2004 03 09 PCFA &LVA-F4
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
MARCH 9, 2004
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2004-017
Beginning Minute Motion 2004-006
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 for the meeting of February 24, 2004
B. Department Report
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgenda.W.doc
V. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Item ................ STREET NAME CHANGE 2003-015
Applicant.......... La Quinta Polo Partners
Location........... West of Madison Street, south of Avenue 51
Request............ Consideration of a street name change from Beth
Circle to Norris Drive.
Action .............. Resolution 2004-
B. Item ................ STREET NAME CHANGE 2003-016
Applicant.......... ND La Quinta Partners
Location........... Within the Hideaway project on the east side of
Jefferson Street, north of Avenue 54
Request............ Consideration of a street name change from Village
Club Drive to Hideaway Club Drive and Village Club
Place to Via Mirasol.
Action .............. Resolution 2004-
C. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-499 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32117
Applicant.......... Quarry Ranch L.L.C.
Location........... West side of Jefferson Street, south of Quarry
Lane
Request............ Consideration of certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact and
the re -subdivision of 6.32 acres into 13 residential
lots.
Action .............. Resolution 2004- Resolution 2004-
D. Item ................ VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021
Applicant.......... Coronet Enterprises
Location........... Southwest corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida
Navarro
Request............ Consideration of a request to construct a two-
story, 15,525 square foot office building on a .30
acre site.
Action .............. Resolution 2004-
VI BUSINESS ITEM:
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
Vlll. 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 March 23, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.
S:\Website Updates\Community Development\PCAgenda3-9.doc
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
February 24, 2004 7:00 P.M.
I. 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 Tyler to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Rick Daniels, Paul Quill, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk.
C. Staff present: Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci,
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit, Greg Trousdell, Martin Magana, and
Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
February 10, 2003. There being corrections, it was moved and seconded
by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected.
B. Department Report: None.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Sign Application 2004-758; a request of I.E.A. Industries, Inc., for
consideration of a deviation from a Sign Program to allow corporate
colors for a proposed internally illuminated 15 square foot Subway
Restaurant sign on the south building facade located at 50-801
Washington Street.
r_.��nionnrc or nn . . ')n nn%nin 4—
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the
information contained in the 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 adopted sign program would
allow a second on the west fact and if they were asking for a sign
in this location. Staff stated no.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if any of the other tenants were using
anything other than a white background. Staff stated two of the
free standing pad buildings were allowed channel letter. The only
other exception is the Dyson and Dyson building which was
allowed a modified cabinet sign. The only in -line tenant that has a
deviation is the Pizza Hut.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Staff stated the applicant had called and stated he
was sick and unable to attend.
5. There being no further questions, and no other public comment,
Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the
hearing.
6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Quill to adopt
Minute Motion 2004-005, approving Sign Application 2004-758,
as recommended. Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2004-798; a request of Summit Team Inc. for
L.Q. Investments L.P. for consideration of architectural plans for a one
story 1,192 square foot addition to the existing Dyson & Dyson Real
Estate building located at 50-981 Washington Street, within the La
Quinta Village Shopping Center.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the
information contained in the 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 staff to clarify the pop out area next to
the palm trees. Staff explained the addition.
r_n�nicnnrc�or hAin. +r N) on nn%nm 4-, 2
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
3. Commissioner Quill questioned why so many boiler plate
conditions (#10, #11, #14, #15, #16, etc.) were needed. He
would recommend eliminating the conditions that are not
necessary. Staff stated that some conditions could be deleted.
The conditions do help applicants check to ensure that some of
the areas listed are completed. Discussion followed as to the
necessity of some of the conditions.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. There being no applicant and no other public
comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of
the hearing.
5. Commissioner Quill asked that the parapet roof be modified to
have a rotunda with a the roof and exposed rafter tails.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if any equipment was proposed to be on
the roof. Staff stated they did not have any equipment proposed
for this new addition.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked that the water feature and palm trees
be retained.
8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-004, approving Site
Development Permit 2004-798, as amended.
a. Conditions #10, #11, #12, #14, #15, #17, #18, and #20,
deleted.
b. Condition #2: add the following: ...., if such clearances
and/or permits are applicable."
C. The rotunda shall be a modified to incorporate a sloped roof
with a mudded tile and exposed rafter tails.
d. The existing water feature and palm trees on the south side
of the building's patio will not be changed.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Abels left the meeting due to illness.
r_• �nionnrc�or nn . r���o 3
W nn%nm 4-,
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
C. Site Development Permit 2004-797; a request of WG Properties for
consideration of development plans for the construction of a 7,430
square foot office structure located on the west side of Caleo Bay in Lake
La Quinta, north of the Omri & Boni Restaurant.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the
information contained in the 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 why the extra six feet of width on
Washington Street. Steve stated to be consistent with the
General Plan as well as Council's policy on deceleration lanes.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked about the Architecture and Landscaping
Review Committee recommendations. Staff stated the
cobblestone was intended to be a hardscape area for those
walking through the planter. The applicant was concerned that it
not be identified as a walkway which would require the ADA
requirements. Discussion followed regarding ADA requirements
and the location of the walkway.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked about the parking requirements. Staff
explained the parking requirements would be based on the tenants.
The uses could be restricted if the use creates a greater demand
on the parking than the number of parking spaces provided.
5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Timothy Bunch, architect for the project,
explained the building site and parking layout.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this
project. Mr. Chuck Topalian, contractor for the project, explained
the purpose of the cobblestone areas.
7. There being no further questions, and no other public comment,
Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the
hearing.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #2 where it references
Coachella Valley Unified School District be changed to Desert
Sands Unified School District.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
9. Commissioner Quill asked why California Water Quality Control
Board was listed in the conditions. Staff stated NPDS rules are
changing and any site over half acre has to have a water plan.
Attorney Michael Houston stated it is required for both new and
currently existing construction depending on its size.
10. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #32 be amended to add
rock work and delete cobblestone. Condition #35 seems to be
subjective and not needed.
11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Quill to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-005, approving Site
Development Permit 2004-797, as amended:
a. Condition 2: Change CVUSD to DSUSD and add the
following: if such clearances and/or permits are
applicable."
b. Condition #32: Change to "...incorporate rock work..."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
D. Environmental Assessment 2003-490 and Tentative Tract Map 31816; a
request of Mattco Construction for consideration of a recommendation to
certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and a
request to subdivide ± 7.75 acres into 26 single-family lots located at the
southwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and Roadrunner Lane.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the
information contained in the 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 Roudel Lane was to be a public
street. Staff stated yes.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked about the wall along Westward Ho
Drive. Staff stated it was Condition #79.
4. Commissioner Quill asked why a clearance was needed from
Sunline Transit Agency. Staff noted a letter had not been received
from Sunline and it was to ensure they had no issues.
i_'•%%A1DrlllrC1Dr nn;.,,..V) OA nAXAM 4-, 5
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
5. Chairman Kirk asked if staff was concerned with putting low
density residential into a medium density residential zone in terms
of being in compliance with the Housing Element. Staff noted that
in the past staff would only be concerned if it was a change from
low to a higher density in the surrounding area. The current
General Plan is not as specific in regard to density. Interim
Community Development Director Oscar Orci stated there are no
issues in regard to Housing Element. The project as proposed is
consistent with the General Plan.
6. Commissioner Tyler noted the Water Efficient Landscaping
condition should be boiler plated and Condition #8 of Public
Hearing "G" would be a good example.
7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. David Hacker, engineer for the project, gave an
explanation of the project and stated they agreed with the
conditions.
8. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Tyler asked if there were any issues with the grade
differential. Mr. Hacker stated no.
9. Chairman Kirk asked how the sidewalk and street would be
designed. Mr. Hacker explained they expect to have a curb, small
parkway, and eight -foot sidewalk. Chairman Kirk stated he would
prefer to see a five foot sidewalk and more landscaping. Assistant
City Engineer Steve Speer explained the wider sidewalk was to
accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.
10. There being no further questions, and no other public comment,
Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the
hearing.
11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-006, certifying a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for
Environmental Assessment 2003-490, as recommended:
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
on mmAm a....
6
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-007, approving
Tentative Tract Map 31816, as amended:
a. Condition #53: A five-foot sidewalk shall be constructed on
Roudel Lane and Roadrunner Lane and eight feet along
Westward Ho Drive, and the parkway landscaping
increased.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Kirk excused himself due to a potential conflict due to the proximity
of his residence and left the dais. Commissioner Tyler was asked to act as
Chairman. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston noted that with Chairman
Kirk leaving the Commission, a two -member vote will be a majority vote.
E. Village Use Permit 2004-020; a request of Old Town La Quinta, LLC for
consideration of development plans for two commercial buildings with
58,550 square foot of floor space in the Village Commercial Zone (Phase
II of Specific Plan 2001-058 located at the southwest corner of Calle
Tampico and Desert Club Drive.
1. Acting Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the
information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Acting Chairman Tyler asked staff where the area was that the
ALRC wanted landscaped. Staff explained the location.
3. Acting Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address
the Commission. Mr. Wells Marvin stated he was available to
answer any questions.
4. Acting Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Quill asked if there was any thought to a
treatment to the sidewalks. Mr. Marvin explained there were
problems with drainage as there is no grade. Second, they wanted
the site to have an older look. After the landscaping, bicycle
racks, etc., are added, it should not be as noticeable.
/7•\UUDnnrC\Dr on nn%nin .4,.,. 7
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
5. There being no further questions, and no other public comment,
Acting Chairman Tyler closed the public participation portion of the
hearing.
6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-008, approving
Village Use Permit 2004-020, as amended:
a. Condition #30: deleted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, and Acting Chairman
Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels and Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Kirk rejoined the Commission.
F. Site Development Permit 2003-793; a request of CP Development La
Quinta, LLC for consideration of development plans for a 133 room hotel
and 132 associated casitas units located at the southeast corner of
Washington Street and Miles Avenue.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the 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 staff to provide information for the
entire site. Staff reviewed the project site. Commissioner Daniels
asked if the restaurant sites would have their own access. Staff
stated no, they would be internal within the site.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the circulation in regard
to the parking spaces for the hotel. Staff stated it is 1 parking
space per room. Commissioner Tyler questioned why the
Commission would be approving grading and park plans. Staff
explained the Specific Plan required them to be submitted for
Commission approval.
4. Chairman Kirk asked for clarification on the reason why the park
plan was before the Commission. Staff stated it could be
reviewed at a later date as the applicant needs to do some more
work on the park plan. Chairman Kirk asked how far the Porte-
cochere was within the 150-foot setback. Staff stated it is 133
c•%%A1Dnnr'C1Dr^ on AMAIn a.... 8
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
feet set back or 17 feet into the setback area. Chairman Kirk
asked if the Specific Plan sets the height limits or does it rely on
the Zoning Code. Staff stated the Conditions are in the Specific
Plan.
5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Richard Oliphant, applicant, gave a presentation
on the project and introduced Greg Watkins, architect, Margo
Thiebalt, engineer, and Chris Hermann, landscape architect, who
gave a presentation on the project.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Chairman Kirk asked if the park site would be a super pad or just
graded. Ms. Thiebalt stated it would be a superpad but it is based
on the Development Agreement.
7. Commissioner Quill asked how the retaining wall would be
softened. Mr. Chris Hermann, landscape architect, stated it would
be setback and landscaped.
8. Ms. Thiebalt went over the conditions with questions. The Parcel
Map creates the individual sites and as it is not before the
Commission she questions Condition #8 and #1 1. The Conditions
regarding retention basins as well, as the site will not have any.
Condition #44.A.3 in regard to the Parcel Map where all
improvements shall be constructed and in place. They would like
to post a bond or security based on an approved plan that would
be submitted to the City. Condition #52 refers to residential
development and there is no component to the residential portion
of the site that is before the Commission at this time.
9. Commissioner Tyler asked when the mass grading was proposed
to start. Ms. Thiebalt stated when the approvals are obtained.
Commissioner Tyler asked if Seeley Drive in its entirety was to be
completed in the first phase. Ms. Thiebalt stated yes.
Commissioner Tyler asked about the signal. Staff stated it would
not be required until the warrants are met.
10. There being no further questions, Chairman Kirk asked if there was
any other public comment. Mr. Dave Lippert, 78-745 Rockberry
Court, stated he did not believe the Specific Plan allowed any
access from Washington Street. He was concerned about traffic
turning out onto Washington Street. Chairman Kirk noted Seeley
Drive did go all the way through and was noted in the Specific
9
r_• �n�onnrc�or nei....+—\o on nn%nm A-
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
Plan. It is not noted on this plan as these plans are for site
development only. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the
Specific Plan did note the accesses off of Washington Street and
are not before the Commission at this time. They are in a slightly
different location. In regard to site line and the wall, there will be a
12 foot parkway (curbline to the right of way line) and an
additional 20 feet at the bottom of the retaining wall. In regard to
slowing traffic down, the parcel map will define property lines and
anticipate a deceleration line will be needed for Seeley Drive as
well as the main entrance into the hotel. This is why the Parcel
Map has been referenced in the conditions. The City has concerns
in regard to the corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue
where they have incorrectly depicted the way the right turn works.
They have encroached into an area the City is already using for
public right of way. There are also concerns along Miles Avenue.
Chairman Kirk asked if there would be a declaration lane on Miles
Avenue. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated no, because
there already is an extra lane. In regard to the retention basin
conditions, Condition #30 will be reworded to be more specific to
allow them to drain to the Whitewater Channel. Condition
#44.3.c. the last paragraph will be revised to a different milestone.
Condition #8 there are dedications that may impact the layout of
this site and needs to remain as they may not be able to meet their
setbacks. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci
stated this was a place holder to reserve the right to ask for right
of way. Staff would suggest a place holder condition be added to
allow the City to impose additional requirements subject to the
future entitlements. Condition #52 they have no issue with.
11. Mr. Lippert asked how they could submit applications before they
should. Why are they not being required to follow the rules.
12. Ms. Thiebalt stated they had received notification of the problems
in regard to setbacks and believe they have solved them. The
Parcel Map is not needed in regard to this application. It is a
convenience to the developer to transfer title to the individual pad
sites.
13. Commissioner Daniels asked if the City had the right-of-way
needed if the Parcel Map is not part of this application. Assistant
City Engineer Steve Speer stated he has not seen the new map
and as long as the applicant understands the City has to have the
right-of-way, he has no objections.
r-i%AiDnr%rC\Dr on nA%Ain A-, 10
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
14. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the
public participation portion of the hearing.
15. Commissioner Quill commended the applicant on the project. As
long as the applicant and staff are comfortable with the
conditions, he has no issues.
16. Commissioner Tyler agreed. He expressed his concern about
approving a grading plan when this is not normally approved by
the Commission and staff has not given their approval.
17. Chairman Kirk concurred with the Commission on the project.
There is some concern with the retaining wall. He asked if the
landscaping would come back to the Commission. Staff stated it
could be brought back to the Commission. Chairman Kirk asked
that both the landscaping plan for the retaining wall and the park
be brought back to the Commission for review.
18. Commissioner Quill stated the grading plan is not a concern to
him, but review of the wall in relation to the landscaping is of
concern. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer informed the
Commission that the landscaping that was to go in front of the
wall is out to bid. The applicant can be required to come back and
enhance the plan. The wall requirements are open for discussion.
Commissioner Quill stated it is a mistake to not have the
landscaping done in concert with the retaining concepts. There
should be a way to split this apart to accomplish to have them
work together. The public portion should be held out of the bid to
allow this applicant's landscape architect to work with City staff
to design something that works together. Assistant city Engineer
Steve Speer stated there was a time constraint on applying for the
federal funds that will be paying for the landscaping and therefore
the plans have been drawn and sent out for bid. Discussion
followed as to possible alternatives. Commissioners asked that
staff review the landscaping plan to ensure it works with the
retaining wall.
19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-009, approving Site
Development Permit 2003-793, as amended:
a. Condition #30: applicable conditions regarding drainage to
be revisd.
r_•%Anionnrc%or nn;—.-11 on nn%nm .+.,..
11
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
b. Condition #44.3.c.: last paragraphs will be revised.
C. Condition #52: deleted.
d. Condition #71: Amend to allow the Park plan to go through
the normal review process.
e. Condition #76 & 77: deleted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioner Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 9:30 and reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
G. Site Development Permit 2003-795; a request of Brighton Properties for
consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three new single-
family prototype residential units each with three different elevations
located at 80-600 Avenue 52.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the
information contained in the 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 questioned staff about the chart. Staff
explained the chart. Staff noted the recommendation of the ALRC
of the mudded the roof.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Marie Sanchez, representing the applicant, gave
a presentation on the project. She would like to use the mudded
tile on the front and S-tile on the rear. She had no objections to
the conditions.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked about the ALRC recommendation about
replacing the aluminum edging for the landscaping. Ms. Sanchez
stated they would like to keep the newer aluminum product.
5. Commissioner Quill stated the S-tile could be mudded to get the
look and keep the cost down.
6. There being no further questions, and no other public comment,
Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the
hearing.
r.• �nionnrc cr nn. + ���')n nn%nin 4— 12
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-010, approving Site
Development Permit 2003-795, as amended:
a. Condition: roof may be S-tile if mudded.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
H. Environmental Assessment 2004-501 and General Plan Amendment
2004-099; a request of the City for a request to certify a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact and a General Plan
Amendment to add a Program to the Traffic and Circulation Element to
allow traffic signals within 1,060 feet of intersections throughout the
City.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the
information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer made a presentation on the three Options.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if all the options depending upon having
the gate at Highland Palms an emergency only. Staff stated all of
the Option 2s are dependent upon the emergency gate only.
3. Commissioner Quill asked if there was assurance that Caltrans the
lights could be synchronized with the Highway 1 1 1 signals. Staff
stated they are in the process of working this out with them.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked the distance from Highway 111 to
Channel Drive and Simon Drive to Highway 1 1 1. Staff stated it is
700 feet to Channel Drive and 900 to Simon Drive.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked about problems with the cul-de-sac on
Option 2. Staff clarified it is based on having two way traffic.
The north half would use this access instead of Highway Palms
and that is where the traffic would be generated from.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if the default alternative presented by the
applicant could have an acceleration lane for those leaving Plaza La
Quinta that would work with the deceleration lane for this project.
r_•��nionnrc�or RA;—•—%) on AMAMI A- 13
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
When Washington Park is constructed Washington Street will be
constructed to six lanes with a median and there may be an
opportunity for this to happen.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Environmental Assessment would
be affected by the different Options. Staff stated the
Environmental Assessment is based on staff's recommendation of
Option 2.
8. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. RickWilkerson, representing the applicant, gave
a presentation on the project.
9. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Quill asked if Option 2.0 reflects the default option
should the applicant not be able to purchase the houses. Staff
stated no; staff would have to amend the conditions for Option 3.
Commissioner Quill asked about the letter from Keith Companies,
for Washington Park, that indicated the traffic warrants do not
warrant a traffic signal at Simon Drive. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer stated he believes the intent is that they do not want
to pay for the signal.
10. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr.
Fred Huerta, 78-590 Singing Palms Drive, stated the traffic from
the St. Francis of Assisi Church causes extreme traffic. He
believes Option 3 would not work with this amount of traffic.
With Option his property is one that would have to be purchased.
The developers offer on his property so far is too low. He was
concerned that his property would not be purchased at its market
value.
11. Mr. Don Rector, 46-450 Cameo Palms Drive, stated his concern
was the amount of traffic that would be generated with the
different options. He would prefer Option 2.C.
12. Mr. John Hendricks, 46-555 Cameo Palms, stated Option 2.C. is
the preferred option of everyone.
13. Ms. Karen Broch, 78-395 Singing Palms, stated she supported
Option 2.C., even though she would not be affected by the project
as she is further down the street. Her concern is that her
neighbors would be affected by the constant traffic which would
be a detriment to the neighborhood.
r_.nnionnr'C%Drr ne;....+.,..V) on „MIA,rl A- 14
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
14. Mr. Bill Sanchez, owner's representative for Washington Park,
stated their concern is that when they went through their
entitlement process, the traffic report for their development
showed there was not enough traffic to warrant a traffic signal.
They are in opposition to contributing to a traffic signal at Singing
Palms. They could install a signal between Avenue 47 and Simon
Drive if warrants required it. There concern is that if a signal were
installed is there any guarantee that the synchronization between
Highway 1 1 1 and this signal can remain; will Caltrans keep it in
place. If not, it can be a negative impact on the traffic flow.
15. Mr. Aldo Corcini, 46-975 Highland Palms, stated he would like the
Commission to consider the default option if Option 2 is not
workable.
16. Ms. Michael Bendadell 46-875 Highland Palms Drive, voted for the
option that would keep her streets the same.
17. There being no further questions, and no other public comment,
Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the
hearing.
18. Commissioner Tyler stated the options that dump the traffic on to
the frontage road are unacceptable. The only option that makes
sense is Option 2.
19. Commissioner Daniels stated he also believes Option 2.0 is the
best alternative.
20. Commissioner Quill stated he too believes Option 2.0 is the best
alternative.
21. Chairman Kirk thanked the audience for staying the duration of the
meeting and thanked staff for their presentation. He is concerned
about having five traffic signals within two miles and the ability to
keep them synchronized.
22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-01 1, certifying a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for
Environmental Assessment 2004-501, as recommended.
15
r-1%A/DnnrQ1Dr on mmArn .4-
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-012, approving
General Plan Amendment 2004-501, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN:
None.
Environmental Assessment 2003-479, General Plan Amendment 2003-
094, Zone Change 2003-1 15 and Tentative Tract Map 31348; a request
of Madison Development, LLC for consideration to certify a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact, General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change to change the land use and zoning designations from
Medium Density Residential and Community commercial to Low Density
Residential; and the subdivision of 37.72 acres to allow 73 lots for the
property located at 46-201 Washington Street.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magaria presented the
information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-013, certifying a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for
Environmental Assessment 2003-479, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
3. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-014 approving
General Plan Amendment 2003-094, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-015 approving Zone
Change 2003-1 15, as recommended.
r-'-%1 1DnnrC\Dr ne;....+-%)')n nn%nin a..,. 16
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
5. Staff requested the Commission consider the default Option in
case Option 2.C. is not obtainable, Option 2.A.1
6. Commissioner Quill asked if they had to approve a default option
as this provides the opportunity to make it easy for the applicant
to not acquire the properties. He is adamant that if they cannot
cause Option 2.C. to be the option, he will not vote in favor of the
project. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston clarified the
Commission does not have to specify that there is a default. The
result is that the Subdivision Map Act does not permit the City to
require a developer to make improvements which require the
obtaining of title in property which is off -site. The City is then left
with the possibility of proceeding through eminent domain. Should
the City chose not to do so, essentially there is no egress or
ingress as a result of not specifying a default option.
Commissioner Quill asked if the developer then has the right to
sue. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated no. The
Map Act states that if the City conditions approval of off -site
improvements and the title to those off -site improvements cannot
be obtained, the City has 120 days to determine whether or not to
proceed with the eminent domain action. Should the City choose
not to do so, the off -site improvement obligation is deemed waived
for purposes of approval of the final map. Meaning the City
cannot disapprove the final map for failure of them to obtain the
two lots that are necessary. This puts the City in an interesting
position, because at that point, the City`s failure to exercise
eminent domain results in their not being any ingress or egress to
their property pursuant to what we have approved. It is up to
Commission as to whether or not they want to specify a default
option. It does make sense to do so. Commissioner Quill stated
that for purposes of discussion, he would still not specify the
default option and let the City Council make the determination as
to whether or not they want to declare eminent domain.
7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-016 approving
Tentative Tract Map 31348, as amended:
a. Condition: Option 2.C. only.
r•%%A/DnnrC\Dr nn; +* V) on nntnm .+- 17
Planning Commission Minutes
February 24, 2004
ROLL CALL: AYES:
Kirk. NOES:
None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
Commissioners Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman
None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN:
A. Continued — Public Nuisance Case 9693; a request of Robert and Barbara
Valdivia for consideration of an appeal of a public nuisance determination
for the property located at 54-360 Avenida Juarez.
1. Chairman Kirk informed the Commission there was a request to
continue this item to the meeting of March 23, 2004. It was
moved and seconded by Commiss ionersTylers/Daniels to continue
Public Nuisance Case 9693 to March 23, 2004. Unanimously
approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of
February 17, 2004.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Quill/Daniels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on March 9, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 1 1:00 p.m., on February 24,
2004.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
r.%%A1Df'%/lrC\Dr ')n rn%n,n ,+- 18
PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 9, 2004
CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 2003- 015
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA POLO PARTNERS
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM
BETH CIRCLE TO NORRIS DRIVE
LOCATION: WEST OF MADISON STREET, SOUTH OF AVENUE 51
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THIS STREET NAME CHANGE HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO
BE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 15301, CLASS 1. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY.
BACKGROUND
Site Background
The street in question is adjacent to the south boundary of Tract 30378, which was
approved in June of 2002, and is being graded. Although the name Beth Circle has
existed for a number of years, the street does not yet exist. This street will provide
access to Tract 30378 as well as future access to the property to the south when it
develops.
Applicable Code Provisions
The Municipal Code permits the applicant to request a street name change. The
request requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and final approval by
the City Council. Required is the written concurrence of at least 60% of the affected
property owners along the street in question. The applicant and property owner to the
south have given written approval to the proposed name change.
p:\stan\snc 2003-015 pc rpt 2.doc
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Planning Commission at their meeting of January 27, 2004 adopted Resolution
2004-002 setting this meeting date for consideration of this street name change. As
required this Resolution, notification of the street name change was published in the
Desert Sun on February 6, 2004 and posted.
REQUEST
The applicant had submitted a request to change the existing name of Beth Circle to
Norris Drive. No specific reason for the name change has been given.
DISCUSSION
Presently there are no residences along the street in question. The applicant owns all
of the property that fronts along the north side of the street; the south side is
undeveloped and that owner has given his approval to this request. Therefore, there
are no issues regarding this request.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending to the City Council
approval of Street Name Change 2003-015.
Attachment:
1. Location Map for street name change
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
p:\stan\snc 2003-015 pc rpt 2.doc
ATTACHMENT #1
L
i
i�
r
i
N ORRI5 tDRtyf--- >
CASE MAP
CASE W.
S N C 2003-015
LA QUiNTA POLO PARTNERS
ORTH
SCALE:
NTS
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A STREET NAME
CHANGE FROM BETH CIRCLE TO NORRIS DRIVE
CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 2003-015
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA POLO PARTNERS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 9th day of March, 2004, consider a street name change as requested by La
Quinta Polo Partners; and,
WHEREAS, said street name change has complied with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended by Resolution 83-68, in that the Community Development Department has
determined that the proposed street name change is categorically exempted pursuant
to Section 15301(Class 1) of the guidelines and no further review is deemed
necessary; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation for approval of
Street Name Change 2003-015:
1. The change would not detrimentally affect owners and tenants along the
affected street since all of the affected properties are owned by the applicant
and the adjacent owner to the south who has given his approval to the change.
2. More than 60% of the affected property owners agreed to the street name
change as required by Municipal Code Section 14.08.020.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. The above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval
of Street Name Change 2003-015 per the attached Exhibit A;
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Street Name Change 2003-015
La Quinta Polo Partners
Adopted:
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 9th day of March, 2004, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\stan\snc 2003-015 pc res 2.doc , ,i
CASE MAP
CASE No.
SNC 2003-015
LA QUINTA POLO PARTNERS
EXHIBIT "A"
ORTH
SCALE:
NTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 9, 2004
CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 2003- 016
APPLICANT: ND LA QUINTA PARTNERS
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF STREET NAME CHANGES FROM
VILLAGE CLUB DRIVE TO HIDEAWAY CLUB DR. AND
VILLAGE CLUB PLACE TO VIA MIRASOL
LOCATION: WITHIN THE HIDEAWAY PROJECT ON THE EAST SIDE OF
JEFFERSON STREET NORTH OF AVENUE 54
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THIS STREET NAME CHANGE HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO
BE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 15301, CLASS 1. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY.
BACKGROUND
Site Background
These existing streets are within the first phase area of the Hideaway project north of
PGA West. Village Club Drive, which the applicant wishes to change to Hideaway
Club Drive, is the street that meets Jefferson Street, their main entry into the project.
Their clubhouse and other primary recreational facilities will be located on this street.
The applicant wishes to change Village Club Place to Via Mirasol and is a street off of
Village Club Drive, originally intended to be developed as a model complex area.
Applicable Code Provisions
The Municipal Code permits the applicant to request a street name change. The
request requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and final approval by
the City Council. Required is the written concurrence of at least 60% of the affected
property owners along the street in question.
p:\stan\hideaway\snc 2003-016 pc rpt 2.doc
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Planning Commission at their meeting of January 27, 2004 adopted Resolution
2004-003 setting this meeting date for the street name change. As required by this
Resolution the notice was published in the Desert Sun on February 6, 2004 and
posted.
REQUEST
The applicant had submitted a request to change Village Club Drive to Hideaway Club
Drive because it is their main entry street from Jefferson Street and Village Club, and
Village Club Place to Via Mirasol to be consistent with the projects architectural theme.
DISCUSSION
Presently, there are no residences along the streets in question. The applicant owns all
of the property that fronts along the streets; therefore, there are no issues regarding
this request.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , recommending approval of Street
Name Change 2003-016 to the City Council.
Attachment:
1. Location Map for street name change
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
pAstan\hideaway\snc 2003-016 pc rpt 2.doc ,
•
� � 1i111►�r' ''
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A STREET NAME
CHANGE FROM VILLAGE CLUB DRIVE TO HIDEAWAY
CLUB DRIVE AND VILLAGE CLUB PLACE TO VIA MIRASOL
CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 2003-016
APPLICANT: ND LA QUINTA PARTNERS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 9th day of March, 2004, consider a street name change as requested by ND
La Quinta Partners; and,
WHEREAS, said street name change has complied with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended by Resolution 83-68, in that the Community Development Department has
determined that the proposed street name change is categorically exempted pursuant
to Section 15301(Class 1) of the guidelines and no further review is deemed
necessary; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation for approval of
Street Name Change 2003-016:
1. The change would not detrimentally affect owners and tenants along the
affected streets since all of the affected properties are owned by the applicant.
2. More than 60% of the affected property owners agreed to the street name
change as required by Municipal Code Section 14.08.020.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. The above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval
of Street Name Change 2003-016 per the attached Exhibit A;
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Street Name Change 2003-016
ND La Quinta Partners
Adopted:
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 9`h day of March, 2004, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\stan\hideaway\snc 2003-016 pc res 2.doc r�
PH #D
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MARCH 9, 2004
CASE NO: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: CORONEL ENTERPRISES
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-
STORY, 15,525 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON A 0.30
ACRE SITE.
LOCATION:
ARCHITECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND AVENIDA
NAVARRO
SOUTH WEST CONCEPTS
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332
(CLASS 32) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, IN THAT THIS IN -FILL PROJECT IS LESS THAN FIVE
ACRES IN SIZE AND MEETS ALL APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN
AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)/VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
NORTH:
OFFICE COMMERCIAL/SCHOOL
SOUTH:
VACANT LAND
EAST:
COMMERCIAL
WEST:
VACANT LAND/RESIDENTIAL
PC Stf Rpt VUP 04 021 1
BACKGROUND:
The vacant site is approximately 0.30 acres in size and located at the southwest
corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Navarro (Attachment 1). The site is located
within the Village Commercial Zoning District, which allows residential and
commercial uses. There are other commercial uses in the immediate area including
the Old Town La Quinta project, office space, a hotel and residential uses.
The site is currently located on two lots and the applicant has submitted an
application to merge the two lots in order to allow the building to be constructed as
proposed. Staff has included a condition of approval that requires the applicant to
obtain approval of a Parcel Merger prior to obtaining a building permit. The merging
of lots in the Village is encouraged under the Village Design Guidelines in order to
create larger lots for siting commercial projects and to benefit circulation patterns
associated with those projects.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Village Use Permit to construct a two-
story, 15,525 square foot office building of which, 11,446 square feet would be
leasable space (Attachment 2). The remainder square footage will be used for
pedestrian circulation, mechanical, electrical, and storage space. The building is
proposed to have eight office suites ranging between 1,313 and 1,484 square feet
in size. The building will include an elevator and two sets of stairwells for access
to the second floor. The building would allow leasable office space for uses,
including but not limited to, accounting, real estate, and administrative purposes.
The building theme is Santa Barbara style architecture with a proposed height of
± 34 feet. Architectural features include off-white colors, plastered exterior walls
and columns, canterra stone trim, covered arched walkways, exposed wood beams,
decorative wrought iron, and a two-piece mission the roof. A plaza is proposed at
the southwest corner of the site with a fountain, built-in benches along low-rise
walls at 18 inches in height, concrete pavers and ceramic canterra pots.
The building is proposed on a zero lot line along the southern and western property
lines. According to the Uniform Building Code, depending on the type of
occupancy and construction, buildings proposed to be constructed on zero lot lines
cannot have any openings (doors and windows) or overhangs (roofs) along the zero
lot line unless they are set back a minimum of five feet. The setback would allow
the building to maintain the articulation of the proposed building facade, in keeping
with the Village Design Guidelines. The building, as currently proposed, includes
windows on the west and south elevations.
PC Stf Rpt VUP 04 021 2
Parking:
Under Section 9.150.060 of the Zoning Code, the proposed use is required to
provide one (1) parking space for every 250 square feet of office space. Based on
11,446 square feet, the required parking is 46 spaces. The applicant is proposing
19 spaces, 27 spaces short of the total required parking. Three of the 19 spaces
are proposed in front of the building with the remainder underground in a
subterranean parking garage.
The Village Design Guidelines allow for reduced parking standards as long as the
applicant provides a parking analysis to justify a reduction in the requirement. The
applicant's analysis shows that public street parking on Avenida Navarro (10-15
spaces), along with the City's public parking lot (115 spaces), and additional
parking spaces on Avenida La Fonda (58 spaces) and Calle Estado (58 spaces)
between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas would provide sufficient parking
to accommodate the proposed office building (Attachment 3).
Landscaping:
The landscaping includes a variety of drought tolerant trees, shrubs and ground
covers. The plant materials proposed are consistent with development in the City
and appropriate for the desert climate (See Landscaping Plan in Attachment 1).
Lighting
Parking lot lighting is also required for safety and security purposes. Parking lot
lighting is required to be shielded downward to avoid light glare onto adjacent
properties and vehicular traffic. The underground parking garage and the parking
lot in front of the building will have lighting for safety purposes during evening
hours. A condition had been included in this permit to have the lighting fixtures
shielded downward so as to reduce glare onto adjacent properties and the street.
This would be in keeping with the City's Dark Sky Ordinance.
Trash Enclosure:
The applicant proposes a trash enclosure at the southeast corner of the site. The
trash enclosure will have a block wall around it to screen it from public view. A
sidewalk is also proposed that will provide access to the trash enclosure from the
west side near the office building.
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC):
The ALRC reviewed this project at its February 4, 2004 meeting and determined
that the project was acceptable as presented. The February 4, 2004, ALRC
PC Stf Rpt VUP 04 021 3
meeting minutes are attached (Attachment 4). The Committee approved Minute
Motion 2004-002 recommending approval of the project to the Planning
Commission.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC):
The HPC reviewed the Phase I, Cultural Resources Report at its February 19, 2004
meeting and accepted the recommendation of Archaeological Advisory Group by
adopting Minute Motion 2004-003 for the project. The February 19, 2004,
meeting minutes are attached (Attachment 5). The Phase I, Cultural Resources
Report did not identify any impacts to cultural resources, however, the Commission
imposed the following standard conditions in the event that cultural resources are
found during trenching and grading activities:
A. 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 trenching, earth -moving or
clearing permit, whichever occurs first.
B. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to the final inspection for the project.
C. 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.
These conditions have been added to the Conditions of Approval for the project.
Public Notice
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 28, 2004,
and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no letters
have been received. Any written comments received will be handed out at the
meeting.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve this request per Section 9.65.040.F of the City of La Quinta
Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
PC SO Rpt VUP 04 021 4
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , approving Village Use Permit
2004-021, subject to findings and the attached Conditions of Approval.
Prepared by:
Martin Magafid
Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Plan Set
3. Parking Analysis submitted by the applicant
4. February 4, 2004 Architecture and Landscape Review Committee meeting
minutes
5. February 19, 2004, Historic Preservation Commission meeting minutes
PC Stf Rpt VUP 04 021 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT
A 2-STORY, 15,525 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON A 0.30
ACRE SITE WITHIN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021
APPLICANT: CORONEL ENTERPRISES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 9th day of March, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to
consider a request by Coronel Enterprises to construct a two-story, 15,525 square
foot office building on a 0.30 acre site at the southwest corner of Calle Tampico
and Avenida Navarro, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 773-076-005 & 007
WHEREAS, said Village Use Permit 2004-021 is Categorically Exempt
from environmental review pursuant to provisions of Section 15332 (Class 32) of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that the proposed project is an
in -fill project less than five acres in size and meets all applicable General Plan and
zoning requirements and, therefore, will have no permanent effects on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to
Section 9.65.040 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Village Use Permit:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the
goals and policies of the General Plan in that the proposed use is an allowed
use within the designated Village Commercial area.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the
Zoning Code in that the proposed use is a permitted use in the Village
Commercial District with approval of a Village Use Permit by the Planning
Commission.
3. Compliance with CEQA: The proposed use is Categorically Exempt from
environmental review pursuant to provisions of Section 15332 (Class 32) of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that the proposed project
is an in -fill project less than five acres in size and meets all applicable General
Plan and zoning requirements and, therefore, will have no permanent effects
on the environment; and
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Village Use Permit 2004-021 — Coronel Enterprises
Adopted: March 9, 2004
4. Surrounding Uses: Approval of the Village Use Permit will not create
conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare or be injurious to, or incompatible with, other properties or land uses in
the vicinity in that the proposed building will be compatible with existing office
uses in the immediate area.
5. Architectural Design: The architectural design of the project, including, but not
limited to, the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors,
architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible
with surrounding development in that the proposed building appears similar in
nature to other structures in the immediate area and is in keeping with the
character of the Village Design Guidelines.
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 Village Use Permit;
2. That it does hereby approve Village Use Permit 2004-021 for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval;
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 9th day of March, 2004, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
\\CLQ.ADMFSI\PLANNING\Martin\VUP 04 021 Coronel\PC Reso VUP 04 021.doc )
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Village Use Permit 2004-021 — Coronel Enterprises
Adopted: March 9, 2004
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
\\CLQADMFS1\PLANNING\Martin\VUP 04 021 Coronel\PC Reso VUP 04 021.doc >6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 - CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 9, 2004
GENERAL
1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits
contained in Village Use Permit 2004-021, unless otherwise amended by the
following conditions.
2. This Village Use Permit allows the construction of a two-story, 15,525 square
foot office building on a 0.30-acre site. The applicant shall comply with all
building code requirements.
3. The applicant shall obtain approval of a Parcel Merger for the two lots
associated with this project prior to obtaining a building permit.
4. The applicant shall comply with the City's Dark Sky ordinance. Any proposed
lighting on the building or in the parking lot shall be shielded so that light is
projected downward and not onto adjacent properties or the street.
5. Landscaping plans for the building shall comply the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance for this project, and as approved by the Planning
Commission. Said landscaping plans shall include a complete irrigation system
showing location and size of water lines, valves, clock timer, type of sprinkler,
etc. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the landscape plans shall
also be approved by Coachella Valley Water District and Agricultural
Commissioner before final approval by the Community Development
Department.
6. The exterior materials and colors of the building shall match those approved by
the Planning Commission.
7. 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 trenching, earth -moving or clearing
permit, whichever occurs first.
8. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to the final inspection for the project.
9. 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 — CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 9, 2004
Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and
records, primary research data, and the original graphics.
10. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Village
Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
11. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the
necessary permits and/or clearances 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, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals
when submitting the improvement plans for City approval.
12. 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").
-1 J
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 — CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 9, 2004
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 BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire
duration of project construction until all improvements are completed
and accepted by the City.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
13. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer,
those easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction
and/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 the maintenance, construction and reconstruction
of essential improvements.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 — CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH J, 2004
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, parklands, and common areas shown on the Village Use
Permit.
15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will
occur.
16. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property between the date of approval of this Village
Use Permit and the date of final acceptance of the on -site and off -site
improvements for this Village Use Permit, unless such easement is approved
by the City Engineer.
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.
17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the
provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
18. 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 Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal
B. Village Use Permit Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 — CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 9, 2004
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.
"Village Use Permit" plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs &
gutters, sidewalks, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and
ADA requirements for the parking lot and access to the building; and showing
the existing street improvements out to at least the center lines of adjacent
existing streets including ADA accessibility route to parking facilities and
public streets.
19. The City maintains standard plans, details 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.
20. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete,
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, which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the
City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans.
GRADING
21. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
22. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 — CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 9, 2004
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. Approved Best Management Plan that includes storm water pollution
prevention and erosion control plans prepared by a qualified engineer.
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.
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 submitted with its application for a grading permit.
23. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped
land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such
other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control
Plan.
24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant
shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer
or surveyor.
nRAINAC;F
25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120
(Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically,
stormwater failing 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.
26. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two
inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the
applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 — CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 9, 2004
27. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water
(through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or
adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a
requirement for development of this property.
28. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
29. 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. Nuisance water shall be retained
on site.
30. 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.
31. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood
boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
32. 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.
33. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received
and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief
route.
UTILITIES
34. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 — CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 9, 2004
35. 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.
PARKING LOTS AND ACCESS DRIVEWAYS
36. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking)
and the latest ADA standards and policies.
37. Direct vehicular access to Calle Tampico from frontage along Calle Tampico is
restricted.
38. Direct vehicular access to Avenida Navarro from frontage along Avenida
Navarro is restricted, except for the access point identified on the VUP 2004-
021 Site Plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval.
39. The high point of the access driveway to the parking lot shall be at least one
foot higher than the gutter flow line at the street.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
40. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
41. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and 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.
42. 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2004-021 — CORONEL ENTERPRISES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
MARCH 9, 2004
43. 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.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
44. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building
permit(s).
ATTACHMENT
VICINITY MAr wA
0
ATTACHMENT #
SOUTH 'WEST CONCEPTS
PROGRESSIQE DESIGN CONCEP"
78120 Calle Estado, Suite 206, La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. (760) 564-4707
Fax (760) 564-4955
Martin Magana
City of La Quinta
P.G. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Parking Analysis for VUP 04-021
The following is a parking analysis for our project at the southwest comer of Avenida
Navarro and Calle Tampico. The project includes a 2-story, 15,525 square foot office
building with approximately 11,446 square feet of leasable floor area.
The City's Zoning Code requires one space for every 250 square feet of office space.
Based on 11,446 leasable square feet, the required parking would be 46 spaces. We
are proving 19 spaces. The majority of our spaces will be located in a subterranean
parking garage.
We are requesting a reduction in the parking requirements for our project. While our
project is under -parked, we believe that there is sufficient parking in the Village area to
accommodate our building. The City owns an open parking lot on Avenida Navarro,
approximately 300 feet south of our site that has t115 spaces. The City also plans on
building a parking structure on this site in the future when demand calls for the facility.
Other areas where public parking is available is Calle Estado and Avenida La Fonda,
between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas. Each of these areas ha 58 parking
spaces, totaling 116 spaces.
In addition, there is approximately 10 to 15 spaces of street parking on the east and west
sides of Avenida Navarro that would provide additional parking. These would be within
300 feet of the site on Avenida Navarro between the building site and the City parking
lot.
We believe this parking would be sufficient to justify a reduction in the parking
requirements for our project. We have provided an open plaza in the northeast corner of
the project, rather than committing parking in this area which would not have good
access or circulation. The proposed plaza is civic oriented and is intended for the use
and enjoyment of the community. We ask that you consider this analysis in your review
of our project.
Should you have any questions
contact me at (760) 564-4707.
Sinc ,
tephen R. Nieto
or need additional information, please feel free to
ATTACHMENT
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
February 4, 2004 1 10:00 a.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
was called to order at 10:06 a.m. by Planning Manager Oscar Orci
who led the flag salute.
B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, Dennis Cunningham, and
David Thoms.
C. Staff present: Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Stan
Sawa, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit, Greg Trousdell, Martin
Magana, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of November 5,
2003. There �' being
no changes, it was
moved and seconded
by
Committee Members
Cunningham/Bobbitt
to approve the Minutes
as
submitted.;'
Staff asked if there were any changes to
the Minutes of January
7,
2004✓/ There being
no changes, it was
moved and seconded
by
Committee Members
Bobbitt/Thoms to
approve the Minutes
as
su mitted.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Village Use Permit 2004-021; a request of Coronel Enterprises for
-�� review of architectural and landscaping plans for a two story 11,446
square foot commercial office building located at the southwest corner
of Calle Tampico and Avenida Navarro.
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\2-4-04 WD.doc
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
February 4, 2004
1. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Lucas
Coronel, Zeke Coronel, Steve Nieto, designer, who stated they
were available for any questions.
2. Committee Member Thoms asked the purpose of the building.
Mr. Lucas Coronel stated would be an office building.
Committee Member Thorns stated the building shows no
imagination in the design. It appears to be a block building. It
serves the purpose, but does not have any artistic design.
3. Committee Member Cunningham stated the cad drawings do
not lend themselves to showing any design details. There is
enough detail, but the drawings do not lend themselves to
how the building will appear when it is constructed; which is
the most important aspect. The downtown is evolving with
the Mission/Spanish architectural style and the use of mudded
tile is important. The wrought iron is good. They should use
similar details as used in the Old Town project. Mr. Coronel
stated their presentation was based on staff's suggestions.
This building does have a lot of detail on this building. Mr.
Nieto stated he too believes there is a lot of detail in the
building and went on to elaborate.
4. Committee Member Thorns stated it is still a basic block
building, with no imagination. There is a lot of detail in the
building, but it does not have any imagination. Mr. Nieto went
on to explain the building design.
5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the responsibility of this
Committee is defined and the rest are subjective. Discussion
followed as to design criteria for the downtown building.
6. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was
moved and seconded by Committee Members
Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 2004-002
recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2004-021, as
recommended by staff and amended:
a. Condition added: the roof shall be a full mudded tile roof.
Motion carried with Committee member Thorns voting no.
s
�k
GAWPD0CS\ALRC\2-4-04 WD.doc 2
ATTACHMENT A
Historic Preservation Commission
February 19, 2004
B. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for a 12,943 square foot
parcel, located on the southwest corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida
Navarro.
Applicant: Coronel Enterprises
Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group (AAG)
1. 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. Commissioner Sharp asked how tall the office building would
be. Staff replied two stories.
3. Commissioner Wilbur asked if there was any significance to the
fact there were historic sites nearby. Staff replied it meant
there was the possibility of resources being located on this site.
4. Chairperson Mouriquand asked for the elevation of the site and
was told it was 46 feet, the approximate elevation of the
ancient shoreline area.
5. Commissioner Puente said the records search showed the area
was sensitive for historical resources and a part of the Southern
Pacific Railroad. She asked for clarification of how sensitive the
area was as referenced on Page 9 of the report. Staff replied,
according to the report the site had already been graded, but
because of the subterranean parking structure, the City
requested the applicant do more investigation. The Commission
was asked if they wished to have a monitor during trenching.
6. Chairperson Mouriquand commented that the subterranean
garage further supported the need for monitoring. She also
added the archaeological consultant is correct about the
roadway system in the Cove, mentioned on Page 8. It had not
been recorded and should be. Roadways are historic cultural
resources, such as the recordation of Old Avenue 52 as a
historic resource, when the Tradition Club was processed.
She also disagreed with the section of the report which
mentions the area has a low density of archaeological sites. She
stated there were plenty of sites recorded in the Cove and in
this area as well. She did not see any mention of the Hunt
4 , ,�
Historic Preservation Commission
February 19, 2004
Homestead and Date Gardens, which are in close proximity.
Other items not included were the historic Lake Marshall, and a
portion of the Old Indian Trail which was located in an area of
the Cove within a mile to the west. This trail later became
known as The Bradshaw Trail. These are regionally National
Register eligible items that were not addressed; as well as the
fact the Augustine Band was not contacted. She also wondered
if the City or County building permits were checked. The
archaeologist did not recommend monitoring which she
disagrees with. There are significant historical and prehistoric
site in the near vicinity. She commented to the Commissioners
they should require focused, comprehensive monitoring during
the excavation and deep trenching by someone conversant in
not only the pre -historic resources of the area, but the historic
as well.
7. Lucas Coronel, applicant's representative, said they would
comply with monitoring if that was the Commission's wish. He
also discussed concerns about monitoring of a nearby project as
well as the need for monitoring because of the excavation depth
of his project.
8. Chairperson Mouriquand acknowledged the applicant's concerns
and said she was not on the Commission when the subject
project was reviewed. The history of the Cove was added, and
all of La Quinta was previously documented in The Historic
Context Statement prepared for the City and available at the
Eastern Information Center.
9. Commissioner Sharp stated he did recall reviewing the
document but there may have been extenuating circumstances
which eliminated the requirement for monitoring.
10. Chairperson Mouriquand stated one of the Commission's goals
was to be consistent. She said she would have recommended
monitoring for the nearby project, just as she was
recommending monitoring for this project. She answered Mr.
Coronel's question about the depth issue by explaining the need
for a Phase II study.
9
Historic Preservation Commission
February 19, 2004
11. Mr. Coronel reiterated his position on the monitoring of the
nearby project and the fact there was nothing located on that
site.
12. Chairperson Mouriquand replied since there was no monitoring
done, there would be no way of knowing if anything was found.
13. Commissioner Puente commented the report states some local
Cahuilla groups were contacted for further input but no
response was received. She asked Mr. Coronel if there would
be any follow-up.
14. Chairperson Mouriquand explained that Mr. Coronel was the
landowner and not the archaeologist, so he would not have that
answer. She also replied the archaeologist stated he gave them
15 days from the date of the request; which is reasonable. It is
the Tribes' responsibility to respond to these comments. The
archaeologist did everything necessary except contact the
Augustine Band.
15. Commissioner Sharp commented on an item on Page 10, of the
report where the Augustine reservation is marked on the map.
Chairperson Mouriquand commented the Augustine Band was
one of the last Cahuilla reservations.
16. Luke Coronel made the suggestion the City provide a listing of
parameters to be considered when a developer is going to
proceed with a report for property close to a project area so the
archaeologist would have an idea of what they are looking for.
17. Commissioner Puente commented the Commission has required
these conditions since she had been a Commissioner. The
Commission has been trying to have everyone comply with the
same conditions.
18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilbur/Puente to
adopt Minute Motion 2004-003 accepting the Cultural
Resources Assessment for the 12,943 square foot parcel with
conditions amended as follows:
a. The site shall be monitored during on -and off -site trenching
and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors.
F��
Historic Preservation Commission
February 19, 2004
Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the City prior
to issuance of the first earth -moving or clearing permit.
b. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department prior to the issuance
of the first building occupancy permit for the project.
c. Collected archaeological artifacts 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 occupancy permit being
granted by the City. Materials will be accompanied by
descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary
research data, and the original graphics.
Unanimously approved.
C. Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources Reports for a
38.65 Acre Site Proposed for Tentative Tract Map 31910, located on
the west side of Monroe Street, between Airport Boulevard and
Avenue 58.
Applicant: John Megay and Associates
Archaeological, Consultant: Archaeological Associates and Eilar
Associates.
1. 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. Commissioner Sharp., asked a question about a location in the
middle of the Augustiie reservation on Page 2. Chairperson
Mouriquand clarified t�(e location he was questioning and
commented it was 50 Ieet below sea level and had been
inundated by the ancient labs.
3. Chairperson Mouriquand had .I@ couple of further comments.
She thought the research desig discussion, on pages 10 and
11, was done very well. A disc sion like this is required by
the ARMR format. She commende them on doing a good job
and defining research goals. She me tioned she was curious
about the Neuman tenant farm house ite that was listed in
their table on Page 12. She also noted on age 13, subsection
PH #C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MARCH 9, 2004
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-499
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32117
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;AND
2) RE -SUBDIVIDE 6.32 ACRES INTO 13 RESIDENTIAL LOTS
APPLICANT: QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
PROPERTY OWNERS: QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
LOCATION: WEST OF JEFFERSON, SOUTH OF QUARRY LANE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-499 WAS
PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970,
AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
BE CERTIFIED
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
SOUTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
EAST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
WEST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
BACKGROUND:
The 6.32 acre site is vacant and has been mass graded. It is located west of Jefferson
Street, south of Quarry Lane within the Quarry Ranch development. (Attachment 1).
PAFREM]"T 32117\PCstaffrpt.TT32117.doc
Applicant Request
Tentative Tract 32117
Tentative Tract 321 17(Attachment 2) re -subdivides eight lots (lots 17-24) into 13
residential lots within the Quarry Ranch development, Tact 30651 (Attachment 3).
Proposed residential lot sizes range from 16,085 to 29,295 square feet. All residential
lots are proposed to have driveway access from a 33-foot width internal cul-de-sac
road, Quarry Ranch Road. The Quarry Ranch originally was approved by the City
Council in 2002 for 28 single-family lots with a ten holes of golf on approximately 74
acres as an addition to the Quarry golf course. All single-family units will be custom
homes. The additional golf holes have been completed and homes are under
construction.
"Voluntary Additional Conditions of Approval" were agreed upon by the applicant and
the California Department of Fish and Game when the Quarry Ranch (Tract 30651)
was approved by the City Council. The Quarry Ranch is in the essential Big Horn
Sheep habitat and these conditions will diminish the impact of the loss of habitat.
Although some conditions have been met, the "Voluntary Additional Conditions of
Approval" listed under this Tract Resolution still apply to the original tract and to this
proposed re -subdivision.
A homeowners' association has been formed to maintain retention basins, common
landscaped areas, private roads, and perimeter landscaping.
Public Notice
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 24, 2004. All
property owners within 500 feet of the entire development were mailed a copy of the
public notice.
Public Agency Review
The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public
agencies on February 2, 2004. Agency comments received have been made a part of
the Conditions of Approval.
Environmental Assessment
Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared
Environmental Assessment (EA) 2004-499 for the project. Staff recommends
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact.
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PCstaffrpt.TT32117.doc
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The applicant's request to subdivide 6.32 acres of land for 13 residential lots is
consistent with the General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance provided the
recommended Conditions of Approval are met. Findings necessary to approve this
request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_ recommending to the City
Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-499; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract 32117, subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Tentative Tract 32217
3. Tentative Tract 30651
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
P:\FREDJT 32117\PCstaffrpt.TT32117.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
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 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32117
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-499
APPLICANT: QUARRY RANCH L. L. C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 9tn day of March, 2004, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2004-499 for Tentative Tract 32117 herein referred to as
the "Project" for Quarry Ranch L. L. C. ; and,
WHEREAS, said Project 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 Initial Study (EA 2004-499) to evaluate the
potential for adverse environmental impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless
mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact could be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation
measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts.
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 a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the
proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or
the habitat on which the wildlife depends.
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-499
Adopted March 9, 2004
4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified .
5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly,
as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health,
risk potential or public services.
6. The adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is attached hereto pursuant
to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in order to assure compliance during
Project implementation.
7. 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).
8. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2004-
499 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant
impact upon the environment.
9. EA 2004-499 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis.
10. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project
is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, 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 a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment
2004-499 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the
Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community
Development Department and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 9th day of March, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PC RESO EA 2004-499.DOC
t.
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Environmental Assessment 2004-499
Adopted March 9, 2004
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PC RESO EA 2004-499.DOC
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title:
2
3
.19
E
on
Lead agency name and address:
Contact person and phone number:
Tentative Tract Map 32117
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Fred Baker
760-777-7125
Project location: North side of Quarry Ranch Road, west of Jefferson Street APN: 766-060-
001
Project sponsor's name and address: Quarry Ranch, LLC
1 Quarry Lane
La Quinta, CA 92253
General plan designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or oil site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The proposed Tentative Tract Map amends a previously reviewed, approved and recorded
map (Tract 30651) which affected a larger area (75 acres) of the Quarry Ranch project. The
area now under consideration totals 6.32 acres, located at the southern boundary of the
Quarry project.
The 6.32 acres currently being re -mapped was originally proposed to contain 8 residential lots.
The proposed Tentative Tract Map would divide this same area into 13 single family
residential lots.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Golf Course under construction
South: Quarry Ranch Road, Low Density Residential lands
West: Golf Course under construction
East: Jefferson Street, Open Space lands
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
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.
A
ature
February 27, 2004
Date
PAFRED\Quarry Ranch\EA Chk1st499.doc
-2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from
Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
-3-
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) The proposed project is not located on a General Plan Image Corridor. The property has
been rough -graded and does not include any natural features. The ultimate construction of
single family homes on the site will result in a slight increase in light generation, primarily
from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels, and impacts
will not be significant. Impacts to aesthetics overall are expected to be less than
significant.
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland., or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? ("boning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature., could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
I1. a)-c) The proposed project is not currently in agriculture, nor are there Williamson Act
contracts on the subject property. Development of the site will not impact agricultural
resources.
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA I landbook)
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) Air quality in the City is primarily affected by vehicle traffic. The proposed tract map
could result in 13 single family homes, which could generate up to 124 trips per day'.
Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 6 miles, the following
emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site.
"Trip Generation, 6`h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category.
0.1
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(wounds wer dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
124 x 6 = 744
PMro PMI0 PMro
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mnh 66.96 1.740.96 357.12 - 7.44 7.44
Pounds at 50 mph 0.15 3.84 0.79 - 0.02 0.02
SCAQMD Threshold
lbs./da 75 550 100 150
Assumes 124 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime
running conditions at 75`F, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds. The proposed tract map will contribute only marginally
more air pollution than the levels expected under the previous approval, since the increase
in lots represents only a 62% increase in density.
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 during project operations. 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 166.85 pounds per day, for a limited
period while precise grading operations are active. The bulk of the grading has already
occurred. The contractor will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to
initiation of precise grading. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can
be mitigated by the measures below.
Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
-7-
J ,�
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site.
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. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed on
the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
11. 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.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM 10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
III. d) & e) The project will consist of single family homes and will not result in objectionable odors,
nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
5:11
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? ("General
Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC,
Inc., June 2002)
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?
("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch,"
VI IBC, Inc., June 2002)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? ("General Biological
Assessment Quarry Ranch," VI -IBC, Inc., June
2002,)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? ("General
Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC,
Inc., June 2.002,)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? ("General Biological
Assessment Quarry Ranch," VI IBC, Inc., June
2002,)
In
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? ("General
Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC,
Inc., June 2002)
IV. a)-f) A biological resource analysis was prepared for the proposed project as part of the review
of Tentative Tract Map 3065 12 . The assessment found that although the project occurs in
the potential habitat area for several species of concern, the habitat on the project site has
been degraded by off -road vehicle use and illegal dumping, and these species are not
expected to occur on the site. The proposed project site has been graded as part of the
construction on Tract 30651 since the preparation of the biological resource report, and is
not expected to be habitat for any species at this time.
The site does not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat, nor is it a wildlife corridor. The
site is not within the boundaries of the fee area of the Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan.
"General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," prepared by VHBC, Inc., July 24, 2002.
-10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in ' 15064.5? ("Phase I Cultural
Resources Assessment..." Keith Co., June 2002)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Phase I
Cultural Resources Assessment..." Keith Co., June
2002)
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? ("Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment..." Keith Co., June 2002)
V. a)-d) A Phase I cultural resources survey was completed for the proposed project as part of the
review of Tentative Tract Map 3065 13 . The survey found no historic structure on the site,
but did identify a historic trash dump. The survey also identified a prehistoric site, in the
form of sherd scatter. The Phase I study made recommendations for mitigation measures
which were confirmed by the Historic Preservation Commission, as follows:
An archaeologist shall be present on and off site during all grubbing and earth
moving activities. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community
Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all
activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site.
The Phase I study also identified the need for a Phase II study on the trash dump area,
which was completed as part of the recordation process for the original map. This
previous mitigation measure has therefore been satisfied.
"A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the Quarry Ranch Development," prepared by the Keith Companies, June
12, 2002.
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
X
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?
X
("Geotechracal Investigation..." Sladden
Engineering, July 2002)
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 the
X
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
("Geotechrucal Investigation..." Sladden
Engmeering, July 2002)
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? ("Geotechnical
Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July 2002)
VI. a)-e) A geotechnical analysis was completed for the project site as part of the review of
Tentative Tract Map 3065 14 . The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The
site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone. The property, as with the rest of
the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
"(ieotechnical Investigation Proposed Short Course Development The Quarry...," prepared by Sladden Engineering,
July 31, 2002.
-12-
earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's
standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic
zones. These requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a
less than significant level.
The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area, and will therefore not be subject to
significant soil erosion from wind. The site is subject to flooding erosion, however. The
project proponent will be required to secure approval from the Coachella Valley Water
District for all flood control plans on the site. These plans will be required to include
control of soil erosion. Please also see hydrology discussion below.
The geotechnical analysis found that the soils on the site are not expansive, and that they
will support the development proposed by the project proponent.
-13-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the roject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
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
I lalardous 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 physically
X
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (General Plan ME, A p. 95 f )
h Expose people or structures to a
-14-
F-
significant risk of loss, injury or death
X
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 construction of residential units on the proposed project site will not result in
significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. The City implements the
standards of the Household Hazardous Waste programs through its waste provider. These
regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the project
itself, are less than significant. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires.
-15-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan I:IR 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
I;IR p. III-187 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
X
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? (Hydrology... and Drainage
Concept St xdy,1'ettemer and Assoc., July 2002)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
X
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? (Hydrology Drainage
Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (I lydrology ... and
Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc.,
July 2002)
0 Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
-16-
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (Hydrology... and Drainage
Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) -- d)) The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows tributary
to the Bureau of Reclamation Dike No. 2. Siltation and debris were identified as issues in
this area, due to its proximity to the Coral Reef Mountains. The proposed project will tie
into the proposed improvements for Tentative Tract Map 30651, which include an earthen
ditch with flood wall at the southwest corner of the adjacent tract, another along the
southern boundary of the site, and a trapezoidal channel within the Jefferson Street right
of way. CVWD required the preparation of a hydraulics, hydrology and drainage study for
Tentative Tract Map 3 065 1, to address flood control issues throughout the site.
CVWD is still reviewing the re -submitted materials at this writing, but has indicated that
the proposed improvements, with some modifications, will reduce the impacts associated
with drainage and flood control on the site to less than significant levels. In order to assure
that this is the case, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
The project proponent shall secure approval of all flood control improvements
from the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any earth moving activity at the
site.
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property. The
13 homes will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving
plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts to
groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the requirements of the City's water -
conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
-17-
a.,
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
Klement)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment. p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed Tract Map conforms to the General Plan designation assigned to the site.
The construction of the homes will comply with the City's Development Code. The
development of housing on this property represents a continuation of the urbanizing
pattern experienced in this area of the City. The site is not within the boundaries of the
Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan fee area.
-18-
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-2 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan EIR p. III-
144 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan EIR
p. III-144 f!)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
(General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR p. III-
144 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? (General Plan land use map)
0 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)-f) The project site is not located in an area of the City subject to high traffic noise levels. The
location of single family homes on the site will not generate significant noise levels. The
impacts associated with long term noise are not expected to be significant.
The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment and
activities. Existing homes occur to the west of the site. Homes are considered sensitive
receptors to noise, and the construction at the site could have a negative impact. In order
to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
-20-
All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied
residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake
silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be
located as far away from existing homes as possible.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. Impacts associated with
noise on or near the project site are not expected to be significant.
-21-
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 IT., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the
property, and is in an area designated for low and medium density residential land uses.
The project will not induce growth or displace an existing community.
-22-
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, p.
X
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, as well as the costs of general government. The
project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of
building permits. The project will be located within an existing country club, which will
offset the need for other recreational facilities in the City.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The construction of 13 residential units will not significantly impact the need for parks in
the City. As previously stated, the project's location within an established country club
will also lower the need for additional recreational facilities.
-24-
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)? (Tentative
Tract Map 31816)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 31816)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 31816)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The proposed project will generate up to 124 daily trips. The proposed project is
consistent with the land use densities analysed in the General Plan and its EIR. Traffic
levels in the area of the proposed project are expected to be at acceptable levels at
buildout of the General Plan. The site does not include unsafe curves or other features.
Impacts associated with the buildout of the project site are expected to be less than
significant.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (General
Plan MEA, P. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project=s
projected demand in addition to the
provider-=s existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project=s solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan WA, 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 service providers for water, sewer, electricity
and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect
-26-
connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The construction
of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility
providers.
-27-
`.6
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 site has been rough graded. Prior to rough grading, the site was studied for biological
resources, and found to be unsuitable due to high levels of disturbance. No impacts to
biological resources are expected. The site has been reviewed for cultural resources.
Mitigation measures are included in this document to lower impacts to a less than
significant level.
XVII. b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a
variety of housing opportunities for City residents.
XVII. c) The construction of 13 residential within an existing country club will result in lower
densities on this site, will not have considerable cumulative impacts and is consistent with
the General Plan designation on the property.
-28-
.J
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 PM 10, and
the site will generate PM10, which can cause negative health effects, Section III), above,
includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality.
Noise impacts associated with the construction activities on the site have been mitigated
above to less than significant levels.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Environmental Assessments 2002-452 and 2002-454 were both used in preparing this report.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-29-
o,I
4.
0
a�
U
a
a
0
b
a
`O
z
o
a
0
�
d
v�a�a
�aati�
I
I
i
I
�
N
M
a
o
�
H
�
N
N
>
(ON
Ccf
�
oz
z�
A
U
W
d
W
F
d
A
z
U
UU
cy�
o
a
a
U
v
:?
::
�,
�,
v
aA
bb
b
w
w
0
G.
}'
GA
G
U
o
`d
V
°
o by
Wo
to
bA
bA
to
r.
o
tb
to
y
a p
to
CL
O
n
It
tD
..
a
rr-
aW
d
b
a
b~
0.
a
S C
Cd
b
a
w
.0
W
F
A
a
U
UU
a
W
�
o
U
AL)
.
S
z
F
Cd
4
bA
O
Q
AG
ao
z�
O p
Cq
a
an
b
z
o
F
w
U
Q
'tj U
06
W
F
A
a
U
UU
oA
GS
�
F
�
O
O
0 �
�
as
z �
ca
VA
0
o
a
o
a
W
F-F
A
Ox
UU
a
F
o
0
0
a
U
a
a
a
o
0
0
z
�
U
.�
H
�
�
o
U
U
U
Q
Q
Q
a
z
O
a
a
Q
Q
a0.,
Ga
z
�
w
o
b
o
E
j v
o
a� o
`0
CIO
�o
U
U o
v�
IL;
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 32117 TO
ALLOW A 13 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LAND RE -SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 6.32
ACRES
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
APPLICANT: QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 9th day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and
recommended approval to the City Council, to subdivide 6.32 acre site into 13 single-
family lots, generally located west of Jefferson Street alignment, south of Quarry Lane,
more particularly described as:
Tract 30551, lots 17-24
WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-63), in that an Environmental Assessment was completed for
this project.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said
Tentative Tract Map 32117 1:
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan.
The project is within a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions
of the 2002 General Plan Update. Tentative Tract 32117 is consistent with the
goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions
contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan, and
mitigation measures pursuant to Environmental Assessment 2004-499. The
density and design standards for the tract will comply with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan.
B. The design, or improvement of, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance.
All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards. All on -
site streets will be private. Access for the single-family lots will be provided
from an internal loop street planned under Tentative Tract Map.
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32117
Quarry Ranch L. L.C.
Adopted March 9, 2004
C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife,
or their habitat.
The subject site is previously mass graded. Therefore, this project will not
cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their
habitat because mitigation measures will be implemented.
D. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, are not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious
public health problems because they will install urban improvements based on
City, State, and Federal requirements.
E. 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.
The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family
lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support
necessary infrastructure improvements.
F. The design of the lot, or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems in that the Fire Marshall, Sheriff's Department, and the
City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the proposal for public
health conditions and the project is conditioned as appropriate.
G. The design of the lot, 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 the proposed internal streets will be privately
owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly -owned improvements
within the Tentative Tract Map.
H. The design of the lots and grading improvements, including the pad elevation
differentials within the tract bare an acceptable minimum in that the tract design
preserves community acceptance and buyer satisfaction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
P:\FRED\1'T 32117\PC RESO TT 32117.doc
�k;9
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-
Tentative Tract Map 32117
Quarry Ranch L. L.C.
Adopted March 9, 2004
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract
Map 32117 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the
attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 91h day of March, 2004 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\FRED\'rT 321 17\PC RESO TT 32117.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
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 clearances and/or permits if required 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 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
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; the State Water Resources Control
Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ and the approved SWPPP for Tract 30651 if in
affect at the time of construction.
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.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading,
pursuant to this project.
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PC COA TT 32117.DOC `'
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
F. The approved SWPPP and BMP's 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 permitls►, 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 a ten -foot wide public
utility easement contiguous with, and along one side of all private streets. Such
easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written
approval of IID.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
11. 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
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PC COA TT 32117.DOC , }
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
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.
12. 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.
13. 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 Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40'
Horizontal
B. On -Site Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30'
Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
"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.
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PC COA TT 32117.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
The "On -Site Precise Grading" plan is required to be submitted for approval by
the Building Official and the Community Development Department.
"On -Site Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs &
gutters, building floor elevations, driveway approaches and ADA requirements.
14. 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.
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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
iI
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PC COA TT 32117.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey
monumentation.
19. 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.
20. 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.
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PC COA TT 32117.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
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.
21. 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
22. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
23. 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.
24. 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.
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PC COA TT 32117.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot
from the building pads in adjacent developments.
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.
28. 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.
29. 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:\FRED\TT 32117\PC COA TT 32117.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
npAiNAC;F
30. "Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
report for Tract No. 30651. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved
manner.
UTILITIES
31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
32. 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.
33. 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
34. 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..
CONSTRUCTION
35. 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
P:\FRED\TT 321171PC COA TT 32117.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
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.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
36. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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
40. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
41. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access
drives, and sidewalks.
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PC COA TT 32117.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
FEES AND DEPOSITS
42. 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.
VOLUNTARY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
43. The existing streambed located 300' west of lot 25 will not be altered in any
way without prior consent of the Department of Fish and Game, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the City of La Quinta.
44. Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and
fertilizers used during the construction and operation of the Project Site will not
be harmful to wildlife.
45. A construction plan shall be prepared and demonstrate, to the extent
practicable, construction activities that emit excessive noise will be avoided
adjacent to the hillside. In addition, during grading and construction activities
any blasting or pile -driving near the hillside will not occur during the period from
Jan. 1 through June 30tn
46. The landscape plan shall include only plants that are non -toxic to wildlife. All
exotic plants such as tamarisk and fountain grass are prohibited. Existing trees
may remain.
47. If Bighorn Sheep enter onto the Project Site, an 8-foot fence (or the functional
equivalent) between the development and the hillside, if any, shall be
constructed. The gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. If
determined necessary, the developer shall construct temporary fencing while
permanent fencing is constructed. The fence shall not contain gaps in which
bighorn sheep can be entangled. If the developer transfer or disposes of any of
the property adjacent to the hillside, the developer shall reserve an easement
sufficient for the construction of fencing if needed in the future.
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PC COA TT 32117.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 32117
QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
ADOPTED: MARCH 9, 2004
48. Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the project area, and shall be
kept away from the hillside areas through appropriate signage and fencing,
where applicable.
49. Access into the hillside area from the site will be discouraged through the use of
signs or barricades, if necessary, unless the access is provided as part of a trail
system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG.
50. The final design of the project shall insure that road and driveways are designed
to minimize headlight shine from vehicles onto the hillside.
51. In all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non -glare glass shall be used in new
construction. Exterior building lights shall not shine on the hillside. Exterior
lighting shP:\FRED\TT 321 17\PC COA TT 321 17.docall be kept at the safest
possible minimum intensity and aimed away from the hillside.
52. The developer shall obtain a stream bed alteration agreement with the
Department of Fish and Game prior to grading if required under the California
Fish and Game Code.
P:\FRED\TT 32117\PC COA TT 32117.DOC
ATTACHMENT #
z
0
c�
V)
Z z
o z
LA QUINTA W Q o
w a
AVE
PGAWEST
LAKE CAH U I LLA AVE
r-.
QUARRY
PROJECT/ 1
LOCATION l
N
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT #2
11
4
i61 dtiil
�!a hra
t'1 tia
�:1 lilt
it
Of
P"
!
�lY4!
�rtY
�00 d 'Ad Lip b0 l0 ti00Z/ZO/ZO '6MP'Ll IZ�Wll 90Z��\LL LZ� 'ON ddW 10d2l1\Xa^jns\s6uiMojp\90Z�'4'ob\L��otN;l=(
v
ATTACHMENT #3
O m p
N '•
SSH d C@�
Q
R
v
�
8
is �g� 6,F� ma �� ;a �� �� ��s�p ••'�. -,-;•� -/� -- - m � -
LL1
I -L
2 Vih 2 S
O 0�2iOV •.J�/ �04/ � �' o � I
N � hh `I�m2� � ¢ 0�`•/h n I`�
�� iuwo w "��' " 7' awa ik•
ca
99
g
V Oa 2h2 = 7%• qy i•� L--� i/ �� f
Ohm
hysa� as �q g Viz?
iYC pg as 11
rasa�r
s
o•
W
� K
3
C
0
S
aaaa aaaa
II
II
II
g
"
1 I
y��mi�
k
a20
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
hNN
'K
•�
w�
rA+1�
�ih�
hri"
\
m