .f ...I p..'!1 r t_r y ; S 40""• §;''. .I
jtlt�i`'lllill,'. •:.., •.•..:..t r�ul ,,.. �.%, :qi ®�11 �. ::i ?:_`•_?r'.. ij
,.. �.., f�.�..--: ,.�,tiu.�w,a. .�7 •�,� •I y'1 '�`�;,, O II '�_,'� ,Ala
:
l.i • -_- ° , ' ,
I ;t �ly'„l�.Jrr\v�,�yrt:!V�i�;l:(,,c;` �I� ;ss.'1' ��.r• :.k::: R._::--'- -- — _.
BlKiq PALMS giNE
� ,,.�• � :�l' ,,'�+ti :�'.:•. `� xr_..,. ,,.... :{"'y 77� �) .d` �,,;^}r 1.
il!rIL1��'�;`t�3:w'1D)Il;;i1,1:''!.1=���•,�`t' ,•.. P t .' I.`=ri,
dw•>ra
OD
I
/♦ .t � v ;\•j `yt` a �� �, g;.:•11 i 1�"�_ = S\`,�'`•ti`?�__ ',� ti •� 3: - _ \ � .: ;r.[�' I i
... ..... . I
I \'/ ::\:;clail':;'��'%j'��i•'�il�:lir:,'�.,,,�t:\'�p'••:' .`'il I ��il1rf � _ '\�' :,.7>.I'''�'•.. 1 (
II •':�, 11, tt`C;yr•\` v, '!'' •: $'b',r':, NI„(�1':tl+, I;) I . j- � 111' 1' Ii O i l •u . ... , C) ,. f.,. ..1. � ..._ I I t
rrr'ii;l
- r.�• !%.
tj
Aw
_'VYII''i'yi't��:t'ljtii,l�,;(v,:U,'1,�i::•'`•iif ''f ',i �, .,s�,q�c• ! I
DILMS
r III 11 r'; : - :i t�;!• - - _i �",�i:[u!It;'���. _ _ ... , .. PLACE
W _
- • I III' ; I'1'}`j";; „1 :';;i: - —:r� '' _v._ ,t,�V' � i ,..�':' ;i t$. �r• � o I
,r�'!a .!Iv/:`!; r:!«,L' •%;'� � ':jig;:>'" :3��'�:-:')+l ''�' -.. °#�./. 4: `i
" t't;�iK{ipl:�<:•:?^rr•l,�' ;% :/f:' '')ir; ^fsl,. �;c=' .]'. $p
j t\, �r:u`�``��' i',�i �" ,!{ jrr ii.: b.•::f'` r'�... ,�.1�' 1' ,.:{G � I
/,} t .\,`t�i{\:}1„ l' ;y:\'�; �ig6..2:' ; /: y' `''1 ' Gr : •n,,� °.5 J y...
8k•`:\ t!'1,1,,at( ;\;<' � F'II:' ' l i rf l�(; •'•'a'-"" � S
ri11)'4`"';Ntl'Mr:'rli/il%r'i
..1�., •�,l;I ; I� �I„ rig
^s""-•^'!•-ii>.IcaYr•y\:�j,,,(,j„cr:i,
!IIIII,`•((,I,.. 4{,m)x•+��';�i�...•����f�Il.Illriir :n �_.j: '`.•�••.,� �k ,u-• '
PLACE
�12 ,! ul,I 1a '.I,r„r;l?r'it: t�.�:-`�'1�11�1� �\t;.,, ;- I{ a6v„•--__ .,..
I r,r
t,..4z� , f
,lt`�)l��!r`iN;'�11j�'jr>�$ _ 'i:. :'�` .'w'�Mt �J.1
t:•i, `;/I1�11 ly!!�`}qli%!IUi!:, 'ii;:!'IIPi'`'?l\:`:i �k _.,;_\AL11
`.
a.:rillhY.,',Ill.�i!���i;rr:'•;�',:•r�
r�� •: i; I. lire �
„
:! n
hfrilli,::�•:r.%i;(('(r �,�, •:'+');'.yi;�;lt— .,ki. <i �xe`7 _.._...._.... R
rr ..
(� ,J,�' r'r�' nLr r;ji� II: '� f es�. .,! "��-• .'r I
i R;tytt w`'( �l!,!�:;,i'VU �II,I,it; ''' (f'i' �'f � ��.��� r•.,� '... •.,; ,
' i�+�:'}`:�,lit,i; :.I;�:�,;},d,t�:' iiii{I,:.I . ��r; r�ri �,; , f . ti,� .i,,,!��9 v„^ _t--:r .'i%"• PMM C�6i
. 1 PUKE
IIII,I`\i'..'�Il�l�(t'i��'�•�:aii''tilll'I'ili�llll •Ir('� �i' od,r - e .._. � -.t �,_.
67
\�l(( IIQ� III!j',n"�i lhl r!U ,;i' 1' .{','; yS •,i yi. i_' _L' +'it_ I`'. 1'I Oi' I �E $pp
I I ,lll4�',:,+++,1,( i3x�r��(.j�l..;},,,.,11,,r" !r, n f,�{1,- ai....�4 `-,•• Q F� t!
...,. _
,I
: .l`
I
t'�ilrtttipc!.,n.., �-.«;•.5�:-.. _?r�\:�;�.,.. it �41 .,�•..0, •{i,a....�' �,.,,,.�,{.,'� I
ate....
it
i /�:::% ':'. �\ If ,' :%%�I.I �i,li 1 r i .-)..A...� .�..i.i! � ?_� .�.., _.....e.. _..f_... 1'_W; •� _ _ _ _ _ _ ry
/ f
:I '
N
T z
PH #B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2003
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-063, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NOS. 2003-766 & 767, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS.
31310 &3131 1
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA AND SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT
REQUEST: CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SEPARATE DEVELOPMENTS
CONSISTING OF: 1) 149-UNIT SENIOR DETACHED
HOMES, AND 2) CONSTRUCTION OF 36-SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED HOMES.
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 48T" AND ADAMS
STREET; APN: 649-030-036
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-466) WAS
CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 7, 2003,
FOR THIS PROJECT UNDER RESOLUTION 2003-005.
THERE ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDITION,
OR NEW INFORMATION WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE
PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21166.
GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE DESIGNATION
ZONING: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR)/ HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (RH)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL & REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL/ AVENTINE APTS. &
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT
SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/ RANCHO LA
QUINTA
EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL/ VACANT
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\pc rpt.doc
BACKGROUND:
WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAULAKE LA
QUINTA
Site Background
At approximately 31.51 acres is size, the site is situated at the northeast corner of
Avenue 48 and Adams Street (Attachment 1). The property is vacant and bound by
the Aventine Apartments and the Stamko commercial development to the north;
vacant property to the east, Lake La Quinta to the west and Rancho La Quinta to the
south.
Project Request
The applicants are proposing to develop two residential developments: the first, a 149-
unit detached, single-family senior housing development ("Senior Residential Project");
the second, a 36-unit market -rate, single-family development ("Market Rate Project").
The Market Rate Project will be located immediately adjacent to the Avenue 48 and
Adams Street intersection (northeast corner); the Senior Residential Project will be
located approximately 1215 feet east of the intersection on Avenue 48th. The
following applications have been filed for review:
1. A Specific Plan to establish development standards and design guidelines for
two residential developments on a 31.51-acre site. The Specific Plan proposes
development and design standards for the two developments.
2. Site Development Permits to ensure that the developments satisfy the
development and design standards.
3. Two Tentative Tract Maps are necessary to subdivide the site into the two
gated communities.
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan (Attachment 2) provides development standard for both project.
Below is a comparison table. As illustrated, the Specific Plan proposes reduced
setbacks, in keeping with the clustered housing concept. (Refer to Appendix D in
the Specific Plan for additional information). The Casitas will be managed by a
Homeowners' Association and deed restricted to prevent second dwellings. The
Senior Residential Project will have six feet to ten feet side yard setbacks and 12
foot side yard setbacks for the Market Rate homes.
PAOscar\Santa Rosa Development\pc rpt.doc
The Specific Plan indicates that both projects will be 28-feet in height. Although
the actual heights are smaller, the applicant indicates a desire to have the flexibility
to adjust the heights of the homes. However, Avenue 48 is designated a
Secondary Image Corridor limiting the height of homes to 22-feet within 150-feet
of the street. To accommodate both, staff recommends that a footnote be
incorporated into the Specific Plan indicating that the height not exceed 22-feet in
height within 150 feet of Avenue 48, a Secondary Image Corridor.
Development Standard I Senior Res. Market Rate lFcode Req.
Minimum project size for
multifamily projects
19 acres
12 acres
F 20,000 sq. ft
Maximum structure height 28' (17'-11") l28' (18'-5") 40 ft.
Maximum number of stories 1 F 1 3
Minimum front yard setback (non- 6 ft 12 ft 20 ft.1
dwelling)
garage portions of
Minimum garage setback for
single-family attached
10 ft
12 ft
25 ft.2
Minimum interior/exterior side yard
3/10 ft
3/10 ft
10/15 ft3
setbacks
Minimum rear yard setback 6 ft� 10 ft 20 ft.
Maximum lot coverage 59% 45% 60%
Minimum livable floor area
excluding garage
1,200 sq. ft.
2,100 sq. ft.
750 sq. ft.
Minimum landscape setbacks
10 minimum at
adjacent to perimeter streets
20 ft
20 ft
any point, 20
average over entire frontage4
minimum
Minimum common open areas 31.3% 24% 30%
Casitas N/A HOA MUP
1 Projects with five or more adjacent dwelling units facing the same street shall incorporate front
setbacks varying between 20-feet and 25-feet or more in order to avoid streetscape monotony.
2 Twenty feet if "roll -up" type garage door is used.
3 For interior side yards, five feet minimum plus one foot additional setback for every foot of building
height above 28-feet, or fraction thereof, up to a maximum setback of 15-feet when said height above 17-
feet is located between five and ten feet from said side yard property line. For the RH zone the interior
setbacks, if the building is over 28-feet in height, the setback is ten feet plus one foot for every foot over
28- feet in height or fraction thereof, to a maximum setback of 15-feet. The additional setback may be
provided entirely at grade level or may be a combination of at grade and airspace above the 28-foot
building height.
4 Per the landscaping and open space standards of Section 9.60.240.
5 Ibid.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\pc rpt.doc
Site Development Permit
The architecture style for both projects (Attachment 3) will be modern Mediterranean
with rough stucco plaster exteriors accented with shutters, plaster recesses,
decorative metal grilles and accent tiles. The garages will include sectional metal
doors. Property walls will match the color of the homes. The projects will incorporate
a mixture of flat and pitched roofs with colored tile. The Senior Residential Project will
contain gabled roofs and the Market Rate Project will incorporate hip roofs.
The Senior Residential Project consists of small lot, detached, two and three bedroom
homes with two car garages and patio yards. Three floor plans are proposed with
three elevations. The plans range in size from 1,200 to 1,400 square feet. Each unit
will contain a walled patio yard area approximately 10 to 12-feet wide. The project
will be constructed in five phases.
The Clubhouse will also include the modern Mediterranean architectural style and
consists of a recreation room, restrooms, kitchen, and office. Please note that the
Clubhouse must adhere to the Secondary Image Corridor height standards of 22-feet
within 150-feet of Avenue 48th. Staff has included a condition to restrict the height
of the Clubhouse.
The Market Rate Project will offer four to six bedroom detached homes that range in
size from 2,100 to 3,450 square feet, including an optional third car garage, bedroom,
den and or casita. Two elevations are proposed per plan. The casitas would be deed
restricted to preclude a second unit and would be reviewed by the Homeowners'
Association. This project would be constructed in two phases.
Landscape
The applicants propose a desert oasis theme, emphasizing water efficient material.
Trees are proposed to be six to ten feet in height with a container size of 15-gallons
with shrubs one gallon in size. 50% of the trees shall be 24-inch box trees. The
common area landscaping will be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. The
Perimeter wall will vary in height from five to eight feet. The entry gates will be a
block wall with a plaster finish, precast concrete caps pilasters with steel gates.
Tract Maps
Two separate gated residential communities are proposed (Attachment 4), each with
clustered housing units, some of these units will have vehicular access along common
driveways. The internal streets provide on -street guest parking. Both projects will
have access from Avenue 481n
t;
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\pc rpt.doc
The Market Rate Project consists of 36 single-family clustered lots on approximately
12 acres. Lot sizes range in size from 9,200 to 11,900 square feet in size. Access on
Avenue 48" will be limited (left and right -in and right -out). Emergency access is
provided from the Senior Residential Project. Up to 126 on- and off-street parking
spaces will be provided, 90 spaces are required by Code. No common recreational
facilities are proposed.
The Senior Residential Project consists of 149 clustered lots on approximately 19
acres. Lots will range in size from 2,100 to 4,600 square feet. Full movement will be
provided from Avenue 48. Approximately 372 on- and off-street parking spaces will
be provided, which is consistent with the Code requirements. Emergency access is
provided through the Market Rate Project. Interior amenities include a recreation club
house and pool facility.
Architecture and Landscape Review Committee
The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) reviewed and
recommended approval of the proposed projects on October 1, 2003 (Attachment 5),
with a condition that the pine trees be removed from the landscape plan.
Public Notice
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 17, 2003.
All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public
hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
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.
Statement of Mandatory Findings:
The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Specific Plan, Site Development
Permits and the Tract Maps can be made, as noted in the attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Specific Plan 2003-063, subject to conditions
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\pc rpt.doc
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending to the City
Council approval of Site Development Permits 2003-766 and 2003-767, subject
to conditions.
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Maps 31310 and 31311, subject to
conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Specific Plan (Planning Commission only)
3. Floor plans and Elevations (Planning Commission only)
4. Tentative Tract Maps 31310 and 31311 (full size, Planning Commission only)
5. ALRC Draft, Minutes of October 1, 2003
Prepared by:
Oscar W. Orci, Planning Manager
06,
PAOscar\Santa Rosa Development\pc rpt.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN
GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED
ON 31.51-ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-063
APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 28th day of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Specific Plan 2003-063, to allow the design guidelines and development standards for
the subdivision of 31.51 acres into two single-family detached residential subdivisions
generally located at the northeast corner of Avenue 48 and Adams Street, and more
particularly described as:
APN's 649-030-036
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan application has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Environmental Assessment 2003-466) was certified by the City Council for this
project under Resolution 2003-005. There are no changed circumstances, condition,
or new information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental
Assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; 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 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2003-063:
1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La
Quinta General Plan in that the project has been designated for High Density
Residential.
2. This Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare in that the development allowed under the Specific
Plan is compatible with existing uses and the development standards contained
in the Specific Plan will ensure high quality development.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\pc reso sp.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Specific Plan 2003-063 — Santa Rosa Development
Adopted: October 28, 2003
3. That the Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated area
development in that the project is to be located on land designated as High
Density Residential.
4. That the project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to
ensure public health and safety.
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 it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment
2003-466 assessed the environmental concerns of the Specific Plan; and,
3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 2003-063
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of October, 2003, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-063 - SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT
ADOPTED: OCTOBER 28, 2003
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. The applicant shall include a footnote on the Specific Plan that will limit the
height of all structure to 22 feet in height within 150 feet of Avenue 48.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC SP COA.doc
1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
THE SUBDIVISION OF 31.51 ACRES INTO
APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES FOR A RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 36-UNIT MARKET RATE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31310
APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, INC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 28th day of October, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by Santa Rosa Development, Inc., for approval of a
Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 31.51 acres into approximately 12 acres for a
residential subdivision consisting of 36-unit market -rate single-family homes,
generally located at the northeast corner of Avenue 48 and Adams Street, more
particularly described as follows:
APNs: 649-030-036
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application have complied with
the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental
Assessment 2003-466) was certified by the City Council for this project under
Resolution 2003-005. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new
information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental
Assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending
approval of said Tentative Tract Map 31310 :
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The property is designated for High
Density Residential uses on the General Plan Land Use Map. The project is
consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the General Plan insofar as
high density residential is consistent with the land use designation of the
City.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PCReso-31310.doc `�
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development
Adopted: October 28, 2003
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: With the Specific Plan, the proposed
project is consistent with the development standards of the High Density
Residential Zoning District, including, but not limited to, setbacks,
architecture, building heights, building mass, exterior lighting, parking,
circulation, open space and landscaping.
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The
design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to
either cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat. The proposed project is consistent with the
requirements of CEQA, in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Environmental Assessment 2003-466) was certified by the City Council for
this project under Resolution 2003-005. There are no changed
circumstances, conditions, or new information which would trigger the
preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21 166
4. Design Improvements: The design of the subdivision and/or the type of
improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that
the site is physically suitable for the subdivision. Infrastructure
improvements (water, sewer, gas, electricity, etc.) will serve the site as
required.
5. Easements/Access: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with the
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of
property, within the proposed subdivision in that adequate roadways will be
provided to meet the intent of the Circulation Element of the General 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
the Planning Commission for this Tentative Tract Map;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative
Tract Map 31310 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the
Conditions of Approval attached hereto;
PAOscar\Santa Rosa Development\PCReso-31310.doc i
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development
Adopted: October 28, 2003
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of October, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAOscar\Santa Rosa Development\PCReso-31310.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31310
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT — MARKET RATE PROJECT
ADOPTED: OCTOBER 28, 2003
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 the 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
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 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
For all construction sites five (5) acres or more, 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 five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than
five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that
encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be
required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc 2
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
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 development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Adams Street and Avenue 48 (Primary Arterial, Option A - 1 10'
ROW) — The standard 55 feet from the centerline of Adams Street
and Avenue 48 for a total 1 10-foot ultimate developed right of
way.
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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc 3
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
9. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
A. PRIVATE STREETS
Property line shall be placed at the back of curb similar to the lay out and the
typical street section shown in the tentative tract map. Use of smooth curves
instead of angular lines at property lines is recommended.
1) Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line shall have
a 36-foot travel width. The travel width may be reduced to 32 feet
with parking restricted to one side, and 28 feet if on -street parking
is prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for
ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The
CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to
recordation.
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, using a
smooth curve instead of angular lines similar to the layout shown
on the tentative map.
C. COURTYARD DRIVEWAY
1) The courtyard driveway area throat width and layout shall conform
to the shape shown on the approved tentative map. Parking shall
be prohibited in all common courtyard driveway areas. The
applicant shall establish provisions for ongoing enforcement of the
parking as previously conditioned.
10. 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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc 4
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-
of-ways as follows:
A. Adams Street and Avenue 48 (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.
14. 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.
15. Direct vehicular access to Adam Street and Avenue 48 is restricted, except for
those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise
conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction
shall be shown on the recorded final tract map.
16. 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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc
5
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
17. 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
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review
and approval by the City. 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. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4'
Vertical
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and
separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc
L
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and
landscape setback area.
B.
On -Site Street/ Storm Drainage Plan:
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal,
1 " =
4' Vertical
C.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
D.
Site Development Plan
1 "
= 30'
Horizontal
E.
Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan
1 "
= 20'
Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
"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.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs &
gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA
requirements.
21. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the
applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction
notes from the City.
22. 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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc
rI
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
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.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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
27. 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 (1.5") in the first eighteen
inches (18") behind the curb.
8
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc
0
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
28. At locations where the onsite finished grade adjacent to the landscaped setback
lot has an elevation differential with respect to the arterial street top of curb
exceeding 11 feet, the applicant shall comply with, and accommodate, the
maximum slope gradients in the parkway/setback area and meandering sidewalk
requirements by either: 1) increasing the landscape setback size as needed, or
2) installing retaining walls between the sidewalk and the back of the
landscaped area as needed.
To comply with the above mentioned conditions, the applicant is advised of the
following acceptable grading techniques: lowering elevations across the entire tract
and/or constructing retaining walls along the street perimeters that will allow for the
maximum slope gradients in the parkway/setback area and the meandering sidewalk
along Avenue 48.
29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
30. 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.
31. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
B. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
C. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer,
D. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
E. 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:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
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.
32. 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.
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
higher than 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.
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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc 10
y _.
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
38. The applicant shall revise proposed retention basins to 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. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour
event producing the greatest total run off.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc 11
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
46. 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.
47. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received
and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief
route.
UTILITIES
48. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (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 shal[ 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.
IiK
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
53. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Adams Street (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W, Option A):
No street widening is required for Adams Street to conform with
General Plan requirements.
Other required improvements in the Adam Street right or way
and/or adjacent landscape setback area include:
A) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to:
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
B) 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 either touches the back of curb or approaches within
five feet of the 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.
2) Avenue 48 (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W, Option A):
No street widening is required for Avenue 48 to conform with
General Plan requirements.
Other required improvements in the Avenue 48 right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
A) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to:
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc 13
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
B) 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 either touches the back of curb or approaches within
five feet of the 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.
C) Construct a median opening in the existing landscaped
median to accommodate the left turn in only movement and
provide positive median barriers to restrict left turn out
movements as approved by the City Engineer.
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).
A. PRIVATE STREETS (Except Entry Drive)
1) Lot B - Construct full 36-foot wide travel width improvements
gutter flow line to gutter flow line where the residential streets are
double loaded. Construct full 32-foot wide travel width
improvements gutter flow line to gutter flow line where parking is
restricted to one side and construct full 28-foot wide travel width
improvements gutter flow line to gutter flow line where parking is
restricted on both sides and there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors, and the applicant makes provisions for
perpetual enforcement of the restrictions.
B. PRIVATE STREET 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 using
a smooth curve instead of angular lines similar to the layout shown
on the rough grading plan.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc
14
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
C. COURTYARD DRIVEWAY
1) The driveway area throat width and layout shall conform to the
shape shown on the approved tentative map. Parking shall be
prohibited in all common courtyard driveway areas and the
applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the
parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed
by the Engineering Department prior to recordation.
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 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
Collector 4.0" a.c /5.0" c.a.b.
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
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
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:
A. Primary Entry (Avenue 48): Right turn in, Right turn out and Left turn in.
Left turn out is prohibited.
58. 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.
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 shal0 provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc 16
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
64. 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.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
65. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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
69. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
70. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access
drives, and sidewalks.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
FEES AND DEPOSITS
71. 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.
72. 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).
FIRE MARSHAL
73. Approved standard fire hydrants, located at each intersection and spaced 330
feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a
hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 100 GPM for a two hour duration at 20
PSI.
74. Blue dot retro-ref lectors shall be placed in the street eight inches from centerline
to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
75. Any turn or turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot turning radius.
76. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet
of all portions of the exterior of the first floor.
77. The minimum dimensions for access roads and gates is 20 feet clear and
unobstructed width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in
height. Roads and/or driveways exceeding 150 feet in length shall have a Fire
Department approved turn -around.
78. Any gate providing access from a public roadway to a private entry roadway
shall be located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to
allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-
way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38-foot
turning radius shall be used.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31310
Santa Rosa Development — Market Rate Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
79. Gates shall be automatic, minimum 20 feet in width and shall be equipped with
a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department
for approval prior to installation . Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a
shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry
system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system.
80. The required water system, including fire . hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be
submitted to the fire Department for approval.
81. The applicant/developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for
approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and/or signs.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT 31310 COA.doc
19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS
FOR A MARKET RATE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-767
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
28th day of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request
of Santa Rosa Development, Inc., for approval of development plans for a Market Rate
Single -Family Project by means of Site Development Permit 2003-767, generally
located at the northeast corner of Avenue 48 and Adams Street, more particularly
described as:
APN: 649-030-036
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the
City of La Quinta did on the 1 st day of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed public
meeting to consider a request for development plans for a Market Rate single-family
residential subdivisions by means of a Site Development Permit 2003-767; and
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit have complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental
Assessment 2003-466) was certified by the City Council for this project under
Resolution 2003-005. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new
information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental
Assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approving said
Site Development Permit:
1. The Project is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed for
the residential project is designated as High Density Residential.
2. The Project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the
applicable Specific Plan.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC Reso-SDP767.doc
.i {
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-767 -
Santa Rosa Development
Adopted: October 28, 2003
3. Processing and approval of the Project is in compliance with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act in that the La Quinta Community
Development Department has determined that no changed circumstances,
conditions, or new information has been submitted which would trigger the
preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21166.
4. The site design of the Project is appropriate for the use in that it has been
designed with the appropriate parking and vehicular access, and provided with
adequate landscaping.
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 in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -
described Site Development Permit request for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 28th day of October, 2003, by the following vote to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC Reso-SDP767.doc e
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-767
Santa Rosa Development
Adopted: October 28, 2003
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-767
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT — MARKET RATE
ADOPTED: OCTOBER 28, 2003
GENERAL
1 . The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to
attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit
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. The applicant shall remove the pine trees from the landscape plans.
3. Front yard landscaping shall consist of two trees (i.e., a minimum 1.5 inch caliper
measured three feet from grade level after planting), ten 5-gallon shrubs, and
groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the trunk is six feet tall.
Double lodge poles (two inch diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and
trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters. To encourage water conservation, no
more than 50% of the front yard landscaping shall be devoted to turf. Future home
buyers shall be offered an option to have no turf areas in their front yard through the
use of desertscape materials.
4. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed
within 18 inches of street curbs.
5. Once the trees have been delivered to the site for installation, a field inspection by
the Community Development Department is required before planting to insure they
meet minimum size and caliper requirements.
6. That all structures shall be limited to a maximum height of 22 feet within 150 feet of
Avenue 48.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 19.51 ACRES INTO A RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISIONS CONSISTING OF 149-UNIT SENIOR
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31311
APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, INC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 28th day of October, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a
request by Santa Rosa Development, Inc., for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to
subdivide approximately 19.51 acres into a residential subdivisions consisting of 149-
unit detached clustered senior housing project, generally located at the northeast
corner of Avenue 48 and Adams Street, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 649-030-036.
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application have complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental
Assessment 2003-466) was certified by the City Council for this project under
Resolution 2003-005. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new
information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental
Assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending
approval of said Tentative Tract Map 3131 1:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The property is designated for High Density
Residential uses on the General Plan Land Use Map. The project is consistent
with the goals, policies and intent of the General Plan insofar as high density
residential is consistent with the land use designation of the City.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: With the Specific Plan, the proposed project
is consistent with the development standards of the High Density Residential
Zoning District, including, but not limited to, setbacks, architecture, building
heights, building mass, exterior lighting, parking, circulation, open space and
landscaping.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PCReso-3131 1.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development
Adopted: October 28, 2003
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The design of
the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to either cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially injure fish and wildlife or
their habitat. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of
CEQA, in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment
2003-466) was certified by the City Council for this project under Resolution
2003-005. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new
information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental
Assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166
4. Design Improvements: The design of the subdivision and/or the type of
improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the
site is physically suitable for the subdivision. Infrastructure improvements
(water, sewer, gas, electricity, etc.) will serve the site as required.
5. Easements/Access: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with the
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of
property, within the proposed subdivision in that adequate roadways will be
provided to meet the intent of the Circulation Element of the General 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 the
Planning Commission for these Tentative Tract Maps;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract
Map 31311 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 October, 2003, by the following vote,
to wit:
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PCReso-31311.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development
Adopted: October 28, 2003
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAOscar\Santa Rosa Development\PCReso-31311.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31311
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT - SENIOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
ADOPTED: OCTOBER 28, 2003
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 the 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
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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
For all construction sites five (5) acres or more, 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 five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres
of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more
than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm
Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc 2
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
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
8. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the
proposed development. Conferred rights shall include 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 48 (Primary Arterial, Option A - 1 10' ROW) — The standard 55
feet from the centerline of Avenue 48 for a total 110-foot ultimate
developed right of way.
'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.
9. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc 3
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
A. PRIVATE STREETS
Property line shall be placed at the back of curb similar to the lay out and the typical
street section shown in the tentative tract map. Use of smooth curves instead of
angular lines at property lines is recommended.
1) Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line shall have a 36-
foot travel width. The travel width may be reduced to 32 feet with
parking restricted to one side, and 28 feet if on -street parking is
prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for
ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The
CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to
recordation.
B. COURTYARD DRIVEWAY
1) The courtyard driveway area throat width and layout shall conform to
the shape shown on the approved tentative map. Parking shall be
prohibited in all common courtyard driveway and cul de sac areas. The
applicant shall make provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking
restriction.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Avenue 48 (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
PAOscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT3131 1 COA.doc 4
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
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.
14. 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.
15. Direct vehicular access to Avenue 48 is restricted, except for those access points
identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions
of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final
tract map.
16. 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.
17. 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
18. 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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc 5
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
'Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
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.
19. 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.
20. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. 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. Off -Site Street Plan:
Vertical
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4'
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and
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.
B.
On -Site Street/Storm Drain Plan:
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal,
1 " =
4' Vertical
C.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
D.
Site Development Plan
1 "
= 30'
Horizontal
E.
Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan
1 "
= 20'
Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
F':\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT3131 1 COA.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
"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.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building
floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements.
21. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant
may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the
City.
22. 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.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
23. 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.
24. 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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc
7
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
25. 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.
26. 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
27. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
28. 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.
29. 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.
PAOscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc
A
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
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.
30. 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.
31. 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 (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
32. 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.
33. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from
the building pads in adjacent developments.
34. 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.
35. 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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
36. 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.
DRAINAGE
37. The applicant shall revise proposed retention basins to 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. The
design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the
greatest total run off.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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. The applicant shall modify CVWD drainage outlets on
their existing well site as necessary to mitigate erosion.
41. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by
the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
42. 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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc
10
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development - Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
43. 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.
44. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
45. 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.
46. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
47. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc 11
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development - Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
51. 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.
52. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Avenue 48 (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W, Option A):
No street widening is required for Avenue 48 to conform with General
Plan requirements.
Other required improvements in the Avenue 48 right or way and/or adjacent
landscape setback area include:
1) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter,
traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
2) 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 either touches the back of curb or
approaches within five feet of the 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.
3) A County of Riverside benchmark in the Avenue 48 right of way
established by a licensed surveyor.
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).
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT3131 1 COA.doc 12
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
A. PRIVATE STREETS (Except Entry Drive)
1) Lots B through H - Construct full 36-foot wide travel width
improvements gutter flow line to gutter flow line where the residential
streets are double loaded. Construct full 32-foot wide travel width
improvements gutter flow line to gutter flow line where parking is
restricted to one side and construct full 28-foot wide travel width
improvements gutter flow line to gutter flow line where parking is
restricted on both sides and there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors, and the applicant makes provisions for perpetual
enforcement of the restrictions.
B. COURTYARD DRIVEWAY
1) The driveway area throat width and layout shall conform to the shape
shown on the approved tentative map. Parking shall be prohibited in all
common courtyard driveway areas and the applicant shall make
provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction.
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:
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc
13
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
Collector 4.0" a.c /5.0" c.a.b.
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:
A. Primary Entry (Avenue 48): Full turn movement is permitted.
58. 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.
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.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
62. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
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), 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.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
65. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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
69. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
FIAOscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
70. 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
71. 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.
72. 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).
FIRE MARSHAL
'73. For any buildings with public access, i.e., recreational halls, clubhouses, etc., or
buildings with a commercial use i.e., gatehouses, apartment buildings, maintenance
sheds, et., super fire hydrants are to be placed no closer than 25 feet and not more
than 165 feet from any portion of the first floor of said building following approved
travel ways around the exterior of the building. Minimum fire flow for these areas
would be 1500 GPM for a two hour duration at 20 PSI.
'74. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street eight inches from centerline to
the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
75. City of La Quinta Ordinance requires all buildings, other than single family, 5,000
square feet or larger, to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard (1313 and 13D systems
are allowed). If required, sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the Fire
Department. Area separation walls may not be used to reduce the need for
sprinklers.
76. Any turn or turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot turning radius.
77. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior of the first floor.
78. The minimum dimension for access roads and gates is 20 feet clear and unobstructed
width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc 16
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31311
Santa Rosa Development — Senior Residential Project
Adopted: October 28, 2003
79. Any gate providing access from a public roadway to a private entry roadway shall be
located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle
to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single
traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38-foot turning radius shall be used.
80. Gates shall be automatic, minimum 20 feet in width and shall be equipped with a
rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation . Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin
force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall
remain open until closed by the rapid entry system.
81. This project requires secondary access/egress. It may betaken from TT 31310 and
the access may be restricted to emergency vehicles only, however, public egress
must be unrestricted. A reciprocal access agreement will be required and will need
City approval.
82. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by
the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed
on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the fire
Department for approval.
83. The applicant/developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval,
a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs.
84. Building plan check is to run concurrent with the City plan check.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC TT31311 COA.doc
17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 149-UNIT SENIOR
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 2003-766
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on
the 28th day of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Santa Rosa Development, Inc., for approval of development plans for a
Senior Residential Project by means of Site Development Permits 2003-766,
generally located at the northeast corner of Avenue 48 and Adams Street, more
particularly described as:
APN: 649-030-036
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the
City of La Quinta did on the 1 st day of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed public
meeting to consider a request for development plans for the residential subdivision
by means of Site Development Permit 2003-766; and
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit have complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental
Assessment 2003-466) was certified by the City Council for this project under
Resolution 2003-005. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new
information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental
Assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approving
said Site Development Permit:
1. The Project is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed
for the residential project is designated as High Density Residential.
2. The Project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the
applicable Specific Plan.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC Reso-SDP766.doc t i
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-766
Santa Rosa Development
Adopted: October 28, 2003
3. Processing and approval of the Project is in compliance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the La
Quinta Community Development Department has determined that no
changed circumstances, conditions, or new information has been submitted
which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental
Assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166.
4. The site design of the Project is appropriate for the use in that it has been
designed with the appropriate parking and vehicular access, and provided
with adequate landscaping.
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 in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -
described Site Development Permits request for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of October, 2003, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
PAOscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC Reso-SDP766.doc ''1
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-766 and 2003-767 -
Santa Rosa Development
Adopted: October 28, 2003
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC Reso-SDP766.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-766
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT - SENIOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
ADOPTED: OCTOBER 28, 2003
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site
Development Permit 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. The applicant shall remove the pine trees from the landscape plans.
3. Front yard landscaping shall consist of two trees (i.e., a minimum 1.5 inch
caliper measured three feet from grade level after planting), ten 5-gallon shrubs,
and groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the trunk is six feet
tall. Double lodge poles (two inch diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All
shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters. To encourage water
conservation, no more than 50% of the front yard landscaping shall be devoted
to turf. Future home buyers shall be offered an option to have no turf areas in
their front yard through the use of desertscape materials.
4. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being
placed within 18 inches of street curbs.
5. Once the trees have been delivered to the site for installation, a field inspection
by the Community Development Department is required before planting to insure
they meet minimum size and caliper requirements.
6. That all structures shall be limited to a maximum height of 22 feet within 150
feet of Avenue 48.
P:\Oscar\Santa Rosa Development\PC SDP-766 COA.doc
a, �i
B 1 #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2003
REQUEST: USE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 9.65-VILLAGE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT OF THE ZONING CODE
LOCATION: THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Ted Newell has written a letter (Attachment 1) requesting a decision of the
Commission as to whether or not a car wash use would be allowed in the Village
Commercial (VC) District, specifically on Buena Ventura (Attachment 2).
The Zoning Code indicates that certain uses are allowed in the VC Zoning District that,
"combine essential day-to-day neighborhood goods and services, tourism and visitor -
based retail and entertainment opportunities, and facilities necessary for the operation
demands of such uses." It does not definitively list a car wash as a permitted use; it
does, however, allow drive-in and drive-throughs (Section 9.65.020.B.5).
Section 9.65.020.0 states, "The permitted uses in The Village area do not preclude
other similar uses which are compatible with the specifically identified uses and
otherwise meet the criteria for Village Use Permits."
Section 9.10.060 of the Zoning Code permits the Community Development Director to
make an interpretation of the Zoning Code, or refer the interpretation to the Planning
Commission. Based upon this Code section, staff is therefore, submitting to the
Planning Commission a request for an interpretation of a use in the Village Commercial
District.
Depending upon the Planning Commission's action, staff may need to prepare the
necessary Zoning Code Amendments and schedule the matter for a public hearing.
G:\WPDOCS\PC STF RPT\USEINTERCARWAS.DOC
Memo To: Jerry Herman
Director Date: 10/21 /2003
Community Development
La Quinta, CA
From: Ted Newell
POB 1574
La Quinta, CA 92253
Mr. Herman, this is my request. I would like to have the following issue agendized for
the October 28t' planning commission meeting:
I would like to get a decision from the commission regarding whether or not they would
allow a car wash on Lot 65 of Desert Club tract, unit 44, APN: 770-123-005. 1 expect
this to be the type of car wash where the driver stays in the car while the car is pulled
through the wash by a conveyer systems. I may or may not offer vacuum or wipe -off
service. I have had a discussion with Steve Robbins of the Coachella Valley Water
District, and he said that Water District would have not problem a car wash as long as a
state of the art recycle system was part of the plan.
This lot is situated between Tampico and Main Street, and is the second lot from the
Tampico driveway of the Seniors Center.
I understand that a site plan and building plan that meets the commission's requirements
would be needed before any final use permit could be issued
However, since the community development permitted uses do not specifically mention a
car wash, I would like sonic guidance from the commission.
Thank you.
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2003
CASE; NO: PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE NUMBER 9693
APPELLANT: ROBERT AND BARBARA VALDIVIA
REQUEST: APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE DETERMINATION
LOCATION: 54-360 AVENIDA JUAREZ
BACKGROUND:
On August 13, 2003 an inspection warrant was served and executed at 54-360 Avenida Juarez
("]Property"). During the inspection, it was found that there were several additions made to the
original building that required a building permit prior to construction. A Public Nuisance was
subsequently declared to exist at the above -noted address. This determination was based on the
existence of the following items that were constructed on the Property without a building permit,
in violation of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 8.01.060; (1) the garage was converted into an
office, restroom, laundry room and storage room; (2) patio covers on the north and east side of
the residence; (3) room addition on the southwest corner; (4) framing of a non -permitted patio
structure for conversion to a room; (5) several block walls; (6) electrical lighting above the
garage; door on the exterior of the property; and (7) an air conditioning unit (collectively,
"Additions").
A criminal citation has been issued for items 11 and 12 on the Notice Of Public Nuisance
(Attachment 1) and the Indio Court will be determining their outcome. These items are a
recurring violation and were included on the notice only to serve as
requirements/corrections needed to aid the homeowner in achieving compliance.
items are before the court, the Planning Commission should take no action on them.
a list of
Since these
The house at 54-360 Avenida Juarez was constructed in 1978, and was built to the standards of
the 1976 Uniform Building Code. The 1976 Uniform Building Code Section 301(a) requires that
building permits be obtained for room additions, including those described above. (Attachment
2.) Any construction after that date would have required the homeowner to obtain a building
permit from Riverside County.
Riverside County ("County") was responsible for the inspections and records pertaining to the
Property at the time the residence ("Residence") was constructed on the Property in 1978. The
County has indicated that the only building permit ("Permit") it has on file for the Property is for
the original construction of the Residence. (See Attachment 3.) This Permit reflects the
any of the Additions listed above which are the subject of this appeal. The City's files similarly
do not contain any improvement permits on this Property.
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE:
A "Grandfather Clause" permits a use or condition of property to lawfully continue after a law or
ordinance is enacted making that use or condition unlawful. For a Grandfather Clause to apply,
two things must be true: (1) the unlawful use or condition must have lawfully existed prior to the
passage of the prohibitory law or ordinance; and (2) there must exist explicit legal authority
specifically providing for the continued use or condition.
Here, the appellant contends that the above -noted Additions were "Grandfathered" since they
occurred prior to the City's incorporation. However, appellant has not identified the applicable
"Grandfather Clause" he is attempting to apply in any law, ordinance, or other legal authority.
Perhaps more importantly, appellant neither has, nor can, provide any evidence reflecting that the
Additions were ever lawfully constructed, thus rendering any attempted application of a
Grandfather Clause a futile exercise.
Clearly the requirement for obtaining a building permit was in place at the time the Additions
were made. The City, upon incorporation, is required to take over the responsibility of
maintaining the housing stock to the building codes that were in place at the time of construction,
and to regulate new construction. The Building Code provides for the safety of the persons who
occupy the dwelling, and ensures that minimum safety standards are observed in the construction
process. These safety standards reduce the potential for electrocution, fire, collapse of the
structure, etc.
La Quinta Municipal Code Section 11.72.030 M (Attachment 5) declares any violation of the
uniform codes adopted by the City, including the Building Code, to be a Public Nuisance.
Failure to uphold this Public Nuisance places the occupants of the Property, everyone who visits
them, and everyone who lives near them at potential risk of injury or loss of life.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2003- upholding the Notice Of Public Nuisance as issued.
Attachments:
1. Notice of Public Nuisance
2. Copy of the 1976 Uniform Building Code Section 301(a)
3. Copy of original building permit and Declaration from County Custodian of Records
4 Appeal letter
5. La Quinta Municipal Code Section 8.01.060
6. La Quinta Municipal Code Section 11.72.030 M
� fJvvC � � `_�� ATTACHMENT �
Q
P.O. Box 1504
78-495 CALLE TAMPICO
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
(760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0
FAX (760) 777-7101
NOTICE
OF
NUISANCE
September 30, 2003
Robert & Barbara Valdivia
54-360 Avenida Juarez
La Quinta, California, 92253
Dear Owner(s):
RE: Case # 9693
Parcel #774-233-005
& 774-233-017
Officer. Anthony Moreno
THIS NOTICE is hereby submitted to you as owner(s) of the above referenced property. The
purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Notice and Order served on September 12, 2003
via posting, certified mail and regular mail has been rescinded to provide an adequate appeal
process.
OD
CASE. NUMBER: 9693 --September 30, 2003
Page 2 of 5
This Notice of Public Nuisance is also being served via posting, certified mail and regular mail to
advise you of the following. A recent inspection of your property revealed conditions in violation
of the La Quinta Municipal Code. You are required to correct these violations within TWENTY-
ONE (21) DAYS from the date of this notice.
Your property will be re -inspected to verify compliance after the twenty-one (21) day time frame
has lapsed.
SEE ATTACHED INSPECTION REPORT FOR VIOLATION(Sl AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
REQUIRED.
Failure to correct the listed violation(s) within the time frame indicated may result in the City
initiating abatement proceedings, criminal prosecution and/or the City placing the
aforementioned property into receivership to correct the violation(s).
If the City is forced to proceed with the abatement proceedings, the owner(s) of record may
incur the direct costs of the abatement. Also, any additional costs assessed due to possible
judicial process. In addition to the above referenced costs, all contractor abatement costs plus
an additional 25% will be charged to the property owner(s) as a lien upon the property and shall
become the personal obligation of the owner(s) of record.
You are entitled to appeal the determination that a public nuisance exists to the Planning
Commission. Within ten (10) days from the date of personal service, posting or mailing of the
Notice of Public Nuisance, the appeal shall be in writing and filed with the city clerk.
By acting immediately to correct the violation(s) referenced, you will avoid these and any future
costs.
If you have any questions, please contact Anthony Moreno at (760) 777-7034. Please
provide the case number (#9693) and the property address.
Your assistance in supporting the Code Compliance Department to maintain the safety and
appearance of our city is greatly appreciated. You may contact me at the above referenced
phone number if you require assistance.
Sincerely,
" 7%_7)%g- -
Anthony Moren
Code Compliance Officer
CC: Law Offices of Peter R. Cabrera Meritage Mortgage Company
82-632 B Highway 111, Suite Re: Loan # 1000084122
Indio, CA 92201 9710 Two Notch Road
Columbia, South Carolina, 29223
0 •
NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS
CASE NUMBER: 9693
Page 3 of 5
PUBLIC NUISANCES
1. Code Violation: The garage located on the Subject Property was
illegally converted into an office, restroom, laundry room, and
storage facility, in violation of La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC")
8.01.060 and 11.72.030(M);
Correction: Restore the illegal garage conversion to its
original condition and its primary designated use (garage), including
removal of the block wall that denies vehicular access to that garage.
2. Code Violation: There are illegal patio covers installed on the
north and east side of the residence, in the absence of plans,
permits, or required inspections, in violation of LQMC 8.01.060 and
11.72.030(M);
Correction: Submit plans, obtain the required permits and
inspections, and complete any necessary work to remedy the illegal
patio covers on the east and north side of the residence on the
Subject Property, or in the alternative, remove those structures in
their entirety.
3. Code Violation: An illegal room addition on the southeast corner
of the dwelling on the Subject Property exists and was constructed
without a valid building permit, in violation of LQMC 8.01.060 and
11.72.030(M);
Correction: Submit plans, obtain a permit and the required
inspections, and complete any necessary work on the Subject
Property, to ensure that the illegal room addition at the southeast
corner of the residence meets the minimum building code standards,
or remove the illegal room addition.
4. Code Violation: An illegal patio cover in the rear yard is being
framed for conversion into an illegal room addition, without having a
valid building permit, in violation of LQMC 8.01.060 and California
Health and Safety Code ("H &S") 17920.3(i);
• •
NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS
CASE NUMBER: 9693
Page 4 of 5
Correction: Submit plans, obtain the required permits and
inspections, and complete any necessary work to remedy the illegal
enclosure of the illegal patio cover, or in the alternative, remove the
structure in its entirety.
5. Code Violation: Block walls were illegally constructed on the
Subject Property, in violation of LQMC 8.01.060 and 11.72.030(M);
H&S 17920.3(i);
Correction: Submit plans, obtain the required permits and
inspections, and complete any necessary work on all block walls
constructed on the Subject Property to remedy the existing defects.
6. Code Violation: The premanufactured storage shed located on the
Subject Property violates the 3.5 foot side yard setback, in violation
of LQMC 9.60.050(D) and 11.723.030(M);
Correction: Relocate the premanufactured storage shed to
provide a minimum of a 3.5 foot side yard setback from the block
wall.
7. Code Violation: A block and wood framed storage shed
constructed on the Subject Property violates the 3.5 foot minimum
side yard and rear yard setback, in violation of LQMC 9.60.050(D);
Correction: Relocate the storage shed constructed of block
and wcod to provide a minimum of 3.5 foot side yard and rear yard
setback from the block wall.
8. Code Violation: Electrical wiring and exterior lighting was
unlawfully installed above the garage door on the exterior of the
house, in violation of LQMC 8.01.060 and 11.72.030(M); California
Uniform Housing Code ("UHC") 701.2 and 1005.5; H&S 17920(d);
Correction: Submit plans, obtain a permit and the required
inspections, and complete any necessary work to legalize the
illegally installed electrical wiring above the garage door on the
exterior of the house or remove same.
0 0
NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS
CASE NUMBER: 9693
Page 5 of 5
9. Code Violation: A mechanical air conditioning unit was installed
on the Subject Property without a valid permit, in violation of UHC
701.2, H&S 17920(f);
Correction: Submit plans, obtain the required permits and
inspections, and complete any necessary work to legalize the
mechanical air condition unit unlawfully installed on the subject
Property.
10. Code Violation: Holiday lights are displayed in the front patio
beyond seven days after the holiday, in violation of LQMC 9.160.020
and 11.72.030(M);
Correction: Remove the temporary decorations and holiday
lights from being displayed beyond seven days after the holiday.
11. Code Violation: Parking or storing construction equipment,
machinery or building materials in a residential zone except during
excavation, construction or demolition operations conducted
pursuant to a building or grading permit, in violation of LQMC
11.72.030 (E);
Correction: Remove all parked or stored construction
equipment, machinery or building materials on the Subject Property,
except during excavation, construction, or demolition operations
conducted pursuant to a valid building or grading permit.
12. Code Violation: The establishment and operation of a Home
Occupation without a valid ("Permit") and compliance with all
conditions attached to that permit at all times, or in the alternative,
the cessation of operating a business on the Subject Property, in
violation of LQMC 9.60.110 and 11.72.030 (M).
Correction: Obtain a valid Horne Occupation Permit ("Permit")
and comply with all conditions attached to that Permit at all times, or
in the alternative, cease operating a business on the Subject
Property.
ATTACHMENT #2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
241
25
26
27
28
BEFORE OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
APPEAL OF
ROBERT JOSEPH VALDIVIA;
13ARBARA VALDIVIA
Case No. 9693
DECLARATION OF CUSTODIAN OF
RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE
DECLARATION OF CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
I, the undersigned, am authorized as the Custodian of Records in the Department of
Building and Safety ("Custodian of Record") for the County of Riverside, and I hereby certify
and declare as follows:
1. I am an employee of the County of Riverside and have personal knowledge of the
procedures and practices for preparing the records attached hereto. As the Custodian of Records,
I have the authorization to certify records on behalf of the County of Riverside ("County"). I
have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could
and would testify competently to such facts under oath.
2. The County records that are concurrently submitted with this Declaration are true
and correct copies of those records. As custodian, I can testify to the records' identity and method
of preparation. Such records were prepared by and/or at the direction of employees of the County
of Riverside within their scope of duty, concerning or relating to the facts and incidents described
in the records. The source of the information and method for preparation were such as to indicate
DECLARATION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY CUSTODIAN OF
RECORDS
1 their trustworthiness.
2 3. Submitted with this Declaration as Exhibit "A" is a certified, true and correct copy
3 of Building Permit No. 316946 ("Permit"), the only building permit contained within the
4 County's file pertaining to the property located at 54-360 Avenida Juarez, La Quinta, California
5 ("Subject Property").
6 4. Submitted with this Declaration as Exhibit `B" is a certified, true and correct copy
7 of the "Application to Construct" pertaining to the Subject Property.
8 5. A diligent and thorough search of the County's files has been carried out under my
9 direction. This search has revealed that no further documents, permits, records, or other materials
10 pertaining to the Subject Property, other than those referenced in Exhibits "A" and `B," exist in
11 the County's files.
12
13 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the
14 foregoing is true and correct. p
15 Executed on the day of October, 2003, at Il rIe s , California.
16 _
17
Lyn Tontz
18 Custodian of Records, County of Riverside
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
DECLARATION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY CUSTODIAN OF
RECORDS
HEADQUARTERS
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SAFETY
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE a l iJ
iRUCTION
ESTIMATE
NO.
ELECTRICAL FEES --
-NO. JPLUMBING
FEES
UNITS
m Ft. *a
TE 11
So FT A
22�
MYOOBILEMO E Svc
SINK L�
50� FT' 4117Z.0
POWERso OUTLET
I ROOF GRAINS
-
DqA!NACE PIPING
SO. FT.
I
DRINKING FOtyNTA'-N
WAU
so. FT
IU9!NAL
SQ FT.
j0"YWOONSMXTION VALUAnON 1-2.91
P;DN G
SWIM POOL PVT
7wim POOL COMM
S'GN
1 FLOOR ORAIN
SOtTENER
`11FR tALJTO-r9F*
!."Vk
GARBAGE D(SP",;-:
LAIJNDRY TRA'
MECHANICAL FEES
CIEVAP.com XMOOD
TIDLE METEI?
1'.
!.Veg ®UNIT 0 WALL C) FLOOR 0 SUSPENDED
CIFM
TEMP USE PERMIT 5VC
IIIJ U.
WATER CLOSET
A83MI 041YM
--
POLE. TEMP/PERM
]lAtVATOI�;
SHOWER
CONVII" N
FORtEOGRAVITY
0
AMPERES SERV ENT
•
WW =&T.U.
So FT (,4
BATH TUB
Si FT is G
�CA WATER HEATER
FT RESID In ''At
fI,�%IAGE DISPC)SA,
RF
SO FT GAR K Vt, '-O-jSf SEWER
PERNT FEE
§L- TOTAA.F1995
-00 RC F
PERMIT FEF $Ef
Lec FFk FE Itl u a IF
1,694b
J/ A)
c
1.,- 041 yr
4;7
-T- 7 -,7
p.;-
Lh. of ,
T
Wv-s fdm he C.P
Mu• m $ft s
7Z 4Z
copo"w~ f6m c6l %
1043 L.9ol D-,.W-
Z51-
Fywlrp FA OM ScW
b-d A-
f* vdpl I-
CwwL Fa
S
Can, k
me, Cc) ch-Ar
AtoC mc 0 c C3
77
Add�
C-P
�/��'�'.�ii
� i - k rti rz✓ti'
���
.. �'��
• now
1MiAL1 ❑FLOOR Q SUSPENDED
LAUNDRY TRAY
l+;4
am
IDLE METfR
KITCHEN SINK
S.T.U.
TEMP USE PERMIT SVC
WATER CLOSET
POLE. TEMP/PERM
LAVATORY
kl' O
GRAVITY
QQ
AMPERES SERV ENT
7C74"
SHOWER
O.T.V.
SO FT T9 <
BATHTUB
rr r
SO. FT QL t
WATER HEATER
.a+
SO. FT RESID is I'i c
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
p'
FT GAR l4 �.c
HOUSE SEWER
Z.,
GAS PIPING
f•' o� -
PERMIT FEE
0 ''
PERMIT FEE
'r_--
MKRO FEE
M H. FEELCK.
FEE
COnSL�T�/FEE
IiLECT F€
SMIFE/E�FEE4�,.e
kA AdMw1
SPa• Zro
O„
14
7-7
rw
11.
0,i_
S
&P
Ir
W'.n
2 Olt
��� =• • �:
Db
sCOV
bomd Mwr Floe
G'U
F .
=
s
•
Cww use..
a onto
..... . , .: , ,. w r., '.: . ; •., .. �.. ,, ,.d l,+
�• ro 'M v.nrM»n 1 a
iik—
S
AdIMw.
1. , r t . , i+'% .1
IM' tE*YII Sr�.� i °try'•
i
i
Vt'".sN�vC11 c> %liic'N y2ro
[rp
Zip
L awn. e
329,514,
wo an'tala
..•.1.EJ bF.
L2--ZY
-4L2
Iwo lCe-rIMPO'Al ALPPPnVAL-c;
AD L) IF I UNAL- [IN I- %a rf FYI A% A "v"-
0 it :.,')CATION
c
SrOONAME —
ki
0
�DEPARTMENT
OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
�
�NOTICE
TO APPLICANT
��
� V. I certify ap the owner (or the agent -[ the owner) that in
the performance of the work for which this permit is issued
. I have engaged ^
coutractnr, (Contractor most have on ftIc, or submit
certificate required by I or 11 above.)
Applicant's t
a7e
Date Permit No. �1�2
Address and location where work is to be performed
` I Rev. 6/77
NOTICii 7NtS It NOT A 1111JILDING PERMIT DISTRICT
APPLICATION TO CONSTPUCT Permit No
DEPARTMENT OF WILDING AND SAFE? Y r t,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Contractor_
Adies
, � ��q�_ Addres>` .�—•-���--------•---. d_
s
--..- City -Tom'- 31pRi.• - city--'
R Phone_ 34-C-. 0 C!7 Pl
- - ione
'
r fir(•,, 9jjivel-NNtM1d!►flgnld, hereby certify and acknowledge that Id(we) have road the aL�Pl.carion and agree ih.r If Curb and G.dtsr,. and
and/or Dedication of right of way is r"..-d by the Courtly of R,vers,de the R.vers.din
e County Department of Buddg and Safety
WINO -a Final Inspection until said reCu.rentents have been met, t nm also Aware that n.+ work .s to be dons within the Ccunty AfW
'a ;�ilfNgufi*o\ eli.•toachment permit.
�', •. ' f4OM1r'therefore, it is agreed that I (we) "It not )CCupy sanl property and wdt not CAv+e said Protkriv IC be oeCUP•ed until I (we) have
c-e:.ft1n died W;I% NI ws of the founts of R.ventde and the Slate of Colrtorn.a gnyern.rq smd p. xrty.
?t SIGNATURE OF OWNER AND�OR J
`. Approval by Signature from the Following Departmenh Listed Below
•' Most Be Obtained Prior to the Issuing of a Construction Permit.
�I�ZS.� I SPACE NO.
r. � Wins
1 USE OF STdUCTURE
boa' ins, 19— .+ids j".-------�--------- SINGLE FAMILY rr�DUPLEX
° FL>EG7ILDESCRIPTION+OAF PROPERTY .aa-��_-�,L�*a"��rrO__ h1ack.Z12_- APARTMENTS AGRIC. 0
•;q%tr; ^: ry : Qsali4a•-24-•-- -. _Ll>kLM-r.W^a
•i.s-�- COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
e yo
UNITY
ALTERATIONS
N�%^AP SUBMITTED PLANS __...-.. USE OF PERMIT -&. At4-
,'
' , ,:�;'li•P PARK��fN....Ojj'SPACES REQUIRED NO OF BUILDINGS NOW EXISTING -
r._SETBACKS: FRONT 20f_st�Sl PEAR 21
-t
--
;`�' . a�rORADtMO PERMIT REQUIRED? YES NO LOT SIZE ._--50XjW ------ . . .. -�
W'•:. ;.
t,.5ET6ACK ORDINANCE _-.-.. _ OF. FEET RE.UIpED CN _ STREET
•+r-'r•"" .,,�,,...��aa03�-_. SIGNATURE OF LAND USE OFFICIAL - ----- --
gATt::
WDICATiON REQUIRED: YES {f• NO C NO OF FEET _
CURB AND GUTTER REQUIRED. YES C NO C:-STET
CAN CURB AND GUTTER FEASIBLY BE INSTALLED' YEz �- NO ;
.•, HAS AN ACCEPTABLE APPLICATION BEEN MADE FOK ENCROACNMLNT PERMIT FOR DRIVEWAY AND STREET
.: IMPROVEMENT Y NO E
SIGNATURE OF ROAD DEFT OFFICIAL".
�. fErfACE DISPOSAL 41.
k• i..S 1
-
W%?E� POLLUTION REMARKS ..__.. -_---_---. a
PLOOD CONTROL —
AIR POLLUTION
DIV OF MNY _ --
�� YOUR PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO
FLOOD. RIVERSIDE COUNTY ASSUMES
- --- ---- NO RESPONSIBILITY IN EVENT OF FLOOD.
CANARY - FILF PINK - APPLICANT
1976 EDITION
ATTACHMENT #3
Chapter 3
PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS
Application for Permits
301
Sec. 301. (a) Permits Required. No person, firm, or corporation shall
erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert,
or demolish any building or structure in the city, or cause the same to be
done, without first obtaining a separate building permit for each such
building or structure from the Building Official.
(b) Application. To obtain a permit the applicant shall first file an ap-
plication therefor in writing on a form furnished for that purpose. Every
such application shall:
I . Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which
application is made;
2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done, by lot,
block, tract, and house and street address, or similar description
that will readily identify and definitely locate the proposed building
or work;
3. Indicate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is
intended;
4. Be accompanied by plans and specifications as required in
subsection (c) of this Section;
S. State the valuation of the proposed work;
6. Be signed by the permittee, or his authorized agent, who may be
required to submit evidence to indicate such authority.
7. Give such other information as reasonably may be required by the
Building Official.
(c) Plans and Specifications. With each application for a building per-
mit, and when required by the Building Official for enforcement of any
provisions of this Code, two sets of plans and specifications shall be sub-
mitted. The Building Official may require plans and specifications to be
prepared and designed by an engineer or architect licensed by the state to
practice as such.
EXCEPTION: When authorized by the Building Official plans and
specifications need not be submitted for the following:
1. One-story buildings of Type V conventional woodstud construction
with an area not exceeding 600 square feet.
2. Group M, Division I Occupancies of Type V conventional woodstud
construction.
3. Small and unimportant work.
(d) Information on Plans and Specifications. Plans and specifications
shall be drawn to scale upon substantial paper or cloth and shall be of suf-
ficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and
show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this Code and all
relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The first sheet of each
29
-In .. 1 . f% t .- .
ATTACHMENT #4
1 k
1
2
3
:1I'.
51
6
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
14
15
16
17
18'
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Peter R Cabrera (SB Ng: 080911)
LAW OFFICES OF PETER IL CABRERA
82-632 B Highway 111, Suite 3
Indio, CA 92201
Telephone: (760) 863-3840
Facsimile: (760) 863-3842
Attorneys for Defendants, Robert Joseph
Joseph Valdivia and Barbara Valdivia
IkECVl�,
22 Pm L- 2.1
Cf ; u CLFQ 'So
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE BUILDING DIVISION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
APPEALS OF
ROBERT JOSEPH VALDIVIA;
BARBARA VALDIVIA
54-360 Avenida Juarez
La Quinta, CA 92253
Appellants
File number: 9693
NOTICE OF APPEAL
STATEMENT OF APPELLANTS
Come now ROBERT JOSEPH VALDIVIA and BARBARA VALDIVIA. appeal the
NOTICE AND ORDER issued against them and their property on September 12, 2003, and decla
as follows:
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
Robert Joseph Valdivia and Barbara Valdivia, are owners of the property commonly
known as 54-360 Avenida Juarez, La Quinta, California 92253, (hereinafter referred to as the
"subject property," which is subject to the NOTICE AND ORDER issued on September 12, 200:
ISSUES ON APPEAL
1. The garage located on the Subject Property was illegally converted into an office
restroom, laundry room, and storage facility, in violation of La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13'
14
15
16
17
18
19
on
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
§§ 8.01.060, 9.04.040, and 11.27.030(m).
Appellants deny the garage was converted illegally. Said conversion was accomplishe
prior to the incorporation of the City of La Quinta. Appellants are further informed and believe, ai
upon such information and belief, allege that any such conversion was approved by the City of La
Quinta by virtue of a "grandfather" clause.
2. An illegal room addition on the southeast corner of the dwelling on the Subject
Property exists and was constructed without a valid building permit, in violation of LQMC §§
8.01.060 and 11.72.030(m).
Appellants deny the room addition was illegal. Said conversion was accomplished
prior to the incorporation of the City of La Quinta. Appellants are further informed and believe, a
upon such information and belief, allege that any such conversion was approved by the City of La
Quinta by virtue of a "grandfather" clause
3. The illegal patio cover in the year yard is being framed for conversion into an ille
room addition, without a valid building permit, in violation of LQMC § 8.01.060 and California
Health and Safety Code ("H&S") § 17920.3(i).
Appellants deny the patio cover is being framed for conversion. Appellants are
informed and believe, and upon such information and belief, allege that any such conversion was
approved by the City of La Quinta by virtue of a "grandfather" clause
5. Block walls were illegally constructed on the Subject Property, in violation of
I LQMC §§ 8.01.060 and 11.72.030(m); H&S 17920.3(i).
Appellants deny the block walls were illegally built.. Said walls in the front yard we
accomplished prior to the incorporation of the City of La Quinta. Appellants are further informec
and believe, and upon such information and belief, allege that any such conversion was approved
the City of La Quinta by virtue of a "grandfather" clause. As to the walls in the rear yard,
Appellants admit they obtained necessary permits from the City of La Quinta, but admit they hav
never requested a final inspection and will do so immediately.
7. Electrical wiring and exterior lighting was unlawfully installed above the garage
-2-
11
04i,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
14
15
16
17
181
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
door on the exterior of the house, in violation of LQMC §§ 8.01.060 and 11.72.030(m); Californid,
Uniform Housing Code C UHC") §§ 701.2 and 1005.5; H&S 17920(d).
Appellants allege that one of the lighting fixtures was in place at the time of the
construction of the residence. Appellants contend they changed a fixture, and contend that a mere
change of fixture is not an unlawful installation as alleged. However, Appellants admit and will
correct the installation of a second fixture above the garage area.
8. A mechanical air conditioning unit was installed on the Subject Property without
valid permit, in violation of UHC § 701.2, H&S 17920(f).
Appellants deny that the mechanical air conditioning unit was installed on the Subjec
Property illegally. Appellants anre informed and believe, and upon such information and belief,
allege that H&H Air Conditioning Contractors obtained the necessary permits and installed the un
in dispute.
9. The Subject Property is also in violation of the La Quinta Municipal Code section
11.72.030.
Appellants deny the property is in violation of La Quinta Municipal Code section
11.72.030, so as to constitute a nuisance
10. The inspection warrant issued in this matter resulting in the observations of
employees of the City of La Quinta was invalid, improperly served and the evidence seized as a
result was illegally obtained.
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
For all the foregoing reasons, Appellants appeal the NOTICE AND ORDER filed
against them and their property.
Dated: 09/22/03 LAW OFFICES OF PETER R. CABRERA
By:
PETER R. CABRERA
Attorneys for Defendants, Robert Joseph
Valdivia and Barbara Valdivia
Dated: 09/22/03 &'r�
uw-,
a-'
BertJoseph Valdivia
Dated: 09/22/03
,.,'
Barbara Valdivia
1 -4-
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
County of Riverside )
1 have read the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL and know their contents.
I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as
to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them
to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
EXECUTED Z on l Z U 3
_� , at La Quinta, California.
OBERT JOSEPH VALDIVIA
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
County of Riverside )
I have read the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL and know their contents.
I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as
to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them
to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
EXECUTED on Z Z 3 , at La Quinta, California.
I�f..� .. _._MR
•�+ • I
)i.uou r-errnlLs reyuireu.
ATTACHMENT
Title 8 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
Chapter 8.01 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
8.01.060 Permits required.
Section 301.1 of the Uniform Administrative Code, 1994 Edition, shall be revised to read as follows:
Permits Required. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter,
repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure, including a swimming pool, spa
or hot tub, or make any installation, alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building service equipment,
including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title, except as specified in Section
301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate perrrut for each building,
structure or service equipment from the Building Official.
(Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 114 § 1 (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § 1 (part),
1985)
tp://194.169.1.2/cityclerk/citycode/_DATA/TITLE08/Chapter 8_01_ADMINIS... 10/23/�
ruorrc nuisances oeciarea.
ATTACHMENT
17i e 11 PEACES MORALS AND SAFETY
Chapter 11.72 PUBLIC NUISANCES*
11.72.030 Public nuisances declared.
The following are declared public nuisances:
A. Buildings or structures which are abandoned, partially destroyed or in a state of partial construction;
B. Buildings or structures that have dry rot or warped materials, are infested with termites, or the paint is
cracked, peeled or blistered, rendering the building unsightly;
C. Exterior walls, fences, driveways or sidewalks in a condition of deterioration or disrepair which are defective
or unsightly;
D. Broken windows, damaged doors or gates which constitute a health or safety hazard or which act as an
invitation to trespassers, vagrants, wild or domestic animals or minor children;
E. Parking or storing construction equipment, machinery or building materials in a residential zone except
during excavation, construction or demolition operations conducted pursuant to a building or grading perrrdt;
F. Land graded without a grading permit which causes or may cause eroding, subsidence or surface water
drainage problems and is injurious or potentially injurious to adjacent properties and the public health, safety
and welfare;
G. Any excavation, pit, well or hole maintained in a manner that is dangerous to life or limb;
H. Any accumulation of dust, sand, gravel, refuse and waste matter or discarded materials including building
and construction materials that endangers public health and safety;
(.Outdoor stairs, porches, hand railings, balconies and swings not maintained in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code adopted by the city;
J. Any swimming pool, spa, pond, foundation or other body of water which is abandoned, unattended, unfiltered
or not otherwise maintained resulting in polluted water;
K. Premises so maintained as to cause the accumulation of polluted or stagnant water from any source which
may cause a hazardous or unhealthy condition, breeding area for insects or erosion of foundation walls or soil;
L. The use of any spray, paint, dye, chalk or similar substance to mark or deface any building, structure,
hillside, rock(s), stormchannel, or any other surface open to public view which is commonly known as graffiti;
M. Violation of any of the zoning or sign ordinances of the city or any of the uniform codes adopted by the city
including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, plumbing code,
electrical code, mechanical code, swimming pool code, fire code, health code and Uniform Housing Code;
N. Maintenance of property so out of harmony or conformity with the maintenance standards of adjacent
properties which causes a substantial diminution in the enjoyment, use or value of adjacent properties;
0. Outdoor burning of any material or structure unless sanction by the fire department as a training fire or when
used as a cooking or comfort fire contained in a fireproof container no larger than four feet in diameter;
P. Permitting any abandoned, unattended or discarded icebox, refrigerator, freezer or other similar container
with an airtight door or lid that cannot be readily released from the inside to remain unattended inside or
outside any building or structure;
Q. Stockpiling fill dirt or other material without a grading permit;
R. Maintenance of grounds, landscape, shrubs, plants or vegetation visible from the public right-of-way which
causes a substantial diminution in the enjoyment, use or value of adjacent properties;
S. Landfills containing organic materials except those permitted by the building director or the public works
director of the city;
T. Allowing the following to exist on property:
1. Lumber, junk, refuse and waste matter or abandoned, discarded or unused objects or equipment such as
furniture, appliances, and play equipment which is visible from the public right-of-way,
2. Attractive nuisances such as abandoned or broken equipment and machinery, hazardous pools, and
://194.169.1.2/cityclerk/citycode/_DATA/TITLEll/Chapter 11_72_PUBLI... 10/23/201
L.vau ruunc nuisances ueciareu. Nage L c
excavations,
3. Clotheslines located in front yards or side yards of corner lots, clothes hung to dry on walls, fences, trees,
bushes or inside open garages or carports which can be observed from the public right-of-way,
4. Materials stored on rooftops which are visible from the public right-of-way,
S. Trash containers or plastic bags causing offensive odors or a breeding place for flies,
6. Gasoline„ oil, grease, water or other materials flowing onto a right-of-way or an accumulation of refuse,
waste, grease and oil on any surface including but not limited to, surfaces such as improved or unimproved
ground, rights -of -way, buildings, structures, walls or fences,
7. Any tree, shrubbery or plant growing onto or over the public right-of-way which impairs pedestrian or
vehicular traffic or prevents drivers from clearly observing safety signs and signals,
B. Dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees, hedges, weeds, shrubs and overgrown vegetation likely to
harbor rats or vermin or constitute an unsightly appearance or fire hazard;
U. Dumping refuse and waste matter upon the following:
1. Any public or private highway or road,
2. Private properly where the public is admitted by easement or license,
3. Private property with or without the consent of the property owner, and
4. Any public property not designated for such purpose;
V. Dumping or placing any rocks or dirt upon private property without the consent of the state or local agency
retaining jurisdiction over such highway or property;
W. Repairing, storing, or otherwise working on any motor vehicle or parts thereof not belonging to the person
residing on the premises in any residential area within the city unless:
1. Such activities are completely enclosed and not visible from the public right-of-way, or
2. Such activities constitute emergency repairs, provided that such repairs do not exceed seventy-two hours;
X. Parking a vehicle, as defined in Chapter 11.80, in public view when a failure to maintain its exterior causes
such vehicle to constitute an eyesore. Vehicles shall be deemed unsightly when body parts rust or become
corroded, paint becomes faded, chipped, or peeled or the vehicle exterior becomes otherwise dilapidated;
Y. Sanding or painting a vehicle, as defined in Chapter 11.80, anywhere in a residential zone;
Z. Failure to obscure vehicles and equipment which are stored in a residential zone out of public view;
AA. Storage of any item in a residential zone in a manner which endangers public health and safety;
BB. Any offensive or unwholesome business or establishment operated in a manner dangerous to the public
health, safety and welfare;
CC. Those offenses declared a nuisance anywhere in the code of the. city or the statutes of the state of
California or known at common law as nuisances when the same exist within the jurisdiction of the city. (Ord.
265 § 1, 1995; Ord. 177 § 1, 1990; Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989)
://194.169.1.2/cityclerk/citycode/_t5ATA/TITLEII/Chapter 11_72 PUBU... 10/23/2a
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2003
REQUEST: SEMI -PERMANENT DOWNTOWN VILLAGE SIGN PROGRAM
LOCATION: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
On March 19, 1996 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 281 creating
the provisions for the Semi -permanent Downtown Directional Sign Program
as contained in Section 9.160.080 of the Zoning Code (Attachment 1).
On January 21, 1997 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-02
authorizing the City to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the La
Quinta Chamber of Commerce to administer the provisions of the Directional
Sign Program (Attachment 2). The Memorandum sets forth the
development standards for the multi -tenant sign including, but not limited to
design, construction, color, materials, and text. Further, the Memorandum
authorizes the Planning Commission to review and approve the signs.
The design criteria allows up to six panels, with each panels containing a
single line of print, utilizing block letters. The approved design is as shown
in Attachment 3.
In the initial approval, five locations were identified for the signs. Of these
five, four have been erected (Attachment 4). A sign structure is yet to be
installed at Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas.
On October 15, 2003 a letter was received from a representative of Old
Town La Quinta (Liz Davies) (Attachment 5) requesting the name "Old
Town" be added to the directional signs with the same font contain in their
letterhead.
DISCUSSION
Staff has conducted an evaluation of the signs as they currently exist and
found that in addition to regular maintenance issues there appears to be a
need to bring them back into conformance.
The Agreement calls for the signs to be maintained in a good order at all
times. Each sign is to contain the name of a downtown business and a
directional arrow all on one line. As illustrated in Attachment 4, there is a
sign panel containing two lines. Also, the structure cap advertising the
"Chamber of Commerce" is in need of repair on some of the signs.
The issue that brought this to the Commission is:
1. Whether or not a different font/letter character should be allowed
for each sign panel; or
2. Should the signs remain as originally approved; and
3. Is Old Town a business or place?
Staff has created an illustration showing the sign with the different font
(Attachment 6).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the following:
1. The Chamber shall repair the structure sign tops
2. The sign panels containing two lines shall be replaced with one line
3. The font for all shall remain uniform on all sign panels.
ATTACHMENT #1
U60.080 Semipermanent downtown Village directional signs.
A. Purpose. To provide vehicular direction to specific businesses which, due to their location within the
5oundaries of the "Village at La Quinta" specific plan area and away from major arterials, are difficult to
find.
B. Definition. "Downtown Village directional sign panel" means an interchangeable sign panel which
foes not require a sign permit, mounted on a monument base structure. The sign panels list businesses in
he Village at La Quinta area.
C. Maximum Time Periods. No downtown village directional sign panel shall be installed for more than
-levee consecutive months out of any twelve-month period. The date of installation shall be legibly marked
[)n the lower right hand comer of the face of the sign. •
U Qaina 5-98)
350
D. Monument Base Structure —Size and Standards. Downtown Village directional sign panels shall only
be installed in approved monument base structures which conform to the following standards:
1. Structures shall not exceed eight feet in height and six feet in width.
2. Structures shall contain no more than six sign panels per face or side.
3. Structures shall have no more than two faces or sides.
4. Structure shall include, at the top, a decorative cap or sign of maximum two feet six inches high and
six feet wide.
5. The base shall be constructed of block, brick, wood, stone or other similar material.
6. Design, construction, color and materials of structure and text shall be approved by the planning
commission.
7. No tag, sign, streamer, device, display board or other attachment may be added or placed upon the
structure.
E. Sign Panel Size and Standards. Downtown Village directional sign panels which are mounted in the
monument base structures shall be eight inches in height and five feet wide, and shall conform to the following
standards:
1. The use of said sign panels shall be for the sole identification of any commercial businesses located
and operating within the boundaries of the Village at La Quinta specific plan area.
350-1
UA Qum 5-M
2. Each sign panel shall contain the name of the business and a directional arrow on one line.
3. Indirect lighting may be provided as set forth in Section 9.100.150.
F. Sign Locations. Five structures shall be allowed with specific locations to be approved by the planning
commission.
The specific location at each intersection shall be approved by the director of community development
and the director of public works. The structures may be located in the city's right-of-way. If located in the
right-of-way, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the director of public works. The structures shall
be located for maximum readability and traffic/pedestrian safety.
G. Installation. The city shall have the discretion to contract with a nonprofit group or nongovernmental
agency to install and manage the sign panels and structures. Fees may be charged only to the extent necessary
to cover costs for installation and subsequent maintenance. The group or agency chosen to administer the
downtown Village directional sign program shall sign a memorandum of agreement with the city setting forth
the scope; of responsibilities and services to be provided.
H. Maintenance. The group or agency contracted to install and manage the sign panels and structures
shall be responsible for maintaining the panels and structures in good order at all times. Upon request by the
city, sign panels and structures shall be repaired and/or maintained within thirty days of said request. Failure
to repair/maintain sign panels and structures shall be cause for city to request removal or to remove. (Ord.
284 § 1 i(Exh. A) (part), 1996)
351
aA Quinm 9-%) i
ATTACHMENT #2
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
The City of La Quinta hereby designates the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce as the sole and
exclusive provider of The Semi -Permanent Downtown Village Directional Sign Program. Said
program shall be conducted by the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce in accordance with all
applicable City Codes and City of La Quinta Resolution 97-02 (Exhibit "A", attached hereto).
The Chamber of Commerce will provide the following services:
1. Contact all applicable businesses contained within the area zoned and designated as "The
Village District" by the City of La Quinta, and register them into the Program if they so
desire.
2. Act as point of contact for businesses who are involved in the Program.
3. Communicate with business concerns and transactions to the Sign Company retained by the
Chamber of Commerce to provide designated services.
4. Act as point of contact to handle all City concerns and/or requests.
5. Be directly responsible for the performance of duties by the Sign Company.
6. Directly invoice businesses for services rendered and pay the Sign Company for such
services.
7. Fees may be charged only to the extent necessary to cover costs for installation and
subsequent maintenance.
8. Arbitrate any differences between Sign Company businesses.
9. Design and install signs in accordance with City approved Programs and any applicable City
ordinances.
10. Maintain signs in good order at all times. Upon request by the City, sign panels and
structures shall be repaired and/or maintained within 30-days of said request. Failure to
repair/maintain sign panels and structures shall be cause for the City to request removal or
to remove said signs.
11. Install approved identification header panels on all sign structures.
12. The Sign Program will be made available to all businesses within The Village District at one
price, irrespective of marketings within the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce.
DOCJHCHAM.sgnpr
Memorandum of Agreement
Chamber of Commerce - Village Directional Sign Program
13. The Chamber of Commerce further agrees to hold the City of La Quinta harmless from any
claims for damages as a result of the erection or maintenance of any signs. The signs shall
be the property of the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce.
14. The Chamber of Commerce shall make vacant sign panels available to the City to be used
for community service projects and public/City landmarks when requested by the City, based
upon mutual agreement.
The City of La Quinta agrees that the Sign Program shall be conducted by the La Quinta Chamber
of Commerce for a minimum of one year from the signing of this Agreement, provided there is
sufficient market demand. Thereafter, the City Council of the City of La Quinta may upon a thirty
(30) day written notification to the Chamber of Commerce cancel this Agreement and require the
Chamber to remove all signs and sign structures. The City Council of the City of La Quinta will
give the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce fifteen (15) days written notice prior to any consideration
of an action to cancel this Agreement.
The sign structures and signs shall conform to the following general standards:
1. Structures shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height and six (6) feet in width.
2. Structures shall contain no more than six (6) sign panels per face or side.
Structures shall have no more than two faces or sides.
4. Structures shall include, at the top, a decorative cap or sign of maximum two feet six inches
(2'6") high and six (6) feet wide.
The base shall be constructed of block, brick, wood, stone, or other similar material.
6. Design, construction, color, and materials of structure and text shall be approved by the
Planning Commission.
7. No tag, sign, streamer, devise, display board or other attachment may be added or placed
upon the structure.
8. Downtown Village Directional Sign Panels which are mounted in the monument base
structure shall be eight (8) inches in height and five (5) feet wide, and shall conform to the
following standards:
a. The use of said sign panels shall be for the sole identification of any commercial
businesses located and operating within the boundaries of The Village District area.
DOCJHCHAM.sgnpr
Memorandum of Agreement
Chamber of Commerce - Village Directional Sign Program
b. Each sign panel shall contain the name of the business and a directional arrow on one
line.
C. Indirect lighting may be provided as set forth in Section 9.100.150.
9. Five structures shall be allowed as approved by the Planning Commission and are as follows:
a. Calle Tampico and Washington Street - a single sided sign.
b. Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas - a double sided sign.
C. Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive - a double sided sign.
d. 52nd Avenue and Washington Street - a single sided sign.
e. 52nd Avenue and Avenida Bermudas - a single sided sign.
This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement between the City of La Quinta
and the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiation or previous agreements
between the City and Chamber with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. All
waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate
authorities of the City or of the Chamber.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the City of La Quinta and
the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce on this ??/ day of 7-74w" 1997, as authorized by
Resolution?"? -Gbh of the City Council.
n
ATT��T:
AfJNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAWN C. HONEYWELL, City Attorney
CITY OF LA QUINTA
ITIBy
OMAS P. GENOVESE, City Manager
LA QUINTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
n
DATE: BY "Lq
MICHELLE DALLAS, Executive Director
D0CJHCHAM.sgnpr
C..N4NM
+ BANK OF THE DESERT
LA QUINTA FLORISTvISABELIAS
SANTA ROSA REALTY
LA QUINTA PROPERTIES
e- ,Teak
ATTACH ME NT #3
A :
6) SIGN
STRUCTURES 1'0
BE CONSISTENT
WITH BIA
APPROVED
DESIGN
CRITERfA. SIGNS
TO BE E Of
3/4,M00 PLY
MOUNTED TO
416" POSTS
Alt KAM, DESIGNS,ARIAKEMfNTS Ar+O f4�`r5 ►!� CAi�.I t?it
Best�`�' �+'�� Inc. >ZintstwED RY MIS DRAWING ARE OWK-0 BY AND r1br HTY C
� MT S:GNS..NC ANU WERE CILEA10, tVOLVIV M irEfyfLOnD
mw �6Jn S CtiEROKEE WAY FCA USE ON A D IN CONNFCrOPt WMi THC SKCP" rM CT
PALM �i'AlNC,S, CA 9? 1 f•A Nbtr. OF SUCr+lDfAS. OFStS, It>ZRI$VGi NT3C7�t PtJS*1
;o �) s. _ b S usE BY oR �tsCtOs(p io AIJY P#RSO�fUA dt CaRtORnh
FOR M,4Y PURPOSE W"ATSOMR WJUTM4MAAS
Of SESt SIGNS, INC
projeel name:
atY' } safe;
ATTACHMENT
INTERSECTION OF CALLE TAMPICO AND AVENIDA BERMUDAS
NORTHWEST CORNER
Yfli aii/mccolML0
NORTHEAST CORNER
SOUTHEAST CORNER
13
AVENIDA BERMUDAS AND AVENUE 52
LOOKING EAST ON AVENUE 52
LOOKING WEST ON AVENUE 52
j
EISENHOWER DRIVE AND CALLE TAMPICO
LOOKING NORTH ON EISENHOWER DRIVE
LOOKING SOUTH ON EISENHOWER DRIVE
l�
WASHINGTON STREET AND CALLE TAMPICO
LOOKING NORTH ON WASHINGTON STREET
LOOKING SOUTH ON WASHINGTON STREET
WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 52
LOOKING NORTH ON WASHINGTON STREET
LOOKING SOUTH ON WASHINGTON STREET
Mr. Jerry Herman
City of La Quinta
La Quinta, California 92253
Dear Jerry,
44
OLO-TOW11
LA QV11jtA
ATTACHMENT #5
October 15, 2003
Thank you for taking time to explain the guidelines of Directional Signage to me at the
City of La Quinta. Please take this request for Old Town La Quinta Directional Signage
with you to the Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003.
Old Town La Quinta would like to have Directional Signae on the La Quinta Chamber
of Commerce Directional Signs at these locations: (1.) 52° and Washington (2.) Calle
Tampico and Washington (3.) Eisenhower and Calle Tampico. We request that the
signage be printed in Old Town La Quinta's font and color. We respect fully ask that
you grant the request for our "signature" font and color on the signage in order to keep
the integrity of Old Town's visual appeal active.
Thank You,
1V
Liz Davies
Old Town La Quinta
C•NkM
F BANK OF THE DESERT
F fAQUINTAFtORISTmISABELIAS
3 OLO-Towrl
Clow 110111�wpwl
Ot IAQUINTAPROPERTIES
="Tk
ATTACHMENT #
6) SIGN
STRUCTURES 1'0
BE CONSISTENT
WITH BIA
APPROVED
DESIGN
CREYERW SIGNS
TO 8f MADE OF
3/4" MOO PLY
MOUNTED TO
416" POSTS
�..wr�rrw.�w...rnrr�ww.�...wuw.��...u•.swoA+•...�r. w�Mr�rh+• w++.f.--�.�.r.�� Y�MrY�.�.�'.r
Ail. mkm, 0£AN
SIGNS, AN�►,`+ O ftS "ViCATtv %x
Signs, Inc. IfNISEMED BY MIS DRAWING ARE OWW BY AND MtOMTY
4.. >~
$1316:GNS, tiC ANU WfRE CRfA1tD, FV )MV AN.. 1 MOW)
(01 USIr ON AND IN CCNNECnOk Wt1T1 THE S+ffC om now
71500 S CHEROKI`£ WAY NOW OF SUCH IX AS. Of5161` S, AARANGiA�N'St'� PIJd►S �*�
PALM SPRfNt'.S, CA 971 hA "USEE) 8Y OR f�ISCLOSto 10 MJY PtERSC?N 1k, dt CAR%ORAr
I(;19) 32 8.6 2 7 _S f 01 "4y PURPOSE W°MATSOIN R W111NOUi 'hit W tj??IW ? mArl5
Of SESI SIGNS, INC
w..wa.+ar..-.-.,.r..w....�.............�...�,�.�.........i..-».r..+,«..�.s....,...e,,..d ..o.s.se'..o •....,�:.c. _�i- __._ . _ .. .. ... • ... � .__.
qty.
it t
scale; # • 0,
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
l
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2003
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA — OCTOBER 28, 2003
Please find attached the Minutes for your meeting of October 14, 2003. In
addition, we have had to make a change to the agenda by adding a Business
Item and re -organizing. The corresponding staff reports are attached.
Resolutions for Public Hearing Item B have been created that correspond to
the appropriate tract.
Should you have any questions concerning this information, please contact
myself or Oscar.
CAN AN
PRESENTED ISY THE
Istitute for Local
Government
Studies
Of
The Center for
American and
Iternational Law
)rmerly The Southwestern
Legal Foundation)
COOPERATION WITH THE
American Bar
Association
Pection of State
and Local
iovernment Law s
INTER FOR AMERICAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
)x 799030
Texas 75379-9030
**********AUTO**MIX 6
TOM KIRK J� �
PLANNING COMMISSION �'
PO BOX 1504 (1
LA QUINTA CA 92253-1504 1--
l %11-mm
NONPROF
ORGANIZATI
U.S. POSTP
PAID
PERMIT NO.
DALLAS, TE,
TIE DALLAS
METROPLEX
December 3-5, 2003
Robert H. Frellich
Kenneth A. Wright
Planning & Zoning Chair
Eminent Domain Chair
Editor, Urban Lawyer
Law Offices of Rogers
Frellich Leitner & Carlisle
& Wright, P.C.
Kansas City, Missouri
Dallas, Texas
0 Registration
PLANNING & ZONING
0 Land Use Litigation
TERRY D. MORGAN
Morgan & McKool, Dallas, Texas
ARTHUR J. ANDERSON
Winstead Sechrest & Minick, Dallas, Texas
30 Break
45 RLUIPA and Religious Land Use Generally
PROF. DANIEL MANDELKER
Washington University School of Law, St. Louis, Missouri
30 More on RLUIPA
MICHAEL Si. GIAIMO
Robinson & Cole, Boston, Massachusetts
45 Recent Developments in Federal
Telecommunications Act Law
MICHAEL S. GIAIMO
Robinson & Cole, Boston, Massachusetts
30 Lunch
0 The Unified Development Code:
Updating Development Codes; Merging Zoning
and Subdivision Standards
ROBERT H. FREILICH
Frei/ich, Leitner & Carlisle, Kansas City, Missouri
5 Use of Development Agreements Outside City
Limits - Statutory Opportunities and Limitations
TERRY D. MORGAN
Morgan & McKoo/, Dallas, Texas
ROBERT H. FREILICH
Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, Kansas City, Missouri
5 Break
4:00 Cuyahoga County (U.S. Supreme Court) and
Shea v. County of Alameda (California) on
Initiatives and Affordable Housing - Federal
and State Challenges
DANIEL J. CURTIN
Bingham & McCutchen LLP, Walnut Creek, California
5:00 Recess
8:30 Current Decisions on Planning and Zoning
PROF. BRUCE M. KRAMER
Maddox Professor of Law, Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas
10:00 Update on Exactions. The Legislative versus
Administrative Distinction (Erlich v. Culver City
and Progeny)
DANIEL J. CURTIN, JR.
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Walnut Creek, California
The Texas Experience
ROBERT F. BROWN
Brown & Hofineister, LLP, Dallas, Texas
11:00 Break
11:15 Land Use Ethics - Practical Problems and Potential
Solutions (includes 1.0 hours of Ethics)
PROF. PATRICIA E. SALKIN
Director, Government Law Center
Albany Law School, Albany, New York
DAVID CAYLOR
City Attorney, Irving, Texas
12:15 Lunch
1:45 Land Use Ethics (continued) (includes .50 hour of Ethics)
2:15 Managing the Timing and Sequencing of Growth -
Ramapo Thirty- Five Years Later
ROBERT H. FREILICH
Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, Kansas City, Missouri
MICHAEL M. BERGER
Berger & Norton, Los Angeles, California
3:15 Break
3:30 Sprawl - How We Got There and Why There is No
Going Back in the Foreseeable Future
GIDEON KANNER
Burbank, California
DO Regulation of Sexually -Oriented Businesses
MADELINE B. JOHNSON
CityAttomey, Dallas, Texas
MARK BRYZA
Assistant City Attorney, Dallas, Texas
DOREEN MCGOOKEY
Assistant City Attorney, Dallas, Texas
)0 Recess
21DAY, DECEMBER 5, 2003
EMINENT DOMAIN
10 Recent Developments in Eminent Domain Law
— 200212003
GIDEON KANNER
Burbank, California
15 Break
30 Access: A Critical Component of a Property's
Market Value
H. DIXON MONTAGUE
Vinson & Elkins, LLP, Houston, Texas
30 Is There An Encl to the Ripeness Game?
MICHAEL M. BERGER
Berger & Norton, Los Angeles, California
30 Lunch
0 Independent Value + Legal Advocacy
Just Compensation
DAVID BOLTON
David R. Bolton, Inc., Austin, Texas
D Negotiation and Other Prerequisites to
Condemnation
C. MEDFERD OWEN, JR.
Bullock, Scott & Neisig, Midland, Texas
i Break
Practical Consideration in Pursuing or
Defending the Condemnation Case
KENNETH A. WRIGHT
Law Offices of Rogers & Wright, P.C., Dallas, Texas
) Adjourn
p,CAN 4N
Robert H. Freilich
Planning & Zoning Co -Chair
Editor, Urban Lawyer
Freilich Leitner & Carlisle
Kansas City, Missouri
Daniel J. Curtin, Jr.
Planning & Zoning Co -Chair
Bingham & McCutchen, LLP
Walnut Creek, California
Kenneth A. Wright
Eminent Domain Chair
Law Offices of Rogers & Wright, P.C.
Dallas, Texas
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2003
1:30 Registration
9:00 Recent Developments in Eminent Domain Law
— 2002/2003
GIDEON KANNER
Burbank, California
10:15 Break
10:30 Access: A Critical Component of a Property's
Market Value
H. DIXON MONTAGUE
Vinson & Elkins, LLP, Houston, Texas
11:30 Is There An End to the Ripeness Game?
MICHAEL M. BERGER
Berger & Norton, Los Angeles, California
12:30 Lunch
2:00 Independent Value + Legal Advocacy
= Just Compensation
DAVID BOLTON
David R. Bolton, Inc., Austin, Texas
2:50 Compensation for Damages in Eminent Domain When th
Take Does Not Touch the Subject Property
LARRY J. SMITH
Graham & Dunn, Seattle, Washington
3:45 Break
4:00 Practical Considerations in Pursuing or Defending the
Condemnation Case
KENNETH A. WRIGHT
Law Offices of Rogers & Wright, P.C., Dallas, Texas
5:00 Recess
HURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2003 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2003
PLANNING & ZONING
30 Current Decisions on Planning and Zoning
PROF. BRUCE M. KRAMER
Maddox Professor of Law, Texas Tech University
Lubbock,7bxas
00 Break
I. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
15 Cuyahoga County (U.S. Supreme Court) and Shea v
County of Alameda (California) on Initiatives and
Affordable Housing — Federal and State Challenges
DANIEL J. CURTIN
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Walnut Creek, Califomia
TOM JACOBSON
Professor, ,Sonoma State University
Assistant County Attorney, Alameda County
Alameda, Califomia
05 Inciusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing after
Homebuilders v. Napa County (California)
W'ILLIAM HIGGINS
Land Use Program Director
Institute for Local Self -Government,
League of Califomia Cities
Sacramento, Califomia
00 Lunch
0 Homeland Security — Land Use, Zoning and
the Role of Local Government
RUFUS C. YOUNG, JR.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, San Diego, Califomia
IL THE NEW URBANISM
IV. LAND USE FISCAL IMPACTS IN A STATE OF CONSTRAI
8:30 Update on Exactions. The Legislative versus
Administrative Distinction (Erlich v. Culver City and
Progeny)
DANIEL J. CURTIN
Bingham McCutchen LLP, Walnut Creek, Califomia
9:20 Financing Large Scale Development Projects
Under Fiscal Constraint; Facility Benefit
Assessments and Other Flexible Techniques
BARNEY A. ALLISON
Nossaman, Gunther Knox & Elliott, Los Angeles, Califomia
10:10 Break
V. LAND USE BY AGREEMENTS
10:25 Negotiating Development Agreements on Large
Scale Projects: The Private Perspective
ROBERT I. MCMURRY
Nossaman, Gunther, Knox & Elliott, LLP
Los Angeles, Califomia
11:15 Negotiating Development Agreements on Large
Scale Projects: The Public Perspective
AMY E. FREILICH
Gilchrist & Rutter, Santa Monica, Califomia
12:05 Lunch
VI. THE NEW URBANISM (CONT.)
1:30 The Future of Urban Growth: Design
JIM STEBBINS
Project Design Consultants, San Diego, Califomia
MICHAEL RATAJSKI
Project Design Consultants, San Diego, Califomia
0 Legal and Planning Issues in the Regulation of 2:20 The Cost of Growth, Affordable Housing, and the Impact
"BIG BOX" Commercial and McMansion Residential on Cities
Land Uses ROBERT BURCHELL
FRANK BANGS Rutgers State University, Center for Urban Policy Research
Lewis andd Roca, Tucson, Arizona New Brunswick, New Jersey
0 Break
III. ENVIRONMENTAL
5 Sprawl: How We Got There and Why There is No
Going Back in the Foreseeable Future
GIDEON KANNER
Burbank, Califomia
D Developing and Implementing Smart Growth
Agricultural and Environmentally Sensitive Land
Preservation: New Techniques for Financially
Strapped State and Local Governments
ROBERT H. FREILICH
Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, Kansas City, Missouri
7 Recess
3:10 Break
3:25 The Unified Development Code: Updating
Development Codes; Merging Zoning and
Subdivision Standards
ROBERT H. FREILICH
Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, Kansas City, Missouri
4:00 Managing the Timing and Sequencing of Growth —
Ramapo Thirty -Five Years Later
ROBERT H. FREILICH
Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, Kansas City, Missouri
5:00 Recess
VISIT OUR W.. EBSITE A:0*R`
L, FAX OR EIMAIL TO: COURSE LOCATION
strar, The Center for American and International Law Phone: 972.244.3405
Box 799030 *Fax: 972.244.3401
is, Texas USA 75379-9030 E-mail: cburkel@cailaw.org DALLAS METROPIEX - DECEMBER 3-520
The program will be held at the he,
Dallas Metroplex, Texas (December 3-5, 2003)
quarters of The Center for Americ
San Francisco, California (December 10-12, 2003)
and International Law, 5201 Democr,
!MEMBERS:
Drive at Le Park in Plano, Tex
g yac
k1l sessions $595 (Government employees/officials - $425) $
75024. Our beautiful new hoi
contains state-of-the-art educatioi
'tanning and Zoning Sessions (2 days) $435
and conference facilities, includi
Govt. employees/officials - $300) $
several multipurpose classrooms,
:minent Domain Sessions (1 day) $215 (Govt. employees/officials - $150) $
courtroom/auditorium, and a busine
center for your use while on camp)
BERS:
We hope you will join us for this extras
►s a member of the Institute for Local Government Studies, we wish to
dinary program and that you will enj
egister people at $395 each for all sessions (Gout. employees/
our learning center.
fficials $225)
$
DIRECTION FROG L7FiN AIRPORT: Ta
am a member of The Center for American and International Law or the
the North Airport exit. Take 121 Noi
,BA Section of State and Local Government and enclosed is my check
and go approximately 18.5 mill
)r $475 for all sessions (Govt. employees/officials - $305) $
to Legacy Drive. Turn right on Lega
would like information about membership in the Institute for Local
Drive and go 1.5 miles to Parkwoi
government Studies.
Blvd. Turn right on Parkwood Blvd. ai
go .4 mile to Tennyson Parkway. Tu
ou may join now and take immediate advantage of the member discount. A member
left on Tennyson Parkway and go
pplication form is available on the following page. Please note the discounted prices for
mile to Democracy Drive. We are on ti
iovt. employees/officials.
right, on the corner of Democracy Dri,
and Tennyson Parkway.
DIRECTIONS FROM LOVE FIELD: Exit Sou
from Love Field and turn left (east) c
irm/Organization Mockingbird. Turn left onto Dallas Nor
Tollway. Take the Spring CreE
ss Parkway/Tennyson Parkway exit ar
drive north on the Dallas North TollwE
Mate/Zip frontage road. Go through the first stc
light and turn right at the next stop ligl
lone Fax (Tennyson Parkway). Proceed east c
Tennyson for .7 mile. We are at the rigl
I corner of Tennyson Parkway an
Please list additional names on a separate sheet. Democracy Drive.
'CREDIT CARD INFORMATION MAY BE FAXED SAN FRANCISCO - DECEMBER 10-I2 200
heck enclosed payable to: The Center for American and International Law
Card: ID Mastercard' 0 Visa',
slumber
on card
address (if different than above address)
U AMEX 0 Discover"
_ Expiration Date
This program will be held at th
Westin St. Francis Hotel (Unio
Square), 335 Powell Street, Sa
Francisco, California 94102.
u re
a a
r�rr "` maws
1
r •�,.. 9"s --_ _.. .i _.. __ _..:rrs"'' .+
1
�;-
X
r;.
The new ifte fot the Callas Progratn - the,h.eadcluarters of the Center foi- American and Inter national Law.
:5201 PeniocracyDrive, Piano, T'exas,75024-3561
iOTEa1/a rPlagrnn; jibe .pst'f .housing is not CANCELLATION: Tuition, less a $50 handling charge fi
ricluded in'th imitien.*biook of rooms has been reserved each registration, will be refunded upon written cancellatic
at theWarriott Legacy Tomi'Center, 7120 Dallas Parkway,_ of registration received not later than November 19 (Dalla
'lano;'TK, 24,.�v►rwwrriottom.=41etdistrants should and November 26 (San Francisco). Cancellations receivE
iontact the Marriott 16gacy Town .,Center directly at after this date will not be refunded, but substitutions for th
)72/473�444 r 1-800-Z2$ J290A Teduced room rate of program are welcome.
029 js , avail ble of you 0dvise,.,_---,-4he,,,,,,h tel that . you are
attending 'a" nter for American fand :International Law MCLE CREDIT: MCLE credit is being requested from tr
)rogram. The Iasi �iay to .obtain this special rate is State Bar of Texas for 18.5 hours, including 1.5 hou
lovember 12 2003. .'Shuttle ;service =to ``the :Center is of ethics for the Dallas program; and 18.75 hours (no ethic
)rovided by t e it itel ;upon availability' San` ;IFrancisco for the San Francisco program. Sign -in forms and/or certi
Drpgram: The ost(of housing is not irlc(uded in the tuition. cafes of attendance will be available for California and
block _of ro ms ;has ,been .reserved titheWestin St. ,other states:
-rancis #i te1, ilnipti �guare, --335 Powell Street, San
ndssGo, �G t��la2.� �stran�, uld icon#act A' he NI ONDISCRIiMINATION POLICY: It is the policy of The Centi
Nestin St. 'Pr ncis Q#ol lirectly vat 415/397-7g00. A �for;American and "International Law that no person, on tY
eactuc°d Strom ate oaf 140 is:.available if you advise the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin or ancestr
iotef ghat ;you are; it brag + "mentor .fior medcan and age or handicap, shall be discriminated against in educ,
rtimationai (: w �aroramheaJst :allay to ob#ain this 'tional programs and activities; scholarship programs i
�pral rates ov>✓ bore, 21Q3 admissions.
WBERSHIP