2001 06 12 PCTit,, 4 4 Q"
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
June 12, 2001
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2001-087
Beginning Minute Motion 2001-012
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
11. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for
public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on May 22, 2001.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item ...................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092
Applicant...........
Barton Properties, Inc. (Charles and Norma Fausel)
Location............
Northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street
Request .............
Request for certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact and the subdivision
of approximately 37.08 acres into 97 single family and
other common lots.
Action ...............
Resolution 2001- Resolution 2001-
B. Item ................... ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2000-066
Applicant........... City of La Quinta
Location............ City-wide
Request ............. Review of applicability and impact of current Water
Efficient Ordinance on development proposals.
Action ............... Continue to August 28, 2001
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Discussion regarding Planning Commission summer meeting dates.
B. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of June 5, 2001.
X. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
May 22, 2001
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the
flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Steve Robbins.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal Planner
Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Chairman Robbins stated a request had been received from Country Club
of the Desert to reorganize the agenda taking Business Item "A" first. It
was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to take
Business Item "A" first on the agenda. Unanimously approved.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
May 8, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 7, Item 20 be
corrected to delete "Abets"; Page 11, Item #36 be corrected to state, "as
amended"; and Page 16, Item 2 be corrected by changing "Hastings Day
Care" with "First School of the Desert".There being no further corrections,
it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to approve the
minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PRESENTATIONS: Norte.
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01 .wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Tract Map 29894; a request of Country Club of the Desert for a deviation
from the Public Works Department approved mass grading plan for the
property located on the north side of Avenue 54 between Jefferson
Street and Madison Street.
1. Chairman Robbins asked for the staff report. Planning Manager
Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify Attachment 1 as to
whether or not it had been approved by Council. Staff stated the
design details for the perimeter landscaping were conceptual when
approved and the height of the berm was not defined until the
mass grading plan was submitted. Commissioner Tyler asked staff
to clarify what the Code required in regard to the wall, sidewalk,
and height. Staff did so.
3. Chairman Robbins asked if there was a wall proposed. Staff
stated it is proposed to be set back a distance ranging 15 to 25
feet along Avenue 54. Chairman Robbins questioned the 3:1
slope behind the wall.
4. Commissioner Butler asked how this occurred without staff
knowing it. Staff stated that since they have not completed the
grading there was no need to inspect it. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer stated that for any project other than a golf course, the pad
elevations would be defined and they would have to grade to that
plan. During the course of grading for a golf course, the City's
inspectors do not check detailed elevations and the developer
grades at their own risk. At the completion of the grading they are
required to submit a certificate to the City certifying that the
grading was completed to the approved plans. In this instance,
there is no doubt they have deviated from the approved plan.
5. Commissioner Kirk reviewed the approval process and asked why
it was now before the Commission. Staff clarified that when the
wall plans were submitted for approval, the grading issue was
brought to staff's attention. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had
a recommendation. Staff stated they did not.
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
6. Chairman Robbins stated it appears the golf course is 20 + feet
below the street so the golf course is in a 40 foot hole below the
top of the berm.
7. Commissioner Butler asked if there were any City codes that
would allow this type of berm to be approved. Staff stated there
are some issues in regard to this because in some instances a
noise issue may require a higher berms than normal, such as in the
case of Rancho La Quinta and Lake La Quinta. Commissioner
Butler stated he did not entirely object to the berm.
8. Commissioner Abels asked what the height of the berm would be
at its highest point with the wall on top. Staff stated the wall will
not be on the top of the berm. It will be near the bottom and six
feet in height.
9. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a site plan for the interior
of the project. Staff stated the applicant would address this.
10. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Nancy Aaronson, representing Country Club of
the Desert, stated they are trying to find a location for excess dirt
on the site. They are trying to balance the dirt out over the entire
project. Aesthetically from inside the project the berming is
essential to protect the value of the project. They had two
different grading plans approved for their project. One was the
right of way and the other was for the golf course. Steve Garcia,
landscape architect for the project, showed photographs that had
been taken of the site. The dirt is stockpiled and will be
sculptured at a later date. Within the right of way they have
maintained the 3:1 slope with a meandering sidewalk. The wall is
set back to be no closer than 15 feet from the right of way.
Discussion followed as to the landscaping materials that would be
used and the grading elevations on both sides of the berm.
11. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Specific Plan required
the landscaping to match the other side of Avenue 54. Staff
stated yes. Mr. Garcia stated their plans calls for a maximum
30% turf in the perimeter right of way area.
12. Commissioner Butler asked what type of vegetation would be used
on the berm. Mr. Garcia stated desert perennials and drought
tolerant shrubs.
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
13. Commissioner Tyler stated there would be a fantastic view to the
south, but the height of the berm would mask the view of the
mountains. Mr. Garcia stated the reason for the height was to
hide the view of roof tops at PGA West.
14. Commissioner Kirk asked at what point they were viewing the
south view. Mr. Garcia stated at the end of the residential cul-de-
sacs.
15. There being no further discussion, it was before the Commission
for discussion.
16. Commissioner Kirk stated he believes the applicant has made a
point in that if houses were built there it would be a hardscape and
this softscape is a relief. His concern is that they do not know
how the berm will be sculptured. If there is to be no more dirt to
be added he would have no objection.
17. Commissioner Abels stated it was a nice presentation and he
would have no objections.
18. Commissioner Butler stated he likes the concept of buffering the
golf course from the street. He supports the project.
19. Commissioner Tyler stated that driving by presently it is like
driving through the Grand Canyon. There has been a lot of
concern voiced by the residents of PGA West. He had strong
objections and after the presentation his opinion is somewhat
tempered.
20. Chairman Robbins stated he too was concerned after driving by,
but after hearing the presentation and the intent of the applicant,
he does like the concept.
21. Commissioner Tyler asked if this concept would be carried all the
way down Avenue 54. Ms. Aaronson stated yes.
22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2001-01 1
approving the deviation to the approved mass grading plan for
Tract Map 29894. Unanimously approved.
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-Ol.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Site Development Permit 2001-693; a request of JR Properties for The
990 Stores, for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a
shopping center to include a 23,00 square foot commercial store located
at northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Highway 1 1 1.
Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio and Planning
Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if staff could explain the drive access
shared with Home Depot. Staff did so. Commissioner Tyler asked
how many phases there were to the project. Staff stated this area
is stated in the Specific Plan as Phase II.
3. Commissioner Butler asked about the landscaping on the north
side of the property and the bikepath. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer stated the General Plan has the bikepath on the north side
of the Channel. The problem is how to get the bikepath across
Dune Palms Road and Adams Streets. Commissioner Butler
stated that on the north end of the building the landscaping is very
sparse. Staff clarified there would be 36-inch box trees along the
entire length of the project.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked if the design of the wall with openings
as stated in the ALRC minutes, would be constructed. Staff
stated that is something that could be considered as it was
required of the Corporate Center.
5. Commissioner Butler stated his concern has always been the
maintenance of the landscaping of the rear elevation. He would
prefer to have 36 inch trees in the parking lot and the smaller trees
in the rear.
6. Commissioner Kirk asked if the entire parking lot would be built at
the time the 99 Cent Store is constructed. Staff stated yes.
Commissioner Kirk asked where and how large the monument sign
would be. Staff stated it is consistent with the Specific Plan
requirements and would be located in front of the Jack in the Box
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
and is not included in their 50 foot size limitation. Each retail
tenant would be allowed 50 square feet or a percent of the store
frontage. Discussion followed regarding the Code requirements
and Specific Plan requirements.
7. Chairman Robbins stated his only concern was with the rear
elevation as it appears to be a square box. The wall behind the
Home Depot appears to be higher than six feet and the view is
nothing but concrete and building. There needs to be more
landscaping to soften the look. Staff stated the Specific Plan
requires a six foot wall.
8. Commissioner Butler asked about the color of the awning. Staff
stated the colors have been conditioned to be blue and grey.
Commissioner Butler asked if the height was stipulated in the
conditions. Staff stated yes.
9. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Bob Bucci, architect representing the applicant,
stated they agree with the arcades for the entire length of the 99
Cent Store. They would like to request bringing the rest of the
buildings back to the Commission at a later date. Staff stated
there was a requirement that it be brought back to ensure it meets
all the requirements.
10. Commissioner Kirk stated it was his understanding that this
approval would be the final approval. Staff stated Condition #37
requires it come back to the Planning Commission.
11. Mr. Bucci stated another issue is the requirement to match the
Home Depot's arch. Home Depot has a simple band around the
building and their design was to add some interest to the building.
In regard to signage, the would like to request a seven foot height
and seven foot width or eight foot height and six foot width which
is still within the allowable square footage for signs.
12. Commissioner Tyler asked what the sign height was on the
drawings. Mr. Bucci stated it was 13 feet by 9 feet. They concur
with all the other conditions.
13. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant could address the rear
elevation. Mr. Bucci stated staff recommended they mirror the
Home Depot rear elevation, hiding the mechanical equipment and
adding the split face block wall.
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
14. Chairman Robbins stated the color change will not be seen due to
the block wall as well as the tree. Mr. Bucci stated the rear
elevation could be varied to break it up. Planning Manager
Christine di lorio stated that lowering the rear elevation will allow
you to see the back of the front parapets as well as the
mechanical equipment from the rear.
15. Commissioner Butler asked if the mechanical equipment was
below the roof line. Staff stated yes and the rear parapet height
is 26 feet and the front parapet is 34 feet. Mr. Bucci stated they
could raise the parapet up on the back of the 99 Center Store and
lower it in other areas.
16. There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
17. Commissioner Abels stated he had no objections.
18. Commissioner Butler stated his concern is the north elevation and
landscaping. Staff stated it is still conditioned to come back to the
Commission before final approval for building permits.
19. Commissioner Tyler stated he is concerned about the arcade that
it not be blocked with vendors. He would like to see the arcade
developed and agrees with staff that the awnings be lowered. In
regard to the sign, if they propose a sign that is within what is
allowed he has no objection.
20. Commissioner Kirk stated he agrees with the changes to the
design. His concern is that staff has asked them to mirror the
Home Depot store and the Commission is not happy with the
Home Depot design. In regard to the project coming back again
for Commission approval, he would recommend that the site plan
and elevations for the 99 Cent Store come back to the
Commission, along with the remainder of the center.
21. Chairman Robbins stated he does not like the design of the Home
Depot arches and what the applicant has submitted is a much
better design. He would not like to piece -meal the project by
considering the entire site in sections.
22. Commissioner Kirk asked if a project had ever been submitted in
different phases. Staff stated the Albertsons Center was approved
under the Site Development Permit with the in -line stores.
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01 .wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
Commissioner Kirk stated that the way it is proposed he would not
support it. Without seeing the changes they are suggesting for the
rear elevation and how the arcade would be designed he would not
approve it.
23. Commissioner Tyler stated he concurred. They ought to be able
to focus on the 99 Center Store and see the rest of the site later.
Staff suggested that Condition #37 be amended to read that the
elevations for Buildings "A", "B", "C", and "D" be brought back to
the Commission.
24. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-079, approving Site Development Permit 2001-
693, as amended.
a. Condition #35.A.: Add - 99 Cent Store excluded. The roof
of the arcade shall be equivalent in height to that shown for
the 99 Cent Store and shall be covered.
b. Condition #35.B.: Deleted
C. Condition #35.C.: Expand either Buildings "C" or the 99
Cent Store to incorporate the triangular area between the
two buildings into either of the floor plans.
d. Condition #35.D.: Step the parapet along the entire rear
elevation of all buildings.
e. Condition #37: Amended elevations, landscaping, and site
plan for Buildings "A", "B", "C" and "D" shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to
the issuance of building permits.
f. Condition #40: Signs shall not exceed 50 square feet (7
feet in height and 7 feet in length).
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Kirk. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
B. Addendum to Environmental Assessment #41, General Plan Amendment
2001-078 Zone Change 2001-101 Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #5.
Site Development Permit 2001-703 and Tentative Tract Map 30125; a
request of KSL Land Development for, 1) certification of an Addendum
to an Environmental Impact Report; 2) a General Plan Amendment and
Zoning Change to change lands currently designated as Tourist
Commercial to Low Density Residential; 3) a Specific Plan Amendment
establishing development standards and design guidelines for the
G:\WPD0CS\PC5-22-01.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
construction of 65 single family homes, a clubhouse, and amendment of
the landscaping plant palette; and 4) development plans for the model
homes and subdivision of 17.82 acres into 65 single family and
miscellaneous lots to be located on the southeast corner of Eisenhower
Drive and Avenue 50.
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio and Planning
Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department. Staff requested a condition be added
that parking for a three car garage be provided if a plan for a
fourth bedroom is added. Condition #19 should be deleted.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the house minimum
square footage. Staff stated the Specific Plan states 1,200 square
feet excluding the garage, but the prototypes state 2,131 square
feet excluding the garage.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain Condition #4. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated it is an explanation of how they widen
the street at the bridge. Commissioner Tyler asked why there
were no conditions on the turning access width. Staff stated it
could be added to give them full turn access at the emergency
access. The interior stacking is adequate and the outside pocket
is yet to be designed.
4. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any existing homes of this
size in this area. Staff stated no.
5. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like to see the tandem
parking in the garage allowed. Staff stated the development
standards could be modified to allow the tandem garage parking.
6. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing the applicant, stated
they have prepared some elevations to address issues raised by
staff. He understands the off -site improvements, but not the
requirement to build and pay for the retaining wall. Specific
conditions they question are the retaining wall easement in
Condition #4. They asked that Condition #22 be amended to not
tie the parking lot to the development of the houses being
constructed on Avenue 50. He suggested that before this parking
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01 .wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
lot be eliminated the permanent parking lot be built. He asked that
a condition be added to allow a development regulation to allow
the pool to be built to the zero lot line for Planning Area 3.
Condition #10 of the Specific Plan and Condition #2 of the Site
Development Permit would need to be changed.
7. Chairman Robbins asked there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Butler asked Mr. Haag to explain why
they should have relief from building the retaining wall. Mr. Haag
stated that as Eisenhower Drive widening over the bridge is
constructed to four lanes it will encroach into their existing golf
hole requiring a retaining wall of 16 feet to four feet to be
constructed. Staff clarified that in Tract Map Condition #47.A. it
explains it better. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the City is
consistent with their practice to have developments widen Arterial
streets adjacent to their property. Although the golf hole is not
part of this tract, the previous parcel map for the parking lot
required them to widen Eisenhower Drive along the golf hole
frontage. The issue of widening is part of their issue and the
retaining wall is a second issue. The General Plan as currently
written requires the four lanes. The updated General Plan might
not. The bridge widening is included in the Capital Improvement
Projects for 2003. This requirement is not new, but has been on
the site since its creation.
8. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any public comment. Mr.
Gene Reed, representing the L Quinta Country Club, stated their
issue is with Condition #17 which states the minimum square
footage intended to be built. In regard to the wall, they would
request it match what is currently there for Duna La Quinta.
Regarding the parking lot, they agree with staff's recommendation.
On the pool at the corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50, is
there any requirement to hide the pool with landscaping. Planning
Consultant Nicole Criste stated there is a six foot high perimeter
wall with landscaping. Mr. Reed asked that the traffic pattern on
Avenue 50 take into consideration their entrance as well.
9. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened it to
Commission discussion.
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
10. Commissioner Kirk stated they have reviewed other amendments
where the procedure was not correct for the site. In this case it
is the right use for the site. With respect to the concerns raised,
he concurs with staff's recommendation; on the timing, he agrees
with the applicant; the zero lot line for pools, he has no objection;
the meandering wall averaging 20 feet is acceptable; lot sizes at
6000 square feet instead of 6500 feet still needs to be addressed;
building square footage minimums he does not feel strongly about.
11. Commissioner Butler stated he is concerned about the parking lot
and agrees with the applicant as long as it is conditioned. He
agrees with the requirement for the retaining wall.
12. Commissioner Tyler stated that in Planning Area II, it talks about
minimum lot size for this project and should include the data for
this project. He would like to know exactly how many lots are
less than 6500 square feet. Staff stated there were five.
Commissioner Tyler stated that based on the information provided
by the applicant, he has no objection.
13. Chairman Robbins asked if the Compatibility Ordinance would
come into play with this project. Staff stated that if another
developer builds a part of the project, then it will.
14. Commissioner Tyler stated the approved Specific Plan document
should agree with what they are approving.
15. Chairman Robbins stated he concurs with staff's recommendation
on the street widening and retaining wall; timing for parking lot is
acceptable as requested by the applicant; zero lot line and the
meandering wall are also acceptable as requested by the applicant;
and he has no problem with the lot sizes or building square
footage.
16. Chairman Robbins reopened the public hearing portion of the
hearing. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL Land Development, stated their
objective is to be able to develop a project that is economically
feasible. To do this they need a higher density created by allowing
some flexibility on the lot sizes.
17. Mr. Reed stated they are in favor of this project. What they have
an objection to is any houses built that are less than 1400 square
feet.
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01.wpd 11
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
18. Chairman Robbins closed the public comment portion of the
hearing.
19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-080 recommending certification of an Addendum
to Environmental Impact Report #41, as recommended
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Chairman Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
20. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-081 recommending
approval of General Plan 2001-078, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Chairman Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-082 recommending
approval of Zone Change 2001-101, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Chairman Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-083 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 121-# Amendment #5, as amended.
a. Condition #10: Add meandering walls
b. Condition #17: Minimum lot size is 6500 not abutting golf
course, 6000 on golf course, and minimum livable square
footage is 1900 square feet, excluding garages.
C. Condition #19: Delete and replace with "Allow tandem
parking in the garage to meet the parking requirement for
four bedroom houses."
d. Condition #22: Add, "Prior to final inspection of the 10tn
house the permanent parking lot shall be completed."
e. Condition #23 : Planning Area III shall be allowed to have a
zero lot line for swimming pools.
G:\WPD0CS\PC5-22-01.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Chairman Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-084 recommending
approval of Site Development Permit 2001-703, as amended.
a. Condition #2: Delete and replace with Condition #10 of the
Specific Plan.
b. Condition #3: Add "the wall design and materials will be
compatible with the Duna La Quinta's perimeter wall."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Chairman Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-085 recommending
approval of Tentative Tract 30125, as amended.
a. Condition #8.B(3): Change Lot (G) to Lot (H).
b. Condition #27: The perimeter walls along Eisenhower Drive
and Avenue 50 shall be constructed at the time the homes
are built along either of the two streets. The Community
Development Department shall determine the portion of the
wall that shall be installed when building permits are issued
for the clubhouse.
C. Condition #47.B.(2): Change Lot (G) to Lot (H)•
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Chairman Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
25. Following discussion it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Abels to reconsider the motion and vote on
Site Development Permit 2001-703. Unanimously approved.
26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-084 recommending
approval of Site Development Permit 2001-703, as modified:
a. Condition #2 : delete and replace with Condition #10 of the
Specific Plan.
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
b. Condition #3; Add that the wall design and materials will be
compatible with the Duna La Quinta perimeter wall.
C. Condition #5: the perimeter walls along Eisenhower Drive
and Avenue 50 shall be constructed at the time the homes
are built along either of the two streets. The Community
Development Department shall determine the portion of the
wall that shall be installed when building permits are issued
for the clubhouse.
C. Tentative Tract Map 29858; a request of RJT Homes for review of an
amendment to reconfigure seven acres in the southeast corner of the
tract into 18 single family and other common lots located approximately
800 feet south of Avenue 50 and west of Jefferson Street, within
Palmilla Specific Plan.
1 . Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the number of houses to
be built in each phase. Staff clarified the plan was referring to the
size of the homes not the number of houses. Commissioner Tyler
asked if this change had any affect on the water efficiency issue.
Staff stated no.
3. Chairman Robbins questioned why Lot "D" on the legend is called
out as a lake lot and yet Lot "D" on the map is listed as a
landscape lot. Mr. Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting representing the
applicant, stated it is a misprint. They should be reversed.
4. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Chris Bergh was available for any questions.
5. There being no questions of the applicant, nor any other public
comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion
of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-086 recommending approval of Tentative Tract
Map 29858, Amendment #1, as recommended.
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01.wpd 14
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
VII
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
D. Conditional Use Permit 2001-058 and Site Development Permit 2001-
693 a request of La Quinta Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses to
allow the use and review of development plans for a church facility on
2.39 acres located on the east side of Dune Palms Road, between the
Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel and Westward Ho Drive.
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
requested a continuance to July 10, 2001, to allow time to revise
their plans per the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee
recommendations.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there was a motion to continue
Conditional Use Permit 2001-058 and Site Development Permit
2001-693. It was moved and second by Commissioners
Tyler/Abets to continue Conditional Use Permit 2001-058 and Site
Development Permit 2001-693, as recommended. Unanimously
approved.
E. Environmental Assessment 2001-418. General Plan Amendment 2001-
077, Zone Change 2001-100 a request of NRI, La Quinta Limited
Partnership to change Riverside County zoning designation to Very Low
Density Residential (RVL) and the General Plan designation to Very Low
Density Residential (VLRD) for approximately 240 acres within the
Sphere of Influence of the City of La Quinta for subsequent annexation
bounded on the north by Avenue 52, on the east by Monroe Street, on
the south by Avenue 53 and east of the existing City limits.
1. Chairman Robbins informed the Commission that the applicant had
withdrawn their applications and no further action was required
at this time.
CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of May 15,
2001.
G:\WPDOCS\PC5-22-01 .wpd 15
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2001
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held June 12, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. on May 22,
2001.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPD0CS\PC5-22-01.wpd 16
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 12, 2001
CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 30092
APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INC.
PROPERTY
OWNER: CHARLES AND NORMA FAUSEL
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MONROE STREET
REQUEST: CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 37.08 ACRES INTO 97 SINGLE FAMILY AND
OTHER COMMON LOTS
ENGINEER: HACKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP HAS COMPLIED WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF "THE RULES TO IMPLEMENT THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970" AS
AMENDED (RESOLUTION 83-63), IN THAT COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE
PROPOSED MAP COULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT PROVIDED THAT
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION IS REQUIRED, AND THAT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT (EA 2001-417) SHOULD BE FILED.
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND RL (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) - PENDING ANNEXATION
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE SERVICE AREA
SOUTH: ACROSS 58T" AVENUE, DATE PALM GROVES AND
ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE SERVICE AREA
STPC 29963 58T" ESTATES Final - 48 GREG T.
R 6/1, 6/6
Page 1 of 3
EAST: ACROSS MONROE STREET, SCATTERED SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSES AND OTHER VACANT
PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
SERVICE AREA
WEST: IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT OFFICES AND
AFFILIATED ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
FACILITIES
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is currently located outside the City limits and located at the
northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. This site is pending annexation
into the City and has been used for farming activities in past years. On April 3, 2001,
the City Council approved pre -annexation designations of Low Density Residential
(General Plan Amendment 2001-074) and RL (Zone Change 2001-098) allowing up
to four units per acre for this site and properties to the north (Attachment #1). Rural
infrastructure improvements exist (two traffic lanes) along the frontage of the site with
high voltage electric transmission lines on both sides of Avenue 58.
REQUEST:
The Tentative Tract Map proposes 97 single family and other street and common lots.
The single family lots measure approximately 1 10' wide by 1 19' long (13,090 sq. ft.)
on 36' wide private streets (Attachment #2). Internal street access is designed around
two loop streets that have four offshoot cul-de-sacs serving about one-third of the
single family lots. Gated access to the project is located at the southwest corner of
the site on Avenue 58; an emergency access gate is planned at the northeast corner
of the project on Monroe Street at the terminus of a cul-de-sac street.
A 20-foot deep landscaped lot with a meandering sidewalk and wall will be provided
along both Arterial Streets as required by the General Plan Circulation Element.
Easements for utility purposes are shown on the map exhibit as well.
Site drainage will traverse the site and be deposited into Lot #98 at the southeast
corner of the development. This 1.32 acre common lot will be used for stormwater
retention purposes and include raised areas for a clubhouse and off-street guest
parking spaces. The applicant also proposes a tennis court in the retention basin. A
CVWD well site of 0.64 acres is sited at the northeast corner of the Tract at the
terminus of one of the cul-de-sac streets.
Landscaping plans have not yet been provided, but would be reviewed as part of the
Site Development Review process which will be required for the homes to be located
within the project.
STPC 29963 58-" ESTATES Final - 48 GREG T.
R 6/l, 6/6
Page 2 of 3
Public Notice
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 22, 2001, and
mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no comments have
been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received will be
handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency Review
A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City
Departments. All written comments received are on file with the Community
Development Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the
recommended Conditions of Approval.
MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve this request per Section 13.12.130 of the Subdivision Regulations
can be made and are contained in the attached resolution with the following exception:
B. The design, or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
City's General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that the tract map
design shows no undulation along the perimeter walls along Avenue 58 and
Monroe Street. Therefore, in accordance with Table 9-2 of the Zoning
Ordinance, staff is recommending Condition #81 which requires an undulating
decorative wall along both perimeter streets.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City
Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact (EA 2001-417) according to the findings set forth in the attached
Resolution; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 30092, subject to findings and
conditions.
Attachments:
1. Annexation Map
2. Reduced Tract Map Exhibit Map
Prepared by:
Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
- C
� L) ��/�i
Christine di lorio, Pla ning Manager
STPC 29963 58T" ESTATES Final - 48 GREG T.
R 6/1, 6/6
Page 3 of 3
Environmental Checklist Form
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417
1. Project Title: TTM 30092 (Barton Properties)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: NW Corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe St.; East of the
City limits
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Barton Properties, 1 161 1 San Vicente
Blvd., S-605, Los Angeles, CA 90049
(310-826-4658)
6. General Plan Designation:
County: Agriculture, 2-B (2-5 d.u./acre), LDR (0-4
d.u./acre)
City: Low Density Residential (Pre -Annex.)
7. Zoning: County: A-1-20, R-1-9000
City: Low Density Residential (Pre -Annex.)
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for
its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Development of 97 single family and other common lots on 37 acres within
the boundaries of GPA 2001-074 and ZC 2001-098.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Vacant (previously agriculture)
South: Across Ave. 58, date palm grove and residential
East: Across Monroe St., vacant and scattered residential
West: HD Corporate facility
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission (Annexation process)
PAGREG\EACkIstBarton30092. WPD
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. 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" 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
p3Tnc
dvapplicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
E udnngrevisionsormitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
n rther is required.
a
Printed Name
-L 1- _ e- /
Date
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Is
ICJ
u
FOR
For
P:\G REG\EACkIstBarton30092. W PD
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 reference 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) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact' to a "Less 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 XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," 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). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the
checklist.
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) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
PAGREG\EACkIstBarton30092.WPD
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area'? (Application
materials)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use'? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a 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)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
99
V
X
P:\GREG\EACkIstBarton30092.WPD
4
IV
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Application materials)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people'?
(Application materials)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 5-2 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means'? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and
Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\GREG\EACk1stBarton30092.WPD
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report,"
CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April
2001.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
("Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, CRM Tech,
10/19/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey
Report:," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase I Report by A.A.G. dated
April 2001.)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and Sladden
Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.
and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan E.IR, page 4-30 ff. and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-
2001)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Sladden Geotechnical
Report dated 2-9-2001)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
91
KI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\GREG\EACk1stBarton30092.WPD
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment'?
(Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport 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 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 interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-11)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater 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 (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff. and
Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff. and Hacker Engineering
Drainage Report for TTM 30092)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\GRE.G\EACkIstBarton30092.WPD
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page
4-59 ff. and Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092)
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control'?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff. and Hacker Engineering Drainage
Report for TTM 30092)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13 )
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation 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. 4-157 ff.
and Noise Impact Report prepared by P.A. Penardi and Assoc. dated 4-
4-01)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?(General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'?
(General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
►99
r
X
X
M
P:\GREG\EACk1stBarton30092.WPD
d) For a project located within an airport 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? (Application Materials)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project: expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth 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, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
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, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks'? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of 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 facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment'? (Application Materials)
X
X
X
X
X
X
►9
M
X
KI
P:\GREG\EACkistBarton3OO92.WPD
KV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 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. 4-126 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (Application Materials)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-
24)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-27)
d) Are; sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan
MEA, page 4-28)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1/
X
/1
R.
91
1�
P:\GRE:G\EACkIstBarton30092.WPD
10
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to 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 achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are 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
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES.
X
X
!1
/1
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 prepared for the County of Riverside were used in reviewing the potential impacts of the
proposed project. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No.
37276, Amd. No 1. City EA 2001-408 covers this site and 240 acres to the north.
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.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992; SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook; General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992; Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La
Quinta; City of La Quinta Municipal Code; "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report," prepared
by CRM Tech, October 18, 2000; "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech,
October 19, 2000; "Phase 1 Archaeological/Historic Resources Assessment for TTM 30092", prepared by
Archaeological Advisory Group, April 2001; "Noise Report #01106 for TTM 30092," prepared by P.A.
Penardi and Assoc., April 4, 2001; "Geotechnical Investigation for TTM 30092," prepared by Sladden Eng.,
Feb. 9, 2001;"Preliminary Drainage Calc. - TTM 30092," prepared by Hacker Eng., April 13, 2001.
P:\GREG\EACk1stBarton30092.WPD
11
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-417
for Tentative Tract Map 30092
Introduction
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to supplement EA 2001-408
prepared for General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 (City
Council Resolution 2001-34). The purpose of this environmental assessment,
therefore, is to review and quantify all known potential impacts to the environment.
Where appropriate, mitigation measures associated with the physical development of
the undeveloped property have been proposed.
IL c) The proposed annexation area of 280 acres is not listed as significant farmland,
nor is it currently subject to Williamson Act contracts. The land has a County
General Plan designation of Low Density Residential, and is zoned Agriculture,
1-20 acres under the County Zoning Ordinance. The pending annexation action
will not change the current use of the land from agriculture. However, site
development will result in the loss of agricultural land. Residential subdivisions
are being developed to the north of the site, thereby showing that landowners
are receptive to nonagricultural development. The loss of this site for
agriculture is not expected to be significant based on the conclusion of this
assessment and EA 2001-408.
III. a), c) & d)
The development of this project could generate up to 970 average daily trips'.
These trips, plus development of 40 acres to the north (Annexation
Application), could generate the following emissions. The Table below also
includes the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for each potential pollutant.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10
PM10 PM10
co ROC NOx Exhaust
Brakes Tires
50 mph 158.17 6.08 32.45 -
0.68 0.68
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100
150
Based on 3,062 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by
California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. *
Operational thresholds provided by
SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project.
"Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Volume 1" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Single Family detached housing (210) used.
P:\GREG\EAAddenT30092Barton.WPD
The Coachella Valley has in the past been a non -attainment area for PM 10
(particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). In order to control PM 10, the City
has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust.
SCAQMD also suggests mitigation for vehicular emissions, which are integrated
into the following mitigation measures for future development:
1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and
approval of a PM 10 Management Plan.
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site, unless otherwise allowed
by the City Engineer.
6. Any piece of land to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three
feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
7. Watering of any portion of the site or other soil stabilization method shall
be employed on an ongoing basis after the initiation of any grading
activity on the site. Portions of any portion 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.
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
1 1. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the
California Administrative Code.
P:\GRE:G\EAAddenT30092Barton.WPD
13. Any project on the annexation area lands shall provide for non -motorized
transportation facilities and shall implement all feasible measures to
encourage the use of alternate transportation measures.
14. Based on EA 2001-408, any project proposed on the annexation lands
which generates more than 3,062 trips per day shall be required to
prepared revised air quality calculations which provide an accurate
analysis of the potential impacts caused by the project. This Map
involves 40 acres (50%) of the annexation area.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from the proposed annexation will not be significant. Moreover, improvements
in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor
vehicles or the transit route improvements in the future which may occur at the
project site are not included in the analysis.
IV. a► Biological resource analysis has not been performed because the site has been
actively used for farm activities and therefore is not likely to be a valuable
habitat for native species. The land is not in an area of concern for known
sensitive species and is outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringed -
toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Impacts from development are not
expected to be significant.
V. a) & b)
Cultural resource surveys were conducted for the subject property'. The survey
found that no significant resources occur on the site.
V. c) A paleontological resource study was performed for the 80 acres at the
southeasterly portion of the annexation area, and the balance of the site has
been previously assessed for paleontologic resources'. The annexation area has
exhibited signs of mollusks, being within the historic lakebed of ancient Lake
Cahuilla, but no vertebrate remains have been located. The mollusks found are
abundant in this area, and do not represent a significant resource. As such, the
on -site investigation and report found that the impacts on paleontologic
resources are less than significant, and that no further analysis of the site is
necessary.
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, October, 2000; Phase I
Archaeological/Historical Survey, prepared by James Brock, MA, RPA dated April 2001.
3 Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, prepared by CRM Tech, October 2000.
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast
Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These
analyses cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project.
P:\GREG\EAAddenT30092Barton.WPD
VI. a) i) & ii)
The site is not located in any Earthquake Fault zones as designated by the State
but is mapped in the Ground Shaking Zone IV meaning seismic events can cause
damage to building under certain occurrences. To ensure structures can
withstand damage from earthquakes, compliance with the Geotechnical
Investigation Report by Sladden Engineering dated February 9, 2001, shall be
met during any site construction work. This requirement will ensure that
impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. a) iii)
This site may be subject to liquefaction due to groundwater being found within
25 to 30 feet requiring "remedial grading including overexcavation and
recompaction." (Sladden Report) To develop the site, the following mitigation
measure shall be implemented:
1. Grading activities and structure development shall comply with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by
Sladden Engineering for TTM 30092 including over -excavation, and other
methods known to reduce the potential for liquefaction impacts on
residential and recreational structures.
VIII. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which
extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin.
Development of the site will replace the use of canal water for crop irrigation
purposes and may represent a positive impact insofar as water usage may be
reduced when agricultural irrigation no longer occurs on the site.
Stormwater generated by development will be retained on -site which will
encourage percolation and groundwater recharge. Additionally, City Ordinances
require water conserving plumbing fixtures and landscaping. These mitigation
measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. c)-e)
Site development of buildings and parking areas will create impermeable
surfaces creating drainage pattern changes. The project site is located in a C
Flood Zone. The project is required to meet the City's standards for retention
of the 100-year storm on -site. The drainage plan, prepared by Hacker
Engineering, has been reviewed by the City Engineer for compliance with
Section 13.24.120 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Tract conditions
are recommended to ensure compliance assuring the flood control system is less
than significant.
XI. a) The development of the area will result in increased noise levels, but these are
not expected to be significant, given that the ambient noise level is, and will
PAGREG\EAAddenT30092Barton.WPD
continue to be low. Development on any portion of the site will include
landscaping, berms and walls which will further attenuate sound in the area as
required by Noise Impact Report prepared by P.A. Penardi and Associates dated
April 4, 2001. The impacts from noise are therefore not expected to be
significant.
XIII. a►
The proposed development will have a direct impact on public services and will
be served, once annexed, via City contracts with the County Sheriff and Fire
Department. The project area will generate, at build -out a population of
approximately 276 persons (i.e., 2.85 people per household). Site development
will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire
services.
XV. a)
The project area will continue to pay the mandated school fees as development
occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the impacts to
schools.
The planned development is private and will include a 1.32 acre recreation lot.
In addition to private recreation, residents will have access to existing and
future City parks and other municipal facilities. The collection of property tax,
and the generation of sales tax from these residents' disposable income, will
generate revenues to the City to offset the added costs associated with the
provision of municipal services. Builders within the project area will be required
to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway
improvements. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact
on municipal services or facilities.
The Village of the Palms project determined traffic impacts for development
would be less than significant'. Under EA 2001-408(City Council Resolution
No. 2001-34) it was determined that a traffic study would not be required,
provided the sites were developed to comply with the LDR General Plan
designation and Impact Mitigation Fees were paid. The implementation of these
mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to the circulation system
to a less than significant level.
a
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39;
TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1.
P:\GRE:G\EAAddenT30092Barton.WPD
XVI. a)-f)
The eventual buildout of the site, however, will require service from the utility
providers. The overall impacts on these services is not expected to be
significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents for their services,
and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection
fees will be required at construction of any project. These fees and charges will
mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
P:\GRE:G\EAAddenT30092Barton.WPD
F
d
CW7
Z
F
d
E+
F
0
ai
O
0
a
0
rq
o
o
°
N
O
U
O
U
ClQ
U
a
W
o
z
z
w
z
o
U
�z
�
v
�
C�~
F�
Q
N
CA
C7
O
z�z
""
O
�I
0
u
W
F
a
a
zU�
d A
a�
OU
U
cd
cy
on
r.
En
b
b
FW+
-co
U
:3
cl
U
acqj
U
Q
�UQ
U
to
on
cqj
73
w
o
Z
H�^
U U
U
V
U
V
V y
'n
N O
cn
U
�
P.
U
o� U
U
o
c
o
In o ago
a
�y
cn
U Q
zz
cl
to
to
w c cq
�
w
U Q U
U
U
U
U Q
O
o
WAa
a�
C7
¢
-=
cl
o
0-4
>4 WI
V
�
rn+-.,,
cq
U
C
cd
v
d U
U
y
cqj
U
U
d
U Cd
U
03
'o
¢
C%
y
GA
a
U
% c
W
H
d
C
U �
A
a�
1:64W
OU
d
c
c.. ..
N
b U cd
cd
Cd
cl c v
U
N
c
U
En
U
ou
F
�
Q%
Q
v
O
a
Tz
QQ
U
V a
0
z
o
o
W
GrA
0.4
o o
y, d
o
H
Cd
U U
0 0
W
a
v
W
H
A
A
14
U
zU
O�
U
O�
U
U
U
b
d
�
C�
U
CA
�DU.1
cl
on
4.
zp
�j
�.�
z
:mac
N
4�Cd
5
F
P. UO
0 �•O
a �,
P..� P,a•1 a
oz
o
wz
Y �b
U
to
w
w a
U A
U m U Q
z
o
w
z
o
x
bo
M 0,
H
w
u
0-40
,Q�,,to
X
cd
c � .?
o
cd
°
to v�i
w
F
d
A
U �
SAW
au
�w
ox
U U
�Qy
W
F
a�
cis
c�
0
a�
F
�
o
0
x
O �
�O
z
O O
Cd
Q
b
o
F
co
�
Q
O
Q)
a W
in.
H
d
A
U �
aU
OU
U
Qcl
4r Q
s-' O
a�
b
roIn
o
F
a�
b
an
Q
x
O �
�
� �
o
AO
zz
Q
Aa0i
Q.
U Q
u
.s�
z
co
��
z
O
0-4
�
F
0
a
� o
3 n.
0
v .d
ch
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417
APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 12t' day of June, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for
Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for Tentative Tract Map No. 30092 located at
the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street, more particularly described as
follows:
APN: 761-720-020
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 3rd day of April, 2001, adopt Resolution 2001-34 certifying Environmental
Assessment 2001-408 for General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change
2001 -098 affecting this site and those properties to the north; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-417)
and has determined that although the proposed residential development could have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect
in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the
assessment and included in the conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should 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 recommend to the City Council
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1 . The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2001-417.
P:\GREG\EA PCResoTTM30092Barton.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-
Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for TTM 30092
June 12, 2001
2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map does not have the potential to achieve short-
term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals,
as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not result in impacts which are
individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the
area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
417 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.51d1.
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
P:\GREG\EA PCResoTTM30092Barton.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-
Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for TTM 30092
June 12, 2001
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 constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment
2001-417 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.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-417 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12' day of June, 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\GREG\EA PCResoTTM30092Barton.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION OF 97 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER STREET
AND COMMON LOTS ON 37.08 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MONROE
STREET
CASE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30092
APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did,
on the 121h day of June, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by
Barton Properties for Charles and Norma Fausel to create 97 single family and other
common lots on 37.08 acres located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe
Street, more particularly described as:
APN: 761-720-020
WHEREAS, the Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended
(Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Department has determined that
the proposed Map could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment
provided that recommended mitigation is required, and that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2001-417) should be filed; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did make the following mandatory findings to justify a recommendation to the City Council
for approval of said Tentative Tract Map:
1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan,
in that the subdivision will result in the creation of oversized residential lots to be
developed in accordance with the existing Pre -Annexation Zoning and General Plan
designations as established. Project density is approximately 2.6 units per acre in
lieu of a maximum density of four units per acre.
AAResoPC T30092Barton 58th.wpd - Greg 48 -1-
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-
TTM 30092, Barton Properties
June 12, 2001
Page 2
2. The design and improvements for the Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan, in that all proposed single family lots meet and exceed
minimum required dimensions and sizes requirements. The design of private
streets servicing the residential lots are consistent with standards as contained in
the General Plan Circulation Element.
3. The design of the Map, and its proposed improvements, are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidable injure fish or
wildlife, or their habitat, in that the site is vacant and has been previously disturbed
by farming activity, to the degree that the site itself does not support any wildlife
species.
4. The design of the proposed subdivision map and related improvements are not
likely to cause serious public health problems, in that responsible agencies have
reviewed the project for these issues with no significant concerns identified.
Necessary infrastructure improvements for this project are readily accessible. The
health, safety and welfare of current and future residents can be assured based on
the recommended conditions, which serve to implement mitigation measures for the
project.
5. The design of, and type of improvements for, the Map will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property
within the subdivision, as the proposed subdivision has been reviewed for these
issues with no concerns identified. The Tract's design includes provisions for lot
access and utility and other public easements as determined necessary during
review of the proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said
Planning Commission in this case;
AAResoPC T30092Barton 58th.wpd - Greg 48 -2-
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-
TTM 30092, Barton Properties
June 12, 2001
Page 3
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2001-
417 assessed the environmental concerns of this Map; and
3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Tentative Tract
Map 30092, 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 12' day of June, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOTES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
AAResoPC T30092Barton 58th.wpd - Greg 48 '3'
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30092, BARTON PROPERTIES
JUNE 12, 2001
GENERAL
1. Tentative Tract Map No. 30092 shall comply with the requirements and
standards of § §66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the
Subdivision Map Act) and Title 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC)
unless otherwise modified by the following conditions.
2. This Map approval shall expire and become null and void within two years of
approval unless an extension of time is granted according to the requirements
of Section 13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of
TTM 30092 and certification of EA No. 2001-417. The City of La Quinta shall
have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of
any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain
permits and/or clearances from the following agencies and departments:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (Letters dated 2-26-01 and 3-30-01)
• Imperial Irrigation District (Letter dated 4-18-01)
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
• Verizon
• Time Warner Cable
• The Gas Company (Letter dated 3-22-01)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 1 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12, 2001
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit. Projects disturbing five or more acres, or smaller
projects which are part of a larger project disturbing five or more acres require
a project -specific NPDES permit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the
CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent (NOI) prior to
issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure
that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) is available for
inspection at the project site.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements
and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary
for 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.
6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and
utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer.
7. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of
way.
2) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of
way.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Main Entry: As required for final configuration of the private gated
entry as approved by the City Engineer.
2) Residential: 37-foot width. Width may be reduced to 33 feet
with parking restricted to one side and 29 feet if on -street parking
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 2 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12,2001
is prohibited provided there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors and the applicant makes provisions for
ongoing enforcement of the restrictions.
C. CULS DE SAC
1) Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric)
or 800A (offset) with 39.5-foot radius, or larger.
8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with
Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
10. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of
way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps
dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of
way within 60 days of written request by the City.
1 1 . The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with
and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to
five feet with the express concurrence of IID.
12. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as
follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is
approved):
A. Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot
B. Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot
The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 3 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12, 2001
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
13. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access
to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and
common areas.
14. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and
properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access
points shown on the approved tentative map.
15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as
appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining
wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur.
16. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way
or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned
by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access
easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property
owners
17. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any
portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by
the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same
portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City
Engineer.
FINAL MAMS) AND PARCEL IMAMS)
18. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad
files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage
media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad
menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
map.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 4 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-,
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12, 2001
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed
to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be
submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise
Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall
have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building
Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer.
Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike
paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally
include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the
City Engineer.
20. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant
may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
21. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to
the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they
may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of
construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall
update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
plans.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 5 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12, 2001
GRADING
22. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish written
acknowledgment from CWQCB of receipt of applicants Notice of Intent (NOI).
23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary
geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a
qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations
of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering
geologist.
A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development)
that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health
and Safety Code.
24. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape
areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
25. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting
properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development.
Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three
feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street
frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet.
The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements
and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking
process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will
consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties
and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
26. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant
shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in
accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in
a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance
with the provisions of the permit.
27. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and
water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 6 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12, 2001
provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments.
28. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each
pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the
difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be
organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
29. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this
map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may
be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements
subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct
improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the
improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these
methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by
the City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other
development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those
improvements.
30. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish
an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy
obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map
or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured
agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with
Chapter 13, LQMC.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing
structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
31. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of
improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates
shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or
ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 7 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12, 2001
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V.
cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be
agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the
telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone
service to lots within the development.
32. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative
approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common
improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall
be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each
phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or
occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases
unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer.
33. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement
agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or
final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development
of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
DRAINAGE
34. Applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan as required by
the State NPDES General Construction Permit.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and
the following:
35. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm
(the design 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.
36. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -
lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for
lots 2.5 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is
impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet
the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 8 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12, 2001
37. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated,
unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route.
38. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on
site or passed through to the overflow outlet.
39. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which
shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design
percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour.
40. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be
five feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention.
41. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance
water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by
the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain
surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq.
ft.
42. in developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities
(e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's
Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence
or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community
Development Director and the City Engineer.
43. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the
Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City
from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage
discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City -
or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or
expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be
executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction
or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators,
assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map
excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public
use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney.
If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make
provisions in the CC&R's for meeting these potential obligations.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 9 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12, 2001
44. The tract shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water 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.
UTILITIES
45. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within the right of way and all aboveground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
46. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all
proposed utilities shall be installed underground, unless otherwise allowed by
General Plan Amendment 2000-073. Power lines exceeding 34.5 Kv are
exempt from this requirement.
47. 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 trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
48. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements
shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - Construct 43-foot half of 86-foot
improvement (measured curb face to curb face) plus 6-foot
meandering sidewalk. Applicant shall construct a half median,
unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer.
2) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - Construct 43-foot half of 86-
foot improvement (measured curb face to curb face) plus 6-foot
meandering sidewalk. Applicant shall construct a half median,
unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 10 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12,2001
3) HOA to enter secured agreement for the deferred installation of a
traffic signal at the main entrance off Avenue 58 at such time that
signal warrants are met. HOA shall be responsible to pay their fair
share based on an "after the fact" traffic study. Signalized
intersection costs to be divided based on percentages of use to the
participating developments.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Residential: 36-foot travel width. Width may be reduced to 32
feet with parking restricted to one side and 28 feet with on -street
parking prohibited if there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors and the applicant provides for perpetual
enforcement of the restrictions by the homeowners association.
C. CULS DE SAC
1) Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset)
with 38-foot curb radius.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the
City Engineer.
49. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs,
markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and
sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
50. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g.,
grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or
dimensions of streets and sidewalks).
51. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC,
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved
by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 11 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12,2001
52. Knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with Riverside County
Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
53. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which
convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and
residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the
lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height.
Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final
inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
54. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design
procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall
be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential
Collector
Secondary Arterial
Primary Arterial
Major Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
4.0"/5.00"
4.0"/6.00"
4.5"/6.00"
5.5"/6.50"
55. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete.
The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include
recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation
test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current
production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix
designs are approved.
56. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings
only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access
to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic
control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets
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 tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 12 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12, 2001
57. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
D. Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - No turning restriction.
E. Emergency Access on Monroe Street - No public access allowed.
LANDSCAPING
58. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas and
medians shall be prepared by a landscape architect and be prepared based on
the water conservation measures in Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community
Development Department. The plans are not approved for construction until
they have been approved and signed by the Coachella Valley Water District and
the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
59. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots, and park areas.
60. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan
checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by
the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the
City Engineer.
61. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn
or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
62. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all
required landscaping in a healthy and viable condition as required by Section
9.60.240 (E3) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Cond PC' Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 13 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12, 2001
PUBLIC SERVICES
63. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline
Transit and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
64. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
65. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient
construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record
drawings.
66. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by
the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with
plans, specifications and applicable regulations.
67. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the
City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD
or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed
conditions.
MAINTENANCE
68. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of
all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks.
The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly
released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 14 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12, 2001
FEES AND DEPOSITS
69. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.
70. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for
modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions,
the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s)
against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment.
71. The developer shall pay school mitigation fees to the Coachella Valley Unified
School District based on their requirements. Fees shall be paid prior to building
permit issuance by the City.
72. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the
City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of
building permits.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
73. Approved standard fire hydrants, located at each street intersection and spaced
not more than 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165
feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour
duration at 20 psi.
74. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with
fire hydrants.
75. Gates entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the travel
lanes. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at
least 35' setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop
without obstructing traffic on the road. Where one way road with a single
traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 40 foot turning radius shall be
used.
76. Gates, if any, shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Gate pins
shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 15 of 16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Barton Prop.
June 12,2001
by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry
system.
77. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot.
78. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for
approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and/or signs.
MISCELLANEOUS
79. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file
documents for plan checking purposes.
80. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Tract shall be approved by
the City Attorney prior to approval of the final map by the City Council.
81. Privacy walls fronting onto Avenue 58 and Monroe Street shall either meander
(i.e.,minimum 5' undulation) or include minimum three foot offsets every second
lot. Perimeter tract improvements (conceptual plans) shall be approved by the
Planning Commission, including landscaping and decorative screen walls.
82. Bureau of Reclamation easements that traverse the project site shall be
disclosed on the final map.
83. No permanent improvements may be constructed within the 50-foot easement
area of the Avenue 58 agricultural drain or the 10-foot easement area of lateral
123.45-0.75 without the written consent of the Coachella Valley Water District.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 - 48 Greg T.; R6/1 (No Eng.), Page 16 of 16
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT "B"
►EORGANIZTAION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 11 TO THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
LAFCO 2000_
AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Attachment 1
1 (AVENUE 56) 15 14
22 SECTION LINE 22 23
AIRPORT BOULEVARD
(AVENUE 56)
AVENUE 58
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
Ld
w
w
Of
w
N Z NE1/4
W J
O SEC. 22, T.6S., R.7E.
W
Z Z
O 0
0
W
N
a
SCALE: 1 "=600'
2 2
GEND
CITY OF LA QUINTA
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
A.P. NOT A PART
Village @ the Palms
NW1/4 SE1/4
SEC. 22, T.6S., R.7E.
� ru9,y�F`o >
No.6W >
>i
OF CA��F� 6� ryti'
[22 I I D
SECTION 271 LINE AVENUE
:pared by. "pw-goo
FAZ( WA -4i'A4
Coachella Valley Ebgineera
B lolf Road, Suite 1A P11Y DREW, G DWI
1 MAY, 2001
DATE
1/4 SECTION LINE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE NE1/4, THE NW1/4 OF THE
SE1/4 AND THE E1/2 OF THE SE1/4
OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH,
RANGE 7 EAST OF THE SAN
BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Vacant
W
0
x
Z
M
i 23
58 27 126
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION,
BASED ON RECORD INFORMATION.
Ij zi;-tl
L.S. 6532
6/30/03
NICKER ENUNEERING, INC.
crn�on>�rn •,�gaunrEvnc w�iMc
m�M 10 uw.Mw.sn ew My,q nr.sro
vwm rtl.r. W li r am 10 cnr. W amM
i• � na anarM spwA Hens OM �npo
r: rHoo
;r ;
a
aw�rrr a
u
wsoe'
4 rv�►
Has PantUGUM
q"�Pre�
our p^► n• ( re�c
ro' 1 re' re' t ca•
Ftc-
DOWW
swu
0—ft ra
Attachment 2
ri•
=I