2001 07 10 PCTit,/ 4 4Q"
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
July 10, 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 2001-093
Beginning Minute Motion 2001-013
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
11. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for
public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
III. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
IV. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on June 26, 2001.
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
VI. PRESENTATIONS: None
VI1. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-426,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-061, AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-706
Applicant........... AT&T Wireless Services
Location............ West of Eisenhower drive, north of Los Arboles and south
of Avenida Fernando within the La Quinta Resort and
Club
Request ............. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and the installation of a 65-foot
high wireless antenna with monopalm prototype design
and construction of a single story 1,002 square foot
building for related equipment
Action ............... Request to continue to July 24, 2001
B. Item ................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-058, AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702
Applicant........... Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses
Location............ East side of Dune Palms Road, between Westward Ho
Drive and the Coachella Valley Storm Channel
Request ............. Approval of the construction and development plans for a
4,000 square foot church and a future church building
with ancillary facilities on 2.39 acres.
Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001-
C. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-669
Applicant........... James R. Paul
Location............ 79-440 Corporate Centre Drive, within the La Quinta
Corporate Center (Highway 1 1 1 between Dune Palms
Road and Adams Street)
Request ............. Review of a proposed sign program for an approved multi -
tenant industrial/office building.
Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001-
D. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-682, AMENDMENT
#1
Applicant........... World Gym Palm Desert, LLC
Location............ 46-760 Commerce Court, within the La Quinta Corporate
Center (Highway 111 between Dune Palms Road and
Adams Street)
Request ............. Review of revised exterior elevations and landscape plan
for a previously approved 15,500 square foot fitness
center.
Action ............... Resolution 2001-
PC/AGENDA
E. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-425 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-060
Applicant........... Verizon Wireless
Location............ North of Highway 1 1 1 and west of Adams Street within
the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center
Request ............. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and installation of a 60-foot high
wireless antenna monopalm prototype design and related
230 square foot one story equipment building for cellular
telephone service.
Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001-
F. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-651, AMENDMENT #1
Applicant........... KSL Recreation Corporation
Location............ 55-900 through 55-940 PGA Boulevard, within PGA
West Country Club
Request ............. Amend City Council Condition of Approval #17 of
Resolution 99-71 that requires removal of the existing
corporate office modular units on June 1, 2001, to be
extended to November 30, 2001.
Action ............... Resolution 2001-
VIII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
X. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of July 3, 2001.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 26, 2001
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 Kirk 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, City
Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Associate Planner Michele Rambo, and Executive
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
June 12, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 2, Item 4 be
corrected to read "36-feet wide". City Attorney Kathy Jenson asked that
the minutes be corrected to state that she was present at the meeting
and not Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez. There being no further
corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to
approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PRESENTATIONS: None.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Village Use Permit 2001-009; a request of Starlight Management, Inc. for
approval of architectural, landscaping, site plans, lighting plans, and sign
program for a multi -tenant office building located at 78-099 Calle Estado.
G:\WF1D0CS\PC6-26-01.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
1. Commissioner Kirk excused himself and left the dias due to a
possible conflict of interest due to the proximity of his residence
to the project.
2. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Associate Planner Michele Rambo presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Abels commended staff on the presentation.
4. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like to act on this project
even though there was no General Plan Amendment application
submitted to not hold the developer up. Staff stated it was being
prepared and the Commission could not act until an application
was submitted. Commissioner Tyler asked if the parking plan
could be enforced as presented. Staff stated it was up to the
Commission.
5. Chairman Robbins asked if there was on -street parking and how
many spaces were available. Staff stated there were parking
spaces on Calle Estado as well as being provided in their parking
plan.
6. Commissioner Tyler question Condition #18 in regard to the size
of the trees. Staff stated this condition could be eliminated as the
trees were already planted. Commissioner Tyler asked that
Condition #23 be changed. Staff stated it would be changed to
read, "...from the centerline in the travel lane..."
7. Commissioner Butler asked about the color exhibit and if the
applicant had agreed with the Architecture and Landscaping
Committee's (ALRC) conditions. Staff stated the applicant had
concurred with the ALRC's recommendation and presented the
color board.
8. Chairman Robbins stated his concern was the rear of the building
as it was extremely plain. He would like to see more architectural
detail. In regard to Condition #25 he questioned the configuration
of the building as it did not provide a place to install the fire riser
and detector check except in the sidewalk. Senior Engineer Steve
G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-01.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
Speer suggested it be placed under the stairwell on the front of the
building. Staff would add a condition requiring the applicant to
work with staff on the location.
9. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Skip Lench, representing the applicant and who
prepared the preliminary plans for the project, stated they could
address Chairman Robbins concerns on the rear elevation and the
fire equipment.
10. Commissioner Butler asked if elevators would be added to
accommodate the handicapped on the second story at any time.
Mr. Lench stated it depends on the scale of the project. It is not
economically feasible unless the business is of size to off -set the
cost.
1 1. Commissioner Tyler asked if there would be any street addresses
on the building. Mr. Lench stated signage is discouraged, but they
could add the address. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were
any requirements for commercial buildings to have an address on
the building. Staff stated the would require the applicant to work
with the fire department in regard to this requirement.
12. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment.
There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed
the public hearing and opened the project for Commission
discussion.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked if they could address Condition #37.
Staff stated it was in the process.
14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-089, approving Village Use Permit 2001-009, as
amended.
a. Condition 18 deleted
b. Condition 23 "centerline of the travel lane"
C. Condition #25: Staff will work with the applicant for a non -
obtrusive location of the fire equipment.
d. Condition #38: Prior to issuance of a building permit the
applicant shall redesign the rear of the building to include
design articulation.
G:\WFIDOCS\PC6-26-01.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
Commissioner Kirk.
Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission.
B. Environmental Assessment 2001-418 General Plan Amendment 2001-
077 and Zone Change 2001-100: a request of NRI, La Quinta Limited
Partnership for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, approval of a pre -annexation General Plan
designation from County designation 2B to Low Density Residential and
a Zone Change from County designation A-1-20 to Low Density
Residential for the property bounded on the north by Avenue 52, on the
east by Monroe Street, on the south by Avenue 53, and on the east by
the existing City limits.
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Abels asked staff to confirm that the Ms. Waters
would be able to maintain her agricultural operation as it now
exists. Staff stated that is correct unless the operation ceases to
operate for over a year. In that case it may not. If, however, the
City adopts an Agricultural designation and zones this property as
Agricultural, then the use can continue forever.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked what legal counsel's opinion on the letter
received from Ms. Waters attorney in regard to the City's CEQA
documentation and process. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated
that in regard to the allegations that they would not be able to
change crops or replant, that is obviously incorrect under the
City's Zoning Code. With regard to the issue of a proposed
residential development, at this time there is no residential project
application. At such time as an application is received and is being
processed, it would be appropriate at that time to formulate
mitigation measures that would provide notice to prospective
property owners in this location. At this time it would be
premature. In regard to the Agricultural issues, it is her
understanding there are no Williamson Act contracts according to
the environmental documents. Community Development Director
GAWF'DOCSTC6-26-01.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
Jerry Herman clarified that since the environmental document had
been prepared, it had been learned that two parcels did have the
Williamson Act contract, but applications have been applied for,
for non -renewal. This has to be completed before the property can
be annexed. Commissioner Kirk asked how the Williamson Act
applies here in regard to Ms. Waters property. Staff stated he did
not know if Ms. Waters property was under the Williamson Act.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the statements in the letter in regard
to the overdraft issue is it also not right. City Attorney Kathy
Jenson stated that was correct.
4. Commissioner Butler stated that during the public hearing process
of the Country Club of the Desert, these issues were addressed at
that time by Ms. Waters. Staff noted that when the Country Club
of the Desert was approved by Council it was conditioned to
inform property owners of this use. There is no application on this
site and therefore there is no way of conditioning it at this time as
this is only a pre -zoning application only.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to identify Ms. Waters parcel.
Staff did so. Commissioner Tyler asked if the action being taken
by the Commission at this meeting would place any restrictions on
her property in regard to what she could do. Staff stated that it
had been the direction of the City Council to preserve the
agricultural and equestrian uses. Staff is drafting language to do
this in the General Plan update. Commissioner Tyler asked what
would determine the zoning and her uses in the interim period.
Staff stated this preannexation zoning and General Plan
designation has no affect on Ms. Water's property until such time
as LAFCO officially annexes the property. These applications have
to go to the City Council for public hearing. The applications are
then prepared and submitted to LAFCO with the appropriate fees.
LAFCO normally takes four to six months to process an application
and at the end of that time the zoning would be in place. This
could take up to a year and a half before the overlay was in place.
Until that time, the only restriction on her property would be that
she could not add or enlarge any agricultural buildings. The
residential units are not affected. If the Commission directed staff
to do so, staff could prepare an amendment to the Zoning Code in
regard to nonconforming uses.
6. Chairman Robbins asked if the City had any a agricultural zoning.
Staff stated that at this time there is no such zoning, and therefore
could not annex this property in with an agricultural zoning
designation. Chairman Robbins stated his concern was that this
property owner was being asked to go on faith that the City will
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
do this. Is the entire area being considered for annexation under
farming. Staff noted it is mostly sod farming, equestrian, or
farming uses. Chairman Robbins noted that if the land is
developed, the water usage would be the same whether it is being
farmed or has residential uses.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked if Ms. Water's property could be
removed from the annexation area. Staff stated it could be done,
but LAFCO prefers an annexation area to have squared off
boundaries, but the final decision is up to LAFCO. Staff noted that
if this property is left out of the annexation and decides at a later
date to annex into the City, the property owner at that time would
be responsible for paying all the fees for the annexation.
8. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Nancy Aaronson, representing NRI, La Quinta
Limited Partnership, stated that they and Mr. Debonne own 80%
of the annexation area. They currently do not have plans for the
site, but do expect their use to be compatible with any agricultural
uses.
9. Commissioner Butler asked how the applicant could address the
issues raised by Ms. Waters. Ms. Aaronson stated she had briefly
read the letter prepared by Ms. Water's attorney, but some of the
issues sited as being unique to a farming operation are very much
applicable to a golf course operation. They run heavy equipment,
machinery, fertilizers, workers coming and going, the application
of chemicals, pesticides, very much like a farming operation. In
the event they were to develop this site with a golf course, they
would be sensitive to the agricultural operation.
10. Commissioner Tyler stated he is aware of the noise issues of a golf
course living in close proximity to one. He asked Ms. Aaronson to
identify who NRI was in regard to the Country Club of the Desert.
Ms. Aaronson stated this is a third partnership with related
partners. They are all affiliated.
11. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment.
Ms. Waters stated that she lives on a golf course and it is a
different type of operations. Her operation involves a lot of
machinery being operated during the middle of the night not just
5:00 or 6:00 in the morning. The chemicals they use are not the
same as a golf course operation. In addition, she is concerned that
they had to drill down an additional 700 feet to reach ground
water as their water source had dried up. Therefore, she is
G:\WF1DOCS\PC6-26-01.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
concerned what will happen when the golf courses go in. Her
concern is that the neighbors will eventually object to her farming
use and she will have problems continuing her farming operation.
She would suggest there be a 500-foot buffer between the two
uses. She would like to be left out of the annexation.
12. Chairman Robbins stated the Country Club of the Desert will be
using canal water which will have no affect on the ground water.
They will have domestic wells for people uses. There are farmers
who continue to use ground water for farming and this is one of
the issues that need to be addressed. The overdraft of the water
in this location of the Valley is due to the water for people to drink
and for farmers who chose to use ground water for farming. In
the overall picture, the site is better off with residential uses than
farming.
13. Commissioner Butler explained that pre -annexation does not take
away Ms. Water's rights to farm. Ms. Waters stated her concern
is that when people do move in, they will be before the Council
complaining about all the things that she is required to do to farm
her property.
14. Commissioner Tyler asked if Ms. Water's concerns were with the
impact her farming operation would have on the potential future
residents. Ms. Waters stated yes, and those issues raised in the
letter written by her attorney, Mr. Hargraves. Commissioner Tyler
stated that whether or not she is annexed, the project will be built,
and the issues she is concerned with will still exist.
15. Ms. Gayle Cady, 82-831 Avenue 54,- stated this is the first time
she has heard any mention of the possibility of an agricultural zone
in the City of La Quinta. The parcel in question is in a prime
equestrian as well as agricultural area. She does not know if it is
true or not that an agricultural use would use the same amount of
water as a residential use. Due to the location of this site next to
the polo clubs and Desert Horse Circuit, we have the largest
conglomerate of horses west of the Mississippi. This needs to be
taken into consideration because the smell of horse manure will
become an issue to these residents. She is also concerned about
the noise ordinance which would not allow tractors to operate at
all hours of the night. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated that under City ordinances there are no ordinances
regarding agricultural machinery. City Attorney Kathy Jenson
stated there is a general noise ordinance in the Nuisance Section
that says it is a nuisance for a person to make cause, or suffer, or
G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-01.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
permit to make unnecessary sounds which are physically annoying
to persons of ordinary sensitivity, etc. There is a section that
pertains to construction specific hours and days for construction
noise, but the Code clearly anticipates that existing,
nonconforming uses can continue in its intensity, so it is a good
argument that the Code would allow the existing levels of noise.
If there is an existing use that is established that may create
nuisance effects, if there is residential development coming to that
area, it will not be considered a nuisance because it is first in time.
16. Commissioner Tyler stated he was surprised to hear Ms. Cady
state that this is the first time she has heard mention of an
agricultural overlay. He has attended many of the annexation and
General Plan hearings and at each meeting the discussion has been
to leave agricultural as it is where it is until they want to make the
change. Staff noted this has been the City's direction since
annexation first started. Ms. Cady stated she was addressing
Chairman Robbins comment directly as she was not aware of a
specific zone for agriculture and/or equestrian. In addition, the
horse industry brings in approximately $2 million dollars annually
to the community.
17. Ms. Ellen Lloyd Trover, 82-150 Avenue 54, noted there is no
equestrian overlay mentioned in the draft EIR prepared for the
General Plan update. She does not understand the agricultural
overlay and she is a retired attorney and does have a little
experience in reading legal documents. To her it is premature to
define what these things say until they can see the final ordinance
is writing. Therefore, she does not know what Ms. Waters would
be able to do. It is her understanding in listening to the time table
explained by staff, to bring the annexation to LAFCO, but
obviously it is unknown what will happen during the hearings
before it goes to LAFCO, nor do they know the exact process
before LAFCO or disputes that may delay it. Therefore, they are
considering an indefinite time that Ms. Waters may have to
operate under a system where we do not know whether or not she
would be able to change her current operation should she need to
modify them to continue her business. Also, we do not know
exactly what the overlays will allow. She is concerned about the
ground water use in the Valley. If this area is rezoned for Low
Density Residential then they are talking about at least a potential
for four houses per acre. For Ms. Waters property that would
mean four houses that would be using ground water which would
be an increase in the demand for more ground water to be used
G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-01.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
than her one residence uses. She is aware that CVWD has a
Water Management Plan, but as she understands it the EIR is not
prepared yet. It is a multi -agency plan so who knows how long it
will take to get all the agencies into conformity and agreement
with this plan or how long it will take to get it adopted and what
modifications may take place during the public hearings. If the
plan remains as it is written today, it will be the year 2019 before
we stabilize the ground water overdraft. She realizes this is not a
huge project, but she does realize we have to start looking at
every single project and assessing its impact on ground water,
because we have to remember we live in the desert and without
water we will have nothing here. She is unsure what she is
objecting to except the "ifiness" of the project.
18. Commissioner Abels noted that the City is very concerned with
water uses.
19. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the
project for Commission discussion.
20. Commissioner Tyler stated that most of what has been stated is
probably beyond what can be discussed at this time.
21. Commissioner Butler stated he knows CVWD has taken into
consideration the ground water problems in the Valley and are
putting in ponds that will regenerate the sources. In considering
the applications that are before the Commission, he does not have
as many concerns as he will when an application for development
is brought before the Commission.
22. Commissioner Abels stated there will be many issues both pro and
con in regard to annexation and the Commission will have to
address them as they come up.
23. Commissioner Kirk stated one of the issues they are wrestling with
is the sense of "rightness" and a lot of the issues raised relate to
when a specific project is proposed. Ms. Water has shown a lot
of good sense by addressing this at an early stage. Some of her
concerns cannot be addressed at this time in regard to conditions
which could mitigate those concerns, as there is no application
before them for development. He reminded the Commission of
another project that was considered by the Commission. There
were different, conflicting land uses, but there the property
G:\WF1DOCS\PC6-26-01.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
owners of the Low Density Residential were given notice when
they bought their property that there would be a condominium
project with higher density next to them. They all received the
notification and signed off on knowing it would be there. Yet,
when that project came before the Commission, they protested the
development of the project. Ms. Waters is right, the proposed
project will be a wonderful project, and the people buying there
will object to the equipment used in her farming operation.
Therefore, he does agree that she has a right to be concerned. At
the same time, he concurs with Commissioner Butler, development
is going to occur whether or not it is in the City or County. There
are three options before the Commission: 1) approve the request
as proposed; 2) reject it; or 3) approve the request for everything
except Ms. Waters property. Therefore, he would suggest that at
this time they remove Ms. Waters property from the annexation
area. He would caution Ms. Waters that there is an old saying
about "being in the tent versus doing something out of the tent".
She may want to reconsider this decision. From his perspective
he would rather be in the City addressing his neighbors rather than
being in another jurisdiction. When she has to come before the
Council to request a setback for this project, she will be in the
County rather than in the City. She needs to make some strategic
decisions. She knows the project will be developed and should be
looking at this in how best to approach it.
24. Chairman Robbins stated he has a lot of compassion for Ms.
Waters, but what they are considering is an eventual annexation.
An annexation in and of itself does not change the land use or any
impact on what is currently there. He would agree that Ms.
Waters would be better off as part of the City rather than outside
the City limits. He would suggest they make a recommendation
that the City move forward with the annexation directing staff to
start the process of putting the equestrian/agricultural zoning in
place.
25. Commissioner Butler asked staff if creating a new zoning would be
contrary to what they are trying to achieve. Ms. Waters wants to
retain her use and it has never been the City's desire to remove
the use. Staff stated we do not have an agricultural zone or land
use in General Plan or Zoning Code. In order to accomplish what
Ms. Waters wants we would have to continue this public hearing
and staff would have to create a land use designation and policy
for agricultural. Staff would have to create a zoning text
G:\WF'DOCS\PC6-26-01 .wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
amendment for agricultural uses and then schedule those for public
hearings before the Commission and City Council. This is the only
way her property and use could be made conforming. The other
option is to remove her from this annexation and address it when
the other annexation is brought forward which may be as much as
a year to two years away. Commissioner Butler asked if her
property was removed would it have any affect on the proposed
annexation. Staff stated it would be submitted to LAFCO for their
decision.
26. Chairman Robbins asked if Ms. Waters was the only property
owner not included on the application. Staff stated that was
correct.
27. Commissioner Abels asked staff to clarify what was before the
Commission. Staff explained that what was before the
Commission was preannexation zoning and land use.
28. Commissioner Tyler stated the Council has continually reiterated
that the City is not actively pursuing annexation. We are reacting
to those requesting to be annexed.
29. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-090, recommending to the City Council
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-418, with the
clarification on what properties are within the Williamson Act
designation and have been noticed to discontinue.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-091 recommending to the
City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-077,
subject to the findings and the elimination of APN 767-200-01 1.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Chairman Robbins.
ABSENT: None.
Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None.
GAWPD0CS\PC6-26-01.wpd 11
Planning Commission Minutes
June 213, 2001
31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-092 recommending to the
City Council approval of Zone Change 2001-100, subject to the
findings and the elimination of APN 767-200-01 1.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Sign Application 20001-554; a request of Palm Royale Country Club for
approval of a monument sign to be located at the southeast corner of
Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive.
1. Chairman Robbins and Commissioner Tyler excused themselves
and withdrew from the dias due to a possible conflict of interest
due to the location of their residences in proximity to the project.
1. Vice Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Associate Planner
Michele Rambo presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Vice Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Butler asked staff to clarify what they were
recommending in regard to the size of the sign. Staff stated the
face is six feet six inches and the base is an additional 18 inches.
Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated the Code defines the
height as being at the grade of the sign. Commissioner Butler
asked if lighting was being proposed. Staff stated it would be
externally illuminated with flood lights.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked who approved the original sign. Staff
stated the last sign was approved by the City. Commissioner Kirk
asked what the rationale was for approving a sign that did not
conform to the Code. Staff explained the applicant had requested
an adjustment that was approved initially because of the distance
of the entry from the corner. Staff went on to explain other
developments that have the additional signs.
4. Commissioner Butler asked if the sign would have the phone
number. Staff stated they are recommending the phone number
be removed. Commissioner Butler asked if the restaurant sign,
G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-01.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
just before the entrance on Fred Waring Drive, would be allowed
to remain. Staff stated off -site premise signs are not allowed and
they would contact Code Compliance to check on the sign.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Abels
asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr.
Skip Berg, representing the applicant, asked who was responsible
for asking his client to remove the sign for the street widening.
Staff stated it was a CVAG project and included with the widening
of Washington Street. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated encroachment permits were needed to widen the
street which required the sign to be removed. The City probably
requested the removal to complete the street widening. Mr. Berg
stated the prior sign was larger than what they are requesting.
Staff stated that based on the sign originally approved, it was 6-
feet high from the base and six feet across. Mr. Berg asked if he
could replace the sign as it was originally approved. Staff stated
as long as it conformed to what was originally approved. Mr. Berg
questioned the size of the sign in regard to the base as it fits on
the berm. Why did the overall size include the base? They would
agree to having a planter with the sign for an overall 24 square
foot signage.
6. Vice Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant to explain the
lighting. Mr. Berg explained the lighting and stated they do not
want a bright light.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2001-012,
approving Sign Application 2001-554, with an 18 inch base and
six foot sign. Unanimously approved.
Chairman Robbins and Commissioner Tyler rejoined the Commission.
Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of June
19, 2001.
GAWPD0CS\PC6-26-01.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2001
X. 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 July 10, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. on June 12,
2001.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
GAWPD0CS\PC6-26-01.wpd 14
PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 10, 2001 (CONTINUE TO JULY 24, 2001)
CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-426,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-061 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-706
APPLICANT: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
PROPERTY
OWNER: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INCORPORATED (APRIL SHUTE,
OPERATIONS DIRECTOR)
LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 280 FEET WEST OF EISENHOWER
DRIVE, 300 FEET NORTH OF LOS ARBOLES AND 600 FEET
SOUTH OF AVENIDA FERNANDO WITHIN THE LA QUINTA
RESORT AND CLUB
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2)
INSTALLATION OF A 65-FOOT HIGH WIRELESS ANTENNA
CAMOUFLAGED AS A PALM TREE (MONOPALM
PROTOTYPE DESIGN) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE
STORY BUILDING (1,002 SQUARE FEET) FOR RELATED
EQUIPMENT STORAGE
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a two -week continuance to July 24 for this request to allow the project to
be reviewed by the City's Architecture and Landscape Review Committee on July 11
and Historic Preservation Commission on July 19.
by:
Ureg� qusaeji
Associate Planner
AASRPC, CU P61 AT&TCont.wpd - 50 R6/25
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio
Planning Manager
i
PH #E
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 10, 2001
CASE: NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-058, SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2001-702
REQUEST: APPROVAL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A
4,000 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH, A SECOND FUTURE CHURCH
BUILDING, AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES ON 2.39 ACRES
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS:
BACKGROUND:
THE EAST SIDE OF DUNE PALMS ROAD, BETWEEN WESTWARD
HO AND THE COACHELLA VALLEY STORM CHANNEL
KINGDOM HALL OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(SECTION 15303, NEW CONSTRUCTION 0 R
CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES)
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The proposed project was originally scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on
May 22, 2001. As part of the application processing, the project was presented to the
Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) on the 8th of May. The ALRC
recommended a number of conditions of approval to improve the design of the facility,
which did not meet City standards. As a result of the ALRC recommendations, the
applicant requested a continuance to this meeting date, in order to redesign the
facility. The attached plans and elevations reflect these changes, and incorporate a
number of the ALRC's recommendations, as discussed below.
Site Backaround
The project site is currently vacant. The overall site plan includes two buildings, but
only one is proposed at this time. A separate site development permit will be required
for the building on the eastern property line in the future.
GAWFDOCS\PCStfRptJevWit.WPD
The project proponent is proposing a 4,488 square foot church on the west end of the
property (with a second 4,488 square foot identical building on the east end of the
property in the future). The building is sited along the roadway frontage, with parking
to the: east, hidden from public view. Parking for 133 vehicles, and limited landscaping
is also proposed.
Project Request
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed project occurs in the Low Density Residential zoning designation. The
Development Code requires that churches be considered through a Conditional Use
Permit in this designation. The proposed church building is proposed to be single story,
and somewhat residential in character. The church activity will be limited to certain
days of the week, and generally will occur during off-peak times. The location of the
church on Dune Palms Road provides good access on a major roadway for the trips
which the use will generate. Church activities occur during the day and early evening,
and will not conflict with the activities of surrounding residential units.
Therefore, the proposed land use is compatible with surrounding land uses, and the
granting of the Conditional Use Permit is appropriate.
Site Development Permit
The Site Development Permit includes a request for the immediate construction of a
4,488 square foot church, 133 parking spaces, and associated landscaping. A future
building, of the same size as the first, is proposed for construction in the future, and
will require a separate Site Development Permit.
The application includes a request for a six foot high, 20 square foot monument sign,
to consist of engraved lettering on natural stone. The Development Code allows up to
24 square feet for non-residential land uses in a residential zone. The proposed signage
meets the requirements of the Code.
The proposed permit also includes plans for parking lot lighting, consisting of pole
mounted mercury vapor lights on 18 foot poles, which is within the City's standards.
The lighting will be required to conform to the standards in the Development Code at
the time of issuance of building permits.
Site planning and design issues associated with the project are further discussed
below.
9
G:\WF'DOCS\PCStfRptJevWit.WPD
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee:
The ALRC reviewed the proposed landscaping and building elevations at their meeting
of May 2, 2001, and recommended approval subject to conditions (Attachment 3). A
number of issues were discussed by the ALRC, which are outlined below. Considerable
redesign was undertaken by the applicant, which has satisfied some of the
recommendations made by the ALRC, as follows:
1. Conditions #3, #6, #7 and #8 have been met.
2. Conditions #1 and #2 have been partially met.
3. Conditions #4 and #9 are still pending (see further discussion below).
Public Notice
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 26, 2001. All
property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. The
Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing at its meeting of May 22, 2001.
Public Agency Review
All written comments received are on file with the Community Development
Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the
Conditions of Approval for this case.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Permit can be made, as noted in the attached resolutions with the
exception of:
A. Site Development Permit
1. Development Standards
The building architecture has been considerably improved to comply with the ALRC
recommendations made in May. However, the pilaster along the facade extends into
the required 20-foot landscape setback. Condition #48 has been added requiring the
building to be moved out of the 20-foot setback.
The proposed project is located in an area designated for low density residential
development, and should be designed to integrate into a residential neighborhood.
Arched "window" elements have been added, but no windows are proposed. The
arched elements will not be glass. This does not satisfy Condition #2, as
o J 4)
G:\WF'DOCS\PCStfRptJevWit.WPD
recommended by the ALRC. The Condition of Approval has been included as Condition
#42. It is further recommended that the "accent band" depicted on the elevations be
required to be raised from the building facade a minimum of 4 inches, in order to
provide some architectural interest.
2. Parkin
The Development Code calls for one parking space for every three seats in the church.
The floor plans shows a total of 200 seats, which require 67 spaces. The requirement
will be doubled by the construction of the second building in the future, for a total of
134 spaces required. The project must therefore provide one additional parking space.
A condition of approval has been added which requires that the final plans include 134
parking spaces.
3. Landscape Design
The minimum required parking lot landscaping is 5%. Although not dimensioned, the
plan appears to fall short of the requirement by approximately 125 square feet.
Condition #44 has been added which requires that final plans include a demonstration
that 5% of the parking lot will be landscaped. The landscaping plan proposes a desert
landscaping theme. Plant size and location has been added to the revised plans. No
berming is shown however, to provide visual interest. Condition #45 is included to
require berming in the final landscaping plans.
CONCLUSION:
The Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit, as conditioned, represent
an appropriate use of the parcel on which they are proposed. The Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Permit, as conditioned, are compatible with surrounding
development in the immediate area, and in conformance with City requirements.
Findings for a recommendation for approval, as noted in the attached Resolutions, can
be made.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , approving Conditional Use
Permit 2001-058, subject to the findings and conditions.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, approving Site Development
Permit 2001-702, subject to the findings and conditions.
G:\WF'DOCS\PCStfRptJevWit.WPD �,''�
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan, Elevations and Landscaping plans
3. ALRC Minutes for May 2, 2001
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
OL /�f�T'
9� C
Christine di lorio, Pla ning Manager
��'j5
G:\WPDOCS\PCStfRptJevWit.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHURCH IN THE
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-058
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA KINGDOM HALL OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 10th day of July, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of La Quinta Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, to allow the construction
of a 4,488 square foot church building and future 4,488 church on 2.39 acres on the
east side of Dune Palms Road, south of Westward Ho; and
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit request has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended by Resolution 83-8, in that the project is exempt under Section
15303; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation for approval of
said Conditional Use Permit.
1. The Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the
proposed project furthers the City's General Plan goals for a full service
community. The use is consistent with the goals and policies and intent of the
General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2).
2. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance in that the church project will conform to development standards,
including parking, lighting, building height, landscaping and setbacks.
3. The proposed land use will not create conditions materially detrimental to the
public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to, or incompatible with
other land uses in that the project will integrate into the existing neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
G AWPDOCS\PCResoJehWitCUP.WPD
tI!Jr
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditional Use Permit 2001-058
La Quinta Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses
Adopted July 10, 2001
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit
2001-058 to allow a 4,488 church building and future 4,488 building on 2.39
acres.
3. That the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under
Section 15303.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this 10th day of July, 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
GAWPDOCS\PCResoJehWitCUP.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-058
LA QUINTA KINGDOM HALL OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
J U LY 10, 2001
1. The development shall comply with Site Development Permit 2001-702, and
all applicable Conditions of Approval.
G:\WPDOCS\PCResoJehWitCUP.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2001-702, ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF A
4,488 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH BUILDING, PARKING LOT
AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES ON 2.39 ACRES
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA KINGDOM HALL OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 10th day of July, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for La Quinta
Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses for review of a Site Development Permit to allow
the construction of a 4,488 square foot church building, parking lot and ancillary
facilities on 2.39 acres located on the east side of Dune Palms Road, south of
Westward Ho, more particularly described as:
APN 649-040-013
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee for the
City of La Quinta did, on the 2nd day of May, 2001 recommend approval of the
proposed project, by adoption of Minute Motion 2001-022, subject to conditions of
approval;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending
approval of said Site Development Permit:
1. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the General Plan
goals, policies and programs relating to the Low Density Residential land use
designation, and supports the development of support services and facilities
within residential neighborhoods.
2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance, as conditioned. The project, as conditioned meets the City's
standards for height, parking, and building coverage.
3. The proposed Site Development Permit will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with
surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and
requirements, as conditioned.
G:\WPD0CS\PCResoJehWitSDP.WPD
Planning Commission Resolution 2001._
Site Development Permit 2001-702
Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses
Adopted: July 10, 2001
4. The proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the
landscaping standards in the Zoning Ordinance and implements the standards
for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case; and
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-702, for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the Conditions of Approval
attached hereto; and
3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act, under Section 15303.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10th day of July, 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
G:\WPDOCS\PCResoJehWitSDP.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702
KINGDOM HALL, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
JULY 10, 2001
GENERAL
Upon conditional approval by the Planning Commission of this development
application, the City Clerk shall prepare and record, with the Riverside County
Recorder, a memorandum noting that conditions of approval for development
of the property exist and are available for review at City Hall.
2. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development
application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in
selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
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.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
4. 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.
GAWPDOCS\PCResoJevWitCOA.WPD 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702
KINGDOM HALL, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
JULY 10, 2001
5. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
PUBLIC STREETS
6. Dunes Palm Road (Secondary Arterial) - 44-foot half of 88-foot right of way.
7. 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. Dune Palms Road (Secondary Arterial) - 10-feet
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
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.
11. 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. i + 12
G:\WP1D0CS\PCResoJevWitC0A.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702
KINGDOM HALL, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
JULY 10, 2001
"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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
GRADING
14. Applicant shall correct discrepancies in pad elevations and contour lines using
correct elevations, based on known datum elevations.
15. 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.
16. 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.
t�l;t
G:\WPD0CS\PCResoJevWitC0A.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702
KINGDOM HALL, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
JULY 10, 2001
17. 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.
18. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and
water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments.
19. 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.
DRAINAGE
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and
the following:
20. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basin(s). Individual -
lot basins shall meet the provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
21. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated,
unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route.
22. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on
site or passed through to the overflow outlet.
23. 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.
24. 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. t! C
G:\WPDOCS\PCResoJevWitCOA.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702
KINGDOM HALL, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
JULY 10, 2001
25. 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&Rs for meeting these potential obligations.
26. 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
27. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground 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.
28. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all
proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5
kv are exempt from this requirement.
29. 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
30. The applicant shall install an 8-foot sidewalk after the City improves Dune
Palms.
L? . !
G:\WPD0CS\PCResoJevWitC0A.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702
KINGDOM HALL, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
JULY 10, 2001
31. Parking lot design shall comply with the LQMC Chapter 9.150
32. 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).
33. 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.
34. 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 & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
35. 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.
36. 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.
LANDSCAPING
37. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots, and park areas.
G:\WPD0CS\PCResoJevWitC0A.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702
KINGDOM HALL, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
JULY 10, 2001
38. 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.
39. 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.
PUBLIC SERVICES
40. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline
Transit and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
41. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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. ! 17
G:\WPDOCS\PCResoJevWitCOA.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702
KINGDOM HALL, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
JULY 10, 2001
MAINTENANCE
45. 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.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
46. 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.
47. Prior to completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of
the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a
reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the
cost of the reapportionment.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
48. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the building shall be moved outside the
20-foot frontyard setback.
49. Windows shall be provided on the facade and western elevations, at a
minimum. The accent bands around each window shall be raised from the wall
surface a minimum of 4 inches.
50. The final project site plan shall include 134 parking spaces.
51. Landscaping within the parking lot shall be equal to or greater than 5% of the
total parking lot area. This shall be demonstrated on the final landscaping plan.
52. Berms ranging from 3 to 4 feet in height shall be included in the western and
northwestern landscaping islands.
53. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared and signed by a
landscape architect licensed in the state of California.
54. An archaeological monitor shall be on site during all grading and trenching
activities. The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect activities should
an artifact be located. The monitor shall collect all resources in a manner
prescribed by the City's Municipal Code. A final report shall be submitted to the l
G:\WPDOCS\PCResoJevWitCOA.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702
KINGDOM HALL, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
JULY 10, 2001
Historic Preservation Commission for approval prior to issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the first building.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
55. Minimum fire flow shall be 1750 gpm, for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual
pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on
the job site.
56. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super fire hydrant (6"X
4"X2.5"X2.5") located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of
the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways.
57. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the
side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
58. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant shall furnish one blue line
copy of the water system plans to the fire Department for review. Plans must
be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the
following certification "I certify that the design of the water system is in
accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Department."
59. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, pamphlet #10, but not less than
2A10BC in rating. Travel distance between fire extinguishers may not exceed
75 feet.
60. Install a KNOX key lock box, model 4400, 3200 or 1300. Key lock box is to be
installed, to the right side of the front door, six feet from top of box to finished
grade.
Q
G:\WPDOCS\PCResoJevWitCOA.WPD
ATTACHMENT
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
May 2, 2001
3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he had no objections to the
project.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion
2001-019 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2001-704 subject to conditions as recommended. Unanimously
approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2000-701; a request of CRV La Quinta 70,
Limited Partnership for review of architectural and landscape plans for
two new prototype residential units each with three facades located at
the northwest corner of Bellerive and Winged Foot within PGA West
1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information
contained in the staff re0ort, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Committee Member Cunningham asked staff to identify the
location. Mr. Peter Bilicki noted on the plans the location.
Committee Member Cunningham stated he had no issues with the
project.
3. Committee Monber Bobbitt stated he had no questions or
objections toe project.
4. Mr. R. C. Hobs asked for clarification as to when a compatibility
review was/required. Staff explained when a compatibility review
was requiyed. Discussion followed regarding compatibility.
5. There b ing no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commi tee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion
2001- 20, recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2001,Z701, subject to the conditions
C. Site Development Permit 2001-702; a request of La Quinta Kingdom Hall
� of Jehovah Witnesses for review of landscaping and architectural plans
for a church on 2.39 acres on the east side of Dune Palms Road,
between Westward Ho Drive and the Coachella Valley Storm Channel.
1. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\AI.RC5-2-OI.wpd 2
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
May 2, .2001
2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to identify the location of
the project. Planning Manager Christie di lorio stated it was next
to the mobile home park and across from the High School.
Committee Member Bobbitt asked what zoning was required for a
church. Staff stated it could go anywhere with a conditional use
permit. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he concurred with
staff's recommendation.
3. Committee Member Cunningham stated they have a long way to
go architecturally before the building elevations could be approved.
The applicant needs to be more involved with the community
around where the building will be built. He recognizes there may
be financial constraints, but they should obtain assistance from a
professional architect to add detail to the building as this building
is within the public eye.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he concurred. If they do not
want any windows, then some type of architectural style should
be added to the street frontage.
5. Committee Members Cunningham stated this is not the typical
architectural style that has been approved in La Quinta.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion
2001-022 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2001-702, subject to the conditions as amended:
a. Condition #1: replace the main gable roof with a hip roof.
b. Condition #6: 1.5 inch caliper size tree.
Unanimously approved.
D. Sbecific Plan 121-E Amendment #4 and Site Development hermit 1UU1-
703; equest of R. C. Hobbs Company/KSL Company for review of
landscapin nd architectural plans each with three facades, including
perimeter lands ing for a 17.82 acre site.
1. Planning Consulta Nicole Criste presented the information
contained in the staff r ort, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development De-pKtment.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked wh (e wall would consist of.
Mr. Hobbs, the applicant, stated it would be ccoed. Committee
Member Bobbitt stated his concern was that a "power wall", filled ,
GAWP> )OCS\ALRC5-2-01.wpd 3
ATTACHMENT
WESTWARD
0
¢
0
w
N
g w
n.
w
HIGHWAY 111
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
PH #C
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 10, 2001
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-669
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: JAMES R. PAUL
CONTRACTOR: IMPERIAL SIGN
REQUEST: REVIEW OF A PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM FOR AN
APPROVED MULTI -TENANT INDUSTRIAL/ OFFICE
BUILDING.
LOCATION: 79-440 CORPORATE CENTRE DRIVE WITHIN THE LA
QUINTA CORPORATE CENTRE (HIGHWAY 111 BETWEEN
DUNE PALMS ROAD AND ADAMS STREET)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS: ON SITE: COMMERCIAL PARK (CP)
NORTH: WATERCOURSE/FLOOD CONTROL
(W)
ALL OTHER: MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
(M/RC)
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: ON SITE: COMMERCIAL PARK (CP)
NORTH: FLOODPLAIN (FP)
ALL OTHERS: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION
15311 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
BACKGROUND:
On March 14, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Site Development Permit 2000-
669 for a 47,000 square foot multi -tenant industrial/office building. The site for this building
Page 1
falls into Specific Plan 99-036 (La Quinta Corporate Centre) approved by the City Council
on September 7, 1999. The applicant, James R. Paul, is now requesting approval of a
tenant sign program for said building.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Tenant Signs: The proposed tenant signs would consist of 3/4 inch thick acrylic letters in
helvetica font. These letters would be stud mounted directly to the building and would not
be illuminated in any way. The applicant is proposing a combination of black and gold
coloring to be integrated into each letter to provide interest and shadowing. (Attachment
#1) An example of this coloring will be available at the Planning Commission hearing.
Each tenant space in this building has 60 square feet of frontage. The applicant is
proposing 80% sign coverage per frontage, for a maximum sign size of 48 square feet.
The total height of all signs would not exceed 24 inches regardless if the sign consists of
one or two lines of type. The letters would be centered on the 4 foot tall fascia of the
building.
Monument Sign: The applicant is also requesting to modify the monument sign that was
previously approved by the Planning Commission as part of Specific Plan 99-036.
(Attachment #2) The proposed monument sign would consist of a base of approximately
4 inch thick Arizona Sandstone. The letters would be sandblasted into this base. The
sign, as proposed, would indicate the name of the building and the address.
Directory Sign: The applicant is proposing an additional sign to be located on the rear of
the building to list the current tenants. The sign would be mounted to the top left hand
corner of the wall facing north toward the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. As
proposed, the sign would be an aluminum cabinet, painted to match the building, with
changeable tenant panels. The proposed size of this sign is 64 square feet. (Attachment
#3)
MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings as required by Section 9.160.090(D)(3) (Sign Permit Review) of the Zoning
Code can be made as noted below.
Tenant Signs: The proposed tenant signs are consistent with the purpose and intent of the
La Quinta Sign Ordinance. The ordinance does dictate a maximum sign size of 1 square
foot per lineal foot of tenant frontage, up to a maximum of 50 square feet. The proposed
sign program uses the total square footage of the frontage instead of the linear dimension.
The maximum size would still be under the 50 square feet set forth in the Sign Ordinance.
In addition, the proposed tenant signs are visually related to the building on which they will
be placed, as well as the surrounding development(s).
Page 2
Although the applicant has not specifically addressed the use of logos in the proposed
tenant sign program, the issue should be addressed. Logo cabinet box signs have been
considered for previously approved sign programs if a part of a formally registered
trademark of the business. Logos are considered on a case -by -case basis, and usually
do not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total sign area. Cabinet sign faces are required
to have opaque backgrounds and no exposed raceway. In this case, any proposed logo
would not exceed the 24 inch height maximum outlined above. (Condition #2)
Monument Sign: The proposed change to the previously approved monument sign is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Sign Ordinance. The proposed monument
sign, while different in style to the approved sign, is more consistent with the style and
architecture of the building it represents. As approved by Planning Commission and City
Council, the monument sign was to indicate the name of the project (La Quinta Corporate
Centre), not the individual building name. Therefore, staff supports the proposed changes
to the style of the monument sign, but not the text. (Condition #3)
Directory Sign: The proposed directory sign was not a part of the originally approved sign
program with Specific Plan 99-036. The Sign Ordinance allows directory signs such as this
to be placed at the entrance of the building or complex, not on the back of a building as
proposed. Table 9-18 of the Zoning Ordinance states that directory "signs are to be
designated and oriented to direct pedestrian traffic". As proposed, the directory sign is not
oriented toward pedestrian traffic, but toward vehicular traffic along Dune Palms Drive.
Therefore, staff recommends denial of this particular sign. (Condition #4)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- approving Site Development Permit
2000-669, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in the attached
Resolution.
Attachments:
1. Tenant Sign Program
2. Original Monument Sign
3. Proposed Monument Sign and Directory Sign
Prepared by: Submitted by:
_U I'
Michele Rambo, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SIGN
PROGRAM FOR A MULTI -TENANT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE
BUILDING, LOCATED AT 79-440 CORPORATE CENTRE
DRIVE.
CASE NO. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-669
JAMES R PAUL
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did
on the 10' day of July, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request of James
R. Paul, to consider a Sign Permit Application for a multi -tenant industrial/office building,
more particularly described as:
APN: 649-020-008
WHEREAS, Site Development Permit 2000-669 was approved by the
Architectural and Landscape Review Committee on March 1, 2000 and Planning
Commission on March 14, 2000; 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 findings to justify the approval of said Sign Program per Section
9.160.090 (Sign Permit Review) of the Zoning Ordinance:
Sign Program. As designed and conditioned, the proposed locations and design for
the tenant and monument signs provide balance and aesthetic appeal while
communicating necessary information about tenants.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve the above described Sign Permit Application, for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
Page 1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 10th day of July, 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
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-669
JAMES R. PAUL
JULY 10, 2001
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to issuance of a sign permit, each tenant shall receive approval from the
Community Development Department prior to installing their signs.
2. Logo cabinet box signs shall be considered on a case -by -case basis if part of a
formally registered trademark for the business. These signs shall not exceed 10%
of the total sign area and shall have opaque backgrounds.
3. The monument sign shall read "La Quinta Corporate Centre Industrial/Office Park"
as approved in Specific Plan 99-036.
4. The proposed directory sign is not a part of this approval.
Page 1
ATTACHMENT #2
c
CENTER LOGO 10. - 2' DIA.
i
r
OF ;CENTER LOCO / ID
SC4 1/2 - T-0
0
PH #
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 10, 2001
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-682 (AMENDMENT #1)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: WORLD GYM PALM DESERT, LLC.
ARCHITECT: MARK B. VALENTINO
REQUEST: REVIEW OF REVISED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND
LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
15,500 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS CENTER.
LOCATION: 46-760 COMMERCE COURT (LA QUINTA CORPORATE
CENTRE)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-383, PREPARED FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-036 AND CERTIFIED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 BY RESOLUTION 99-
110. THERE ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES,
CONDITIONS, OR NEW INFORMATION WHICH WOULD
TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166.
BACKGROUND:
On August 22, 2000 the Planning Commission approved the architecture and landscape
plans. under Resolution 2000-052, for a 15,500 square foot fitness center. The site for this
building falls into Specific Plan 99-036 (La Quinta Corporate Centre) approved by the City
Council on September 7, 1999. The building is currently under construction.
Page 1
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS:
The applicant is now requesting that the following revisions be approved:
Architecture: As originally approved, the elevations of the building included awnings above
the windows on three sides. (Attachment #1) The applicant is proposing that these
awnings be deleted. (Attachment #2)
Landscapio-01 The approved landscaping plan (Attachment #3) includes many 36 inch box
trees and 5 gallon shrubs. The proposed landscape changes include changing the
Washingtonia filifera palm trees to Washingtonia robusta, as well as decreasing the sizes
of many of the trees and shrubs. (Attachment #4)
REQUIRED FINDINGS:
The findings outlined in Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning
Ordinance can be made as noted below.
Architectural Design: The awnings approved above the windows were meant to serve
many purposes. They were designed to provide both shade and visual relief to what is a
rather large building with little design articulation. At the August 2, 2000 meeting of the
Architectural and Landscape Review Committee, the committee members specifically
discussed the use of these awnings. It was agreed that the awnings were a "nice design"
and a good way to provide shade. (Attachment #5) Therefore, Staff recommends that the
approved awnings not be deleted.
Landscape Design: It is preferable for an applicant to plant the larger plant sizes indicated
on the approved landscape plan so as to provide a mature landscape area at the time of
the business opening. However, most of the proposed plants are fast-growing and native
to the area, or to an area similar to our climate. Therefore, staff recommends approval of
the proposed landscape changes with the following exceptions: the Shiny Xylosma,
Japanese Oleander, and Dwarf Oleander shall remain 5 gallon size, while the Feathery
Cassia, Mexican Honeysuckle, Sage, Texas Ranger, and Brittlebush shall be reduced to
1 gallon size.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- approving Site Development Permit
2000-682 (Amendment #1), subject to the conditions of approval in the attached
Resolution.
Page 2
e)
Attachments:
1. Approved exterior elevations
2. Proposed exterior elevations
3. Approved landscape plan
4. Proposed landscape plan
5. ALRC Minutes of August 2, 2000
Prepared by:
LI I C.. --a 9 ) a'�-0
Michele Rambo, Associate Planner
Page 3
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Plan ing Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING THE
REVISION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS AND
LANDSCAPE PLAN OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 15,500
SQUARE FOOT FITNESS CENTER, LOCATED AT 46-760
COMMERCE COURT IN THE LA QUINTA CORPORATE
CENTRE.
CASE NO. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-682
(AMENDMENT #1)
WORLD GYM PALM DESERT, LLC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did
on the 10"' day of July, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request of World
Gym Palm Desert, LLC., to consider an amendment to a Site Development Permit for a
fitness center, more particularly described as:
LOT 8 OF PARCEL MAP 29351
APN: 649-020-061
WHEREAS, Site Development Permit 2000-682 was approved by the
Architectural and Landscape Review Committee on August 2, 2000 and the Planning
Commission on August 22, 2000; 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 findings, per Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, to justify
the approval of said Site Development Permit amendment:
Architectural Design. As conditioned, retaining the originally approved awnings will
provide design articulation and shade for the building under construction. The
architectural design of the project, including the awnings, is compatible with
surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city.
2. Landscape Design. As designed and conditioned, the proposed landscape
changes will provide the site with adequate landscaping. Because of the types of
plants being used, reducing the size of those plants will not hinder the development
of a mature landscape area. The project landscaping has been designed so as to
provide visual relief and complement the building.
Page 1
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;
2. That it does hereby approve the above described Site Development Permit, for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the Conditions of Approval in the
Staff Report.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 10th day of July, 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
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-682 (AMENDMENT #1)
WORLD GYM PALM DESERT, LLC.
JULY 10., 2001
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
(the "City"), its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Village Use
Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or preceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits approved
and contained in the file for Site Development Permit 2000-682, unless amended
by the following conditions.
3. The building elevations approved as part of the issued building permits shall not be
modified, specifically the removal of the awnings.
4. The Shiny Xylosma, Japanese Oleander, and Dwarf Oleander shrubs shall remain
the approved 5 gallon size, while the Feathery Cassia, Mexican Honeysuckle, Sage,
Texas Ranger, and Brittlebush shall be reduced to 1 gallon size.
Page 1
ATTACHMENT #5
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
August 2, 2000
Lench stated the wrought iron is not a real increase 0 oc st but the
mudded roof the is. Committee MemberQu'nningham stated
random mudding does add texture and made a comparison to the
Von's Plaza architecture. He suggested using a smooth stucco
which is less expensive and go"with the mudded roof. Mr. Lench
stated he could understand 1� use of the decorative wrought iron,
but the mudded roof cQu d be an issue.
8. There being no -further discussion, it was moved and seconded
Committee members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion
2000-01-6 approving Village Use Permit 2000-003, as modified:
Prior to issuance of building permit add individual glass
lights.
2. Replace the precast balusters with decorative wrought iron
and specify the same for the staircase.
C. Site Development Permit 2000-682; a request of Anthony and Wanda
Matranga for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for the
( construction of a 15,500 square foot commercial building for a fitness
center located within the La Quinta Corporate Centre.
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the rear view was closed
off to public view. Staff stated that was correct. Committee
Member Cunningham stated that the use of the building in this
area all ties in. He likes the window shading treatment and it is a
nice design.
3. Committee Member Reynolds asked if staff knew what was going
in on Pads 6 and 7. Staff stated no. Committee Member
Reynolds stated his concerned about the closeness of the two
buildings. Discussion followed regarding a possible treatment to
the upper floor of the north elevation. It was suggested the
applicant could use decorative expansion joints in the plaster to
create a decorative grid pattern on the second story of the north
elevation.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC8-2-OO.wpd 4
r
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
August 2, 2000
4. Committee Member Cunningham asked what the material was to
be used on the awnings. Staff stated it would be fixed metal.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion
2000-016 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2000-682 as recommended by staff with the additional condition:
2. Decorative expansion joints in the plaster shall be added to
create a decorative grid pattern on the second story of the
north elevation.
VI. CORE ESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. COMM TTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None
VIII. ADJOUR MENT:
There being no fur her business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members
Cunningham/Bobbi to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and
Landscaping Review ommittee to the next regular meeting to be held on September
6, 2000. This meetin was adjourned at 10:58 a.m. on August 2, 2000.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive SCretary
City of La Quinta, California ,,
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC8-2-OO.wpd 5 `.1 8
PH #1
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 10, 2001
CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2001-425 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-060
APPLICANT: VERIZON WIRELESS (STEVEN RAKHSHANI, PROJECT
MANAGER)
PROPERTY
OWNER: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (C/O RUTH
DEARDEN)
LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 534 FEET NORTH OF HIGHWAY 111
AND 1,156 FEET WEST OF ADAMS STREET WITHIN THE
ONE ELEVEN -LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2)
INSTALLATION OF A 60-FOOT HIGH WIRELESS ANTENNA
CAMOUFLAGED AS A PALM TREE (MONOPALM
PROTOTYPE DESIGN) AND RELATED 230 SQUARE FOOT
ONE STORY EQUIPMENT BUILDING FOR CELLULAR
TELEPHONE SERVICE
REPRESENTATIVE: ED KRUGMAN (02 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2001-
425. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT
WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON
THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
STATUTES.
SrPC Verizon CUP60 - 49 Greg
4/27 No response; 7/2; 7/3 Page 1
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NONRESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY
ZONING DESIGNATION: CR/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NONRESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 89-014, AMENDMENT #2)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH: REGIONAL STORMWATER CHANNEL
SOUTH: SHANGRI-LA RESTAURANT
EAST: VACANT (ONE ELEVEN -LA QUINTA
SHOPPING CENTER)
WEST: SAME
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located within the existing One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center
generally 534 feet to the north of Highway 111 and 1,156 feet west of Adams Street within
an existing Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) well site (Attachment #1) that is
screened by a 5'-6" high tan split -face masonry wall. Site improvements were installed in
the early 1990's for this 0.41 acre public agency facility, pursuant to the requirements of
Specific Plan 89-014.
On March 15, 2001, the Community Development Department approved Minor Use Permit
No. 2000-259 allowing a temporary Verizon communication antenna at this site for a six-
month period, subject to a minimum of two Date Palm trees being planted to screen a 58-
foot high telescopic antenna mounted on a self-contained trailer from visibility of Highway
111, an Primary Image Corridor. These temporary improvements have been installed.
Project Request
Verizon Wireless is requesting approval to install a permanent 60' high digital cellular
telephone antenna inside the 120-foot wide by 150-foot long CVWD well site abutting a
paved, two lane service road for the shopping center near the north property line
(Attachment #2). The monopole antenna is designed to replicate a palm tree with the
support pole being covered in brown fiberglass bark. Antenna mast arms and a small
receiver dish are concealed within flexible resin palm fronds. Including palm fronds, the
height of the monopalm is 65' tall. Date palm trees, ranging in height from 25' to 35' have
been installed by the applicant to the west and southwest of the proposed monopalm
antenna creating a clustered, triangular design element (approx. 15' to 25' spacing).
SrPC Verizon CUP60 - 49 Greg
4/27 No response; 7/2; 7/3 Page 2
r�
%tOf
Photographic simulation graphics have been provided with the application illustrating the
placement of the monopalm inside the CVWD well site. The height of the antenna is based
on radio frequency transmission needs factoring in changes in topography and man-made
structures, ensuring communications with other Valley -wide Verizon antennas.
The applicant is leasing this antenna site from the property owner and also proposes
installing an unmanned equipment building at the northeast corner of the well site
measuring 1 V-5" by 20'-0". This structure is clad in stucco with a nearly flat roof and does
not exceed 11-feet high. Access to the building is located on the west side of the structure
providing access; wall mounted air-conditioning units are planned for the north side of the
building. A 8-foot high masonry wall is proposed to encircle the new equipment building.
Public Notice - The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 18, 2001,
and mailed to surrounding property owners as required by Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning
Ordinance. To date, no written correspondence has been received.
Public Agency Review - The applicant's request was sent to responsible agencies, and any
pertinent comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and
approve Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 can be made and are contained in the attached
Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001- to certify a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-425,
prepared for Conditional Use Permit 2001-060.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001- approving Conditional Use
Permit 2001-060, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Site Plan
2. Elevations
SrPC Verizon CUP60 - 49 Greg
4/27 No response; 7/2; 7/3 Page 3
u 0 3
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio
Planning Manager
AASRFIC Verizon06O 6-01.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2001-060
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-425
APPLICANT: VERIZON WIRELESS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 101h day of July, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment No. 2001-425 for Conditional Use Permit 2001-060,
generally located 534 feet north of Highway 1 1 1 and 1,156 feet west of Adams
Street within the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center, more particularly described
as follows:
Assessor's Parcel No.: 643-080-015
CVWD Well Site #5712 (One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center)
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 2001-425)
and has determined that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a
significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed to supplement EA 89-150 prepared for Specific
Plan 89-014 and certified by the City Council on April 17, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental
Assessment:
1 . The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly,
in that no significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment.
Residential properties are not located abutting this telecommunication facility.
2. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 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
P:\GRE:G\EA PCResoVerizon.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Environmental Assessment 2001-425
Verizon Wireless
July 10, 2001
Page 2
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 Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 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 Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 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 Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 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-
425 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of
the City, supplementing EA 89-150 which was certified by the City Council on
April 17, 1990.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
PAGREMEA PCResoVerizon.wpd
i�a��
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Environmental Assessment 2001-425
Verizon Wireless
July 10, 2001
Page 3
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 certify Environmental Assessment 2001-425 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. Environmental Assessment 2001-425 reflects the independent judgment of the
City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 10t' day of July, 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:\GRE:G\EA PCResoVerizon.wpci
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 and EA 2001-425
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: One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center, 534 feet north of
Highway 1 1 1 and 1,156 feet west of Adams St.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Ave.
Irvine, CA 92618
949-286-7000
6. General Plan Designation: Mixed Regional Commercial with
Nonresidential overlay
7. Zoning: CR - Regional Commercial (Nonresidential overlay); Specific Plan
89-014
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.)
Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a 60' high
telecommunications monopalm and associated small equipment building
measuring 11'5" wide by 20' long within a Coachella Valley Water District
well site.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
The proposed project site is immediately surrounded by vacant, graded
commercial properties and immediately south of a Valley -wide stormwater
channel.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
CVWD (lease)
La Quinta Building and Safety Department and Fire Marshal
Imperial Irrigation District
FCC and/or Calif. PUC
P:\GREG\EACk1stVerizonCVWD.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 and 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.
�-1
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.
a
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
p su
to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
, incl ding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
n &ng fu her is required.
4 _ June 19, 2001
Rb44e Date
GREG TRi`JASDELL CITY OF LA QUINTA
Printed Name `)
P:\GREG\EACkIstVerizonCVWD.WPD 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.
P:\GREG\EACk1stVerizonCVWD.WPD
I.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
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.; EA 89-150)
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 and EA 89-150)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map); EA 89-150
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 EQUALITY. 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)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations'?
(Application materials)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
P
X
X
X
X
X
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Appi'.ication materials) X
IV. 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? (Application materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.
and EA 89-150) Mitigation fees for the CV Fringed -toed Lizard
Habitat Conservation Program have been paid.
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? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff. and EA
89-150)
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? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff. and EA 89-150)
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? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff. and EA 89-150)
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 and EA 89-150)
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 5-5 and EA 89-150)
X
X
X
X
X
X
V. CUL'rURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical X
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? (Application
materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff. and EA 89-150)
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)? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff. and EA 89-150) This site, and
surrounding areas, were excavated and artifacts have been archived
(UCRARU #1023).
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff. and EA 89-150)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff. and EA 89-150)
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 EA 89-
150)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.,
and EA 89-150)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and EA 89-150)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff., and EA 89-150)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-30 ff.; and EA 89-150)
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.; and EA 89-150)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property'?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.; and EA 89-150)
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; and EA 89-150)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V11. 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) X
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 and May 22, 2001 Verizon Radio Frequency
Emission Study)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials and May 22, 2001 Verizon Radio Frequency
Emission Study)
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 and EA 89-150)
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 and EA 89-150)
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; EA 89-150 and CVWD Letter of 5-9-01)
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 EA
89-150)
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? ;Master Environmental Assessment 6-13; and EA 89-150)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K4
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? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13; and EA 89-150)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-13; EA 89-150 and Application
materials)
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; and
EA 89-150)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13; EA 89-150
and CVWD letter)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan 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? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11; and
EA 89-150)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5; and EA 89-150)
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; and EA 89-150)
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; and
EA 89-150)
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? (Application Materials)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Application Materials)
X
F.q
1/
F.9
KI
V:/
X
R9
►9
X
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Application Materials)
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 and EA 89-150)
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.)
M
/:/
X
X
X
X
i
i
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) X
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
XV. 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)? (Application
materials)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (Application Materials)
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)? (Application Materials)
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
treatrent 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) Arc; 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
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
�I1`;'
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
K/
X
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.
No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used.
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 and General Plan for the City of La Quinta,
1992 (as amended).
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center (Environmental Assessment 89-150); City Council
Resolution 90-27 adopted April 17, 1990
May 2:2, 2001 Verizon Radio Frequency Emission Study
Public Agency Letters on file with the Community Development Department , d 18
11
Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2001-425
I. a) The proposed monopalm communication antenna is sited away from scenic
arterial roadways and will be concealed by existing on- and off -site trees and
commercial buildings. Two Date Palm trees measuring 25 feet and 35 feet high
flank the monopalm to lessen its visibility from off -site properties. The impacts
to aesthetics will not be significant.
P:\GREG\EAAddendumVerizonWeII.WPD
0
0
00
O
M
0
0
N
00
-2
th
h
N
w
On
U
F A
F
d
A
�
U
a U
OU
Cd
o
-
Q
-s
CISU
u
�
Q
U
oQ
rn
a,
cz. U E-1
on
b
O
O
En
En
CA
cn
U
U
U
x
�
0-0
�F
O
v
Q
a
rn
o
o
Q
W
C�
�
ai
U
V
U
U Q
O
�
O
Cd
a
O
"Cj
cl
Q
cct
V�
Qq
d
N
cd
3
d
b
W
a
O
U
o
w
H
d
A
�
U
�WA
au
OU
d
�o
cd
o cz
U
o
c�
z
�
Q
b
Cd
a
`d
Wz
ocd
�o
> ej
z
zQQ
o
x
U a
C
CA
01 oN
0-4
w
xCdo
o
°v�
W
A � U
o
> �D
�.�
U U X
o o o
F+
v >,
N
o
U
d
>t5Pl.
.0
A
A
W
W
d
XU
d
a
WxUW
OU
UV
U
W
U
�
W
b
U
�
U
�o
0
on
0.0
.�
H
H
o
o18
a �
a
x
w
a.
U Q
2
z
°
a
b
d
C
`i'
r olCd
Cd
xi
°a
C40
CA
a
a
o
�
O
d
OA
vi co
m
O
O
'cd
U
co
o
CO
Q
Q
� �
a
oa
U Q
cn
W U
P.
U
b
o
y
�
O
a�
>
b
cl
3
3
�
�'.
C
En
�
�
O
H
d
A
U �
A
a�
OU
U
F
a�
i.7
0
N
U
O
O
a
O�
w�
a
�
EN
zz
Cd
Q
Wad
a
�
v
o
Cd
HCd
a
Cd
a
�
d
U
a
F
d
A
U
PQ
A
a
U
OU
U
G�
F
z
a
O�
z
�o
z 0.4
4
Oz
O
a
v
„ o �
z
y�o
d
�Oo
un
N U
N O t7 V)
z
U r. O
c
H
F
1U.i O pop
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 60-
FOOT HIGH MONOPALM COMMUNICATION ANTENNA
AND RELATED 230 SQ. FT. ONE STORY EQUIPMENT
BUILDING WITHIN CVWD WELL SITE #5712
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-060
APPLICANT: VERIZON WIRELESS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 10th day of July, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request
of Verizon Wireless, to consider a 60-foot high wireless radio communication antenna
and related one story equipment building within CVWD Well Site #5712, more
particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel Number 643-080-015;
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 findings to justify approval of said Conditional Use
Permit:
1 . The design and improvements of the proposed monopole are consistent with
La Quinta General Plan Policy 7-1.4.10 that requires utilities and communication
facilities to blend in with the desert environment and surrounding improvements.
Recently installed Date Palm trees adequately conceal the monopole antenna
from Highway 1 1 1 along with existing mature trees planted in the parking lot
area for the shopping center and Highway 111 frontage businesses.
2. The proposed monopalm antenna and equipment building are consistent with
current standards of the Zoning Code (Section 9.170.010, Commercial
Communications Towers) and Chapter 9.65 in that potential adverse visual
effects have been mitigated by design of the structures through the use of Date
Palm trees, masonry fencing, and stucco coated structure walls.
3. The design of the monopalm antenna and equipment building is not likely to
cause serious public health problems, or adversely impact the general public
welfare or safety, in that the Fire Department, Community Development
Department, Public Works Department, and the City's Building & Safety
Department have reviewed the project for these issues with no significant
concerns identified. Although this area of the City supports commercial, the
nearest single family houses are located more than 500-feet north of this
monopalm site.
ResoCUP60 Verizon - p/greg
R 4/27 (none); 7/2
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_
Conditional Use Permit 01-060
Verizon Wireless
July 10, 2001
4. The design of the monopalm antenna and equipment building is not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially, and unavoidable injure
fish or wildlife, or their habitat, in that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact did not identify any significant impacts for this issue.
Urban improvements will envelop the site once the shopping center is
completed.
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;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of EA 2001-425 certifying a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for this case pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
3. That it does hereby approve the above described Conditional Use Permit, 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 10' day of July, 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\ResoPC CUP60Verizon.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-060
VERI7-ON WIRELESS
JULY 10, 2001
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional
Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of an improvement or building permit, the applicant shall
obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies, or
departments:
• Community Development Department
• Riverside County Fire Department (Letter dated May 9, 2001)
• Coachella Valley Water District (Letter dated May 9, 2001)
• Imperial Irrigation District (Letter dated June 13, 2001)
• Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
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.
3. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits
approved and contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 2001-060, unless
amended by the following conditions.
4. This approval of Conditional Use Permit shall be used within one year;
otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used"
means beginning of substantial construction toward installation of antennas and
equipment cabinets as allowed by this approval.
CONDCUP60 Verizon - 49 greg R4/27
Page I of 2
,) l
Planning; Commission Resolution No. 2001
Conditional Use Permit 2001-060
Verizon Wireless
July 10, 2001
FEES AND DEPOSITS
5. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan
checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checks, permits, and
inspections.
6. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a check
payable to the County of Riverside for $78.00 for recording of EA 2001-425.
MISCELLANEOUS
7. Permanent irrigation watering on a timer system shall be installed for the two
Date Palm trees.
8. Prior to a final inspection, all temporary facilities allowed by MUP 2000-259
shall be removed, unless otherwise allowed by the Community Development
Director.
9. Any new wall enclosures shall be constructed using matching materials to
existing facilities.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
10. Install a portable fire extinguisher (minimum 2A10BC) inside the equipment
building.
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
11. Before any cranes, forklifts, or other aerial equipment are raised, please check
for overhead wires pursuant to the provisions of California Title 8 (Electrical
Safety Orders). Non -qualified electrical workers can get no closer than 6 feet
from IID distribution lines and no closer than 10 feet from transmission lines.
People operating boom type lifting or hoisting equipment can get no closer than
10 feet from IID distribution lines and not closer than 17 feet from transmission
lines.
12. If ground excavation is required, even for seemingly benign applications such as
anchoring a tent, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA). This service
is free of charge provided USA is given at least two working days' notice (800-
227-2600).
CONDClJP60 Verizon - 49 greg R4/27 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENTS
N/D � 0W1-ML IMI Y10 Vi 'lvu '3R MYNVJ A4 49R1
wryau MnMOWW w1 uw.�w�TMui .SS3%32i ILMLLIan
— !
"PIPS cc� - o ,
31N0 03AObd& lb3O
nSNO1 / bIIMM ULeiJw INgr4w
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
533.ON ONY NY1d 33.I5
wmw. uom
yaw
�
N
�� lAp
v
�N[4[
t
CSR6 q 'V11afID n
U3b15 NOl'JNIHSVM • 111 AVMHOW 31V15
O
boMNtY
IF
�Un
�Ou iV
s�
bhOpt��j
p q is
x pow
83 8Ng3
Ye E W
0 �$
i
oW
G�
Co
g�p
J�
H �
LIN
�E
uS &
Lfa
J�
X
II'
I
Mm �� „^� amt-s twl nm n �... av idMe avw mcn SNOTIVA319 LW3 ONtl H130N a
SS373N1MUaZNal1
sd wo!18p5 Sf8t81!�LO , I •W v., �I•,LLw,,. • /� fSLZB w YINIM ry vw L O
�v /� /��O/e� / \ 133tl15 .g1�MN5VM A Itl AVMN'Jw 31v15
alw oAnouaar lno J• 71VJ,RH VINif18 tl7
xv,+mxo° / xa�mn uvww
W�
c�
la
r. his
Y< Y*a
Ax �
F j
o��t
In
KIN
COS
t
y / j t;1
Ijl�
0
Z
N
pig
O
Yea � oY
9.m R�: of L
E a
E,Atl rvS P�6N< n 3 0 ill!r:l o
$R& ooe �iR C giS _ W
i tl
U U{,I
lint.
Alt
i
g
W
PH #F
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: J U LY 10, 2001
CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-651, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (C/O MS. CYNTHIA
ZAMOREZ, DIRECTOR OF LAND MANAGEMENT/PROJECT
DIRECTOR)
PROPERTY
OWNER: KSL HOTEL LAND, L.P.
LOCATION: 55-900 THROUGH 55-940 PGA BOULEVARD, PGA WEST
COUNTRY CLUB
REQUEST: AMEND CITY COUNCIL CONDITION OF APPROVAL
(CONDITION #17 OF RESOLUTION NO. 99-71) THAT
REQUIRES REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING CORPORATE
OFFICE MODULAR UNITS ON JUNE 1, 2001, TO BE
EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 30, 2001 (SIX MONTHS).
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST
HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE #83062922) FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 83-
002) WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON MAY 15, 1984. NO
CHANGES CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO
NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD
TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT EIR.
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE/ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: TOURIST COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNED BY SPECIFIC
PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #4 (CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-130)
ST PC SDP 651 Ext. KSL - 50 Greg T.;
R 6/1 (None), 6/11; Resp. 6/26; 7/2, 7/5 Page 1
BACKGROUND:
The four -acre site on PGA Boulevard has approximately 21,000 square feet of KSL
office space within temporary modular units, a paved parking lot for 91 vehicles and
perimeter landscaping improvements. Temporary fencing with green mesh on PGA
Boulevard was installed in 1998 (Attachment #1). This site is encircled to the south
by vacant tourist commercial parcels, to the east by the existing golf course, to the
north by existing single family houses, and to the west by PGA Boulevard.
In 1999, the applicant applied for a Site Development Permit to relocate temporary
office modular units (9,600 square feet) at the southern terminus of PGA Boulevard
(56-1-40 PGA Boulevard) to the current location due to construction activity at the
original location by Centex Homes. On May 11, 1999, the Planning Commission
approved Site Development Permit 99-651 approving the enlargement of the temporary
office complex to 14 modular units on the existing site, subject to conditions
(Attachment #2 - Planning Commission Minutes). Condition #18 required removal of
the proposed and existing modular offices by June 1, 2002 (i.e., three year permit).
On appeal, the City Council on June 1, 1999, on a 3-2 vote, adopted Resolution No.
99-71 approving KSL's temporary office complex provided landscaping improvements
were made to screen the modular units and removal of all modular buildings occurred
by June 1, 2001 (i.e., Condition #17). A copy of the Minutes is attached (Attachment
#3).
Amendment Request
The applicant has requested to modify Condition #17 of City Council Resolution No.
99-711 to allow the KSL facilities to remain until November 30, 2001. The applicant's
request will allow time to complete construction of their permanent corporate offices
at the; northwest corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas, pursuant to Village
Use Permit 2001-07 that was approved on March 6, 2001, under Resolution No. 2001-
07.
Construction plans for development of the permanent offices were submitted on June
19, 2001, and are pending final approval by the City. A rough grading permit was
issued by the Public Works Department on June 4, permitting site clearing and
watering. It is anticipated that construction permits will be issued shortly with
construction work beginning this month.
ST PC SDP 651 Ext. KSL - 50 Greg T.;
R 6/1 (None), 6/1 l; Resp. 6/26; 7/2, 7/5 Page 2
Public Hearing Notice - This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June
28, 2001, and notices were also sent to property owners within 3,500-feet of the site.
To date, no comments have been received. Any comments received will be handed out
at the meeting.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to recommend approval of this Amendment request can be made
and are contained in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt: Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council
approval of Site Development Permit 99-651 (Amendment #1), subject to Findings and
Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1 . Site Plan Exhibit
2. Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 1999 (Excerpt)
3. City Council Minutes of June 1, 1999 (Excerpt)
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
ST PC SDP 651 Ext. KSL - 50 Greg T.; /
R 6/1 (None), 6/11; Resp. 6/26; 7/2, 7/5 Page 3
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 AN AMENDMENT
ALLOWING CONTINUED USE OF THE EXISTING MODULAR
OFFICE UNITS IN PGA WEST UNTIL NOVEMBER 30, 2001
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-651, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 101h day of July, 2001, consider the request of KSL Development
Corporation for KSL Hotel Land L.P. to allow continued use of modular office units
until November 31, 2001, on a four -acre site located approximately 4,500 feet south
of Avenue 54 and east of PGA Boulevard (55-910 through 55-940 PGA Boulevard),
more particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel No.: Portion of 769-730-001
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit Amendment has been
determined to be exempt from review because the site is located within PGA West
(Specific Plan 83-002). Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse
#83062922) was certified by the City Council in 1984 for SP 83-002. No changed
circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed which would trigger
the preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21 166; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify a
recommendation for approval to the City Council of said Amendment, pursuant to
Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code:
1 . The existing site improvements are consistent with the goals and policies of the
La Quinta Zoning Ordinance in that interim facilities have been determined to be
ancillary to the management of the golf courses and land sales program under
Specific Plan 83-002 (Amendment #4).
2. Site improvements, as installed, comply with the requirements of City Council
Resolution No. 99-71 .
3. Existing perimeter fencing and landscaping buffer the temporary buildings from
view of adjacent properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case; and
0J
A:\RE;30PCSDP651 EXT Trailer.wpd - 50 Greg T
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-
Site Development Permit 99-651, Amendment #1
July 10, 2001
Page 2
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Site
Development Permit 99-651 (Amendment #1) for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission held on the 101h day of July, 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
A:\RES0PCSDP651 EXT Trailer.wpd - 50 Greg T
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-651, AMENDMENT #1
JULY 10, 2001
GENERAL
1 . The property owner agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any legal claim
or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this Amendment request. The
City of La Quinta shall have right to select its defense counsel in its sole
discretion.
2. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, the
applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public
agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department
• Community Development Department
• Riverside County Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
The applicant/developer is responsible for any requirements of the permits or
clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to
obtaining City approval of the plans.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
3. 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.
LANDSCAPING
5. Speeimen trees having a- 11 54-1 -e-361' box or larger size 919ali
CondCC SDP651 - 50 GREG Page 1 of 3
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-
Site Development Permit 99-651, Amendment #1
July 10, 2001
Page 2
Existing temporary landscaping improvements for this 4 acres site shall be
maintained in a healthy state until removal of the temporary office complex
occurs. Any landscaping that is to be retained until future development of the
site shall be maintained by the property owner pursuant to the requirements of
Specific Plan 83-002 and Zoning Ordinance.
FIRE MARSHAL
6. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2,500 g.p.m.
for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
7. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"X 4"X 2.5"X
2.5") located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of
the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways.
8. Prior to building permit issuance, applicant/developer will furnish one blueline
copy of the water system plans to Fire Department for review/approval. Plans
will conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will
meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed/approved by a registered
Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "/
certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the
requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. "
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than
2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement
of equipment.
10. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per
recommended standard of the Knox Company. The ordering forms are available
by contacting the Fire Marshal's office at 760-863-8886.
LIGHTING
11. Exterior lighting plans shall be approved by the Community Development
Department Director prior to issuance of building permits.
CondCC SDP651 - 50 GREG Page 2 of 3
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-
Site Development Permit 99-651, Amendment #1
July 10, 2001
Page 3
ARCHITECTURAL/SITE DESIGN
12. No roof mounted mechanical equipment is permitted.
MISCELLANEOUS
13. All agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file
documents for plan checking purposes.
14. Prior to building permit issuance, trash and recycling areas for the project shall
be approved by the Community Development Department pursuant to Section
9.60.220 of the Zoning Ordinance. The plan will be reviewed for acceptability
by the applicable trash company prior to review by the Community Development
Department.
15. Permanent identification signs for the development shall be lit by an indirect
source as required by Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Temporary and permanent signs for the development shall be approved by the
City prior to installation.
16. Temporary storage containers are not permitted to be used unless separately
approved by the Community Development Department.
17. All existing interim modular units and their related temporary improvements (i.e.,
parking, perimeter fencing, etc.) shall be removed by November 30, 2001. No
construction materials shall be stored at the site thereafter, unless otherwise
approved in writing by the Community Development Director.
CondCC SDP651 - 50 GREG
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS
Iv
•
Attachment 2
planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
2. There bein questions of staff, Chairman Tyler ed if the applicant
would I' to add�C-
am)lis the Commission. Mr. D tark, representing the
s, stated purpose of the request.
3, airman Tyler asked if the applic had any problem with staffs
recommendation. Mr. Stark stated had no objection. Chairman Tyler
stated he hated to see the deletio the landscaping on the east side. Mr.
Stark stated the manufacturers not want to hide the vehicles behind trees
and bushes and they were t g to meet their demands.
4. Chairman Tyler asked ' yone else would like to speak on this item. There
being no further p is comment, the public participation portion of the
hearing was clos and opened to Commission discussion.
$. Commissio Abels stated the landscapi/vonded
11 should
remain a proved by the City Council to ighway 111
Desig uidelines.
6. re being no further discussion, it seconded by
ommissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt PlanResolution 99-
044 recommending to the City Council apprlopment Permit
Amendment #2, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
ation for
F. Site Development Permit 99-651; a request office KSL modularecreation nnits fromothersouthern
rpr approval to relocate existing corporate
terminus of PGA Boulevard to a four acre site developed with existing interim uses
in the Tourist Commercial District pursuant to Specific Plan 83-002.
1. Chairman Tyler 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. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant
would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing KSL
Recreation Corporation, state the purpose of their application. He then
questioned Condition #8 and stated the Fire Department had agreed to
remove.
Iq
iJ
C:Wy Documents\WPD0CS\PC5-11-99.wpd
14
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
3. Commissioner Robbins asked the applicant to identify what the purpose of
the building. Mr. Haag indicated the uses on the map.
4. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item.
5. Ms. Kelly McGalliard, representing PGA West Residential Association,
stated her confusion as to the uses reported by Mr. Haag as being interim as
no specific time period has been identified. The Association is asking that
a time period be identified as the proposed uses are not compatible and there
are alternate sites that could be used. The removal will enhance the
surrounding area, but the relocation and addition would not.
6. Commissioner Kirk asked Ms. McGalliard what she was asking for was the
definition of interim only. Ms. McGalliard stated their ultimate goal is to
have the Commission deny the project, and if not, at least define how long
temporary would be. Commissioner Kirk asked what time limit they want.
Ms. McGalliard stated they were given a year on their request and an
evaluation after that.
7. Mr. Arthur Brant 55-605 Pebble Beach, stated he was there to verify that the
surrounding neighbors objected to this application and also asked that Mr.
May's letter be included with their objections. When he purchased his home
they were told that as soon as the resort clubhouse was built the modular units
would be removed. They are not going away, but rather growing in numbers.
Their view is of the mountains and the temporary buildings, can be seen. In
addition, existing the sales building is up for review and they are voicing an
objecting to its use as well. The private clubhouse looks directly down on
these units. None of the other clubs in the Valley have this type of use for
their offices.
g. Commissioner Kirk asked Mr. Brandt about the letter dated February, 1999.
Mr. Brandt stated this was the letter of objection to the sales office for
Montecito.
9. Mr. Charles Hathaway, 55-405 Pebble Beach, stated he had lived here for
quite a while, and asked staff if they had looked at this site from Pebble
Beach. He would hope that the commission/staff would look at the site and
determine the impact these trailers would have on the area. There is no
indication that the screen presently surrounding the use would be moved, or
removed. Generally "temporary" means less than permanent and Mr. Haag
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC5-11-99.wpd 15
•
Plamning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
has indicated this use will lead into something else. The plan.submitted by the
applicant is not complete as the applicant has indicated the layout will
change. How many additional temporary buildings will be moved onto the
site in the future, or temporary containers as are now existing. He would ask
the Planning Commission to deny this application and require the applicant
to relocate to the southeast corner of Jefferson Street and 54th Avenue, at the
entrance to PGA West as this would not infringe on any ones view.
10. Dr. Alexander Korn, Pebble Beach, stated he agrees with what has been said
and there are alternative sites. He was unable to paint his house grey, or place
awnings on his house, therefore, why should they be allowed to make
exceptions.
11. Mr. Lang Lichliter, 55-920 PGA Boulevard, KSL, appreciates what has been
said and he agrees there are better solutions, but there is an issue of timing.
Sometimes you can be oblivious to the impact on the adjacent homeowners.
They met with the homeowners and tried to address and clean up the area to
meet the concerns of the homeowners. What they are requesting will not
impact the existing homeowners. What is there is impacting them. They do
recognize the need to move due to the impact on the homeowners, but they
need to make this move at some reasonable point in time. The potential
alternative locations do exist, but are not viable due to the time factor and
need to move now.
12. Chairman Tyler asked if Mr. Lighliter if he didn't agree that this was not
architecturally compatible. He also asked for the definition of temporary.
Mr. Lichliter stated there is a need for temporary facilities to get through the
whole phase of construction. There is no definitive definition of temporary.
13. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the
hearing was closed and opened to Commission discussion.
14. Commissioner Abels asked if a time frame of two to three years would be
acceptable. KSL has been cooperative with the City and there have not been
any issues and he would think that the issues between the HOA and KSL
could be worked out in a time period that is agreeable to both.
15. Chairman Tyler stated the proposed use is legal in this zone. The issue is
how long is temporary. What opportunities does the Commission have? City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell indicated it is reasonable to state a time in
consideration of what the purpose is. There are no specifics that guide this
-in the current Specific Plan.
k,13
C:\I"y Documents\WPDOCS\PC5-11-99.wpd 16
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
16. Commissioner Robbins stated he thought KSL had made a good effort to hide
what is there. If the Commission wanted to they could retroactively condition
the exiting buildings to a time frame. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated
the Commission could. The Specific Plan is a legal document and the City
Council could direct staff to bring it back and place specific time frames on
it. Short of doing that, the Commission could place some time issues on it.
17. Commissioner Abels stated that if the Commission approved or denied the
request, the applicant, or the other parties could appeal the decision.
18. Commissioner Kirk stated that in an effort to reach a compromise, they
should define temporary as two years, but within one year KSL should file a
progress report with an alternative site offered.
19. Commissioner Robbins stated he concurred, but he would have to state that
this use is better than a 1,000 room hotel.
20. Commissioner Abels suggested three years and a review in two years.
21. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
045 recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit
99-651, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as modified:
a. Condition 418: time limit for three years with a progress report at the
end of two years for all the temporary uses proposed and the existing
at the site.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Master Design Guidelines 99-003; a request of Lenc gn Group for La Quinta
Partners/William Ro for approval o new p totype residences and
landscaping plans f different lots i ove area.
1, Chairm Tyler a ion on contained in the sta report, e staff report. a copy of which is on
awa
presen d the at
file in unity Development Depart nt.
..14
C:Uvly Documents\WPD0CS\PC5-11-99.wpd 17
City Council Minutes 13 June 1, 1999
PUBLIC HEARINGS Attachment 3
1. APPEAL BY MR. ARTHUR BRANDT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION TO APPROVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-651, A REQUEST BY
KSL RECREATION CORPORATION TO INSTALL 9,600 SQUARE FEET OF
TEMPORARY MODULAR OFFICE UNITS ON A FOUR -ACRE SITE
DEVELOPMENT WITH EXISTING INTERIM USES IN THE TOURIST
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002 (PGA WEST)
AT 55-910 PGA BOULEVARD.
'The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that on May 14, 1999,
Mr. Arthur Brandt filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval
permitting 14 interim modular units for KSL Recreation Corporation at 55-910
PGA Boulevard for a three-year period. He advised that KSL is proposing five
new modular units (9,600 sq. ft.), for a total of 14 units (21,000 sq. ft.) on a
four -acre site. Landscaping is proposed on the east and west sides of the
complex, and 91 parking spaces are provided. The Planning Commission
approved the request on May 11, 1999, subject to findings and conditions. He
noted that Condition No. 18 requires all of the interim buildings, both old and
new, to be removed within three years, and for the application to be brought
back before the Planning Commission within two years for review.
In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Herman advised that Condition
No. 1 should be deleted as it was replaced by Condition No. 18, which was
modified at the Planning Commission to read,"The Planning Commission shall
receive a status report of the temporary uses from the applicant of this Site
Development Permit by June 1, 2001. All existing interim modular units and
all units approved by this permit shall be removed by June 1, 2002," and so
Condition No. 18 in the staff report should read accordingly. In regard to the
term "temporary," he advised that the Specific Plan, which supersedes the
Zoning Ordinance, identifies these as interim units, and does not define a time
frame.
Arthur Brandt, 55-605 Pebble Beach, advised that he was told by Landmark
when he purchased his property, that the temporary buildings would be
removed as soon as the resort clubhouse was built, and yet only one has been
removed, and he felt KSL should follow the rules that were originally set. It
was his understanding that the existing units were to be used only for
construction/sales facilities, and now understands that they'll be used for
corporate offices. He objected to the notification process, advising that he was
not notified of the Planning Commission hearing. He lives across the fairway
City Council Minutes 14 June 1, 1999
from the units, but only five condos are within the 500-foot radius. He
questioned why all PGA West residents weren't notified like they've been for
other projects, and why KSL waited until the end of April to request this
approval when they knew about it months ago. He's been told by other
residents that he's wasting his time because KSL gets whatever it wants from
the City. He asked the Council to: reject the Site Development Permit; order
a review of the existing trailers and fences with the goal of removing them as
soon as possible; begin immediate replacement of temporary chain link fences
with compatible walls and sidewalks; and remove interior chain link fences and
plant groundcover. Their CC&Rs state that the declarant intends to develop,
maintain, and operate PGA West in a first-class manner, and he felt KSL could
afford to do that. He believed 14 years is a long time to call temporary, and
recommended that the Minor Use Permit for the Hobbs trailer, which expired on
May 19, not be renewed. He believed KSL has alternative sites for placement
of these units, and that they should consider the homeowners and members of
PGA West.
Mayor Pena advised that in appeal cases, the Council functions as a Board of
Appeals, and he reviewed the procedures that they must follow, stating that
they can refuse to consider any issues not raised by the appellant or another
person either by verbal testimony or written correspondence made at or before
the Planning Commission public hearing. He advised that the two items stated
for the appeal are the failure to properly notify of the hearing, and improper use
of temporary buildings.
In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Herman advised that the hearing notices were
sent to over 40 property owners, excluding KSL and Sunrise Development,
including not only those within 500 feet, but also the property owners on
Pebble Beach, which is adjacent to the site. As for improper use of buildings,
he advised that the Specific Plan does not identify the timeline for temporary
use, and only identifies them as interim uses.
Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the notification procedures that
were followed by the City are in excess of what is required by law. The second
issue is essentially the primary issue that was before the Planning Commission,
as to whether or not it's appropriate under the Site Development Permit to allow
the move of the additional temporary buildings to this site. She advised that the
appellant has appropriately raised the issue, and that the Appeals Board
becomes the final decision maker.
Charles Hathaway, 55-405 Pebble Beach, spoke in support of the appeal,
stating that he felt the trailers are an eyesore to the whole PGA West
community. He also took exception to the existing chain link fence that's over
I �,
City Council Minutes 15 June 1, 1999
a mile long and a site pollutant. He felt it's time for KSL to relocate the fence
and the temporary modular units, and urged Council to defeat KSL's damaging
use of the property.
Wick! Merchant, 79-768 Arnold Palmer Drive, stated that she had a problem
with the City's definition of temporary, and the City's noticing requirements.
She felt all of the property owners should have been notified since KSL owns
all of the surrounding property, including the golf course, where their homes are.
She felt the trailers should be moved outside and placed where Sunrise has their
facilities. PGA West is advertised as the ultimate first-class private club
experience, and she knew of no such facility that would allow 20 trailers within
their project, especially in a visible location.
Kelly McGalliard, 73-310 Desert Rose, Palm Desert, advised that the primary
concern is the interpretation of temporary and interim. She didn't consider 14
years as temporary, and felt alternate sites exist that are more appropriate.
David Peters, 74-075 El Paseo, Suite C-4, Palm Desert, representing the
homeowner associations in PGA West, advised that the PGA West Master
Homeowners Association has no record of ever receiving a notice of the public
hearing.
Dan Shepardson, 54-839 Shoal Creek, of the PGA West Master Homeowners
,Association Board of Directors, advised that they only heard about the
application a few days ago because they did not receive a hearing notice, even
though PGA West Boulevard falls under their responsibility and is adjacent to
-the proposed site. He further advised that the Board has voted unanimously to
support the appeal. The view from these expensive homes is important to the
property owners, and they don't want to look at temporary buildings. It's
already been a problem for too long, and a three-year extension will make the
problem bigger.
In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Herman advised that the mailing lists for public
hearings are provided by a title company who signs a document stating that the
list is from the latest County tax rolls. He then read a list of names and
addresses of the homeowners associations on file with the County Assessor.
Bud Wehrly, 55-665 Pebble Beach, questioned how the City is supposed to be
protecting the property values for its residents, if a project with a life of 30
years is allowed to have temporary buildings on it for 17 years.
Larry Allen, 54-407 Shoal Creek, felt a protected environment is one of the
reasons why people buy homes within developments like PGA West. They're
� 11'7
City Council Minutes 16
June 1, 1999
not allowed to park boats or RVs on their properties, and are restricted to four
hours for loading and unloading their mobile coaches, and that's what he
considers temporary. He believed temporary buildings and fences have a direct
impact on the value of surrounding properties.
J. R. Mauro, 78-117 Calle Norte, Vice President of R. C. Hobbs Company,
supported the use of temporary trailers because he believed sales trailers are
important to the success of the company. Due to current restrictions imposed
by the homeowners association, it's imperative for them to retain their trailer
in a visible site. He advised that they've been at the current location for six
months, and if sales continue at the current rate, they intend to be there for
approximately 12 more months. He understood that the trailers had been
previously used by the homeowners association and the Legends of Golf.
Lorraine Milosivich, 56-285 Riviera, believed the trailers are going to have a
tremendous negative impact on the property values.
Forrest Haag, 49-999 Eisenhower Drive, representing KSL, advised that the new
buildings will be placed behind the existing buildings, and that they've agreed
to screen all of the buildings with landscaping. He felt the real issue is not the
definition of temporary or interim, but rather what the use is and the allowable
uses within the Zoning Ordinance. He presented a digital image of the view
with landscaping pasted in, and he noted that temporary trailers are part of the
construction and development process, and is an allowable use within the
Tourist Commercial zoning.
In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Haag advised that the elevation drop from the
existing pads to the proposed pads is 4-10 feet.
Council Member Adolph didn't feel that the photograph gives a true depiction
of the proximity between the trailers and homes.
In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Haag advised that they are required
to submit a landscape plan for staff's approval, and that the tree span will
depend on the type of tree used. They are willing to plant the type and size of
trees designated by the City, and advised that the tree span will increase with
growth.
Council Member Sniff noted that the trees will only be there for a maximum of
three years.
Jim Murphy, 54-580 Riviera, noted that the trailers referred to by Mr. Haag as
temporary construction offices to oversee development, are actually corporate
8
City Council Minutes 17
June 1, 1999
offices that have nothing to do, exclusively, with the development of PGA
West, but have everything to do with managing the whole KSL enterprise. He
believed the Council is charged with representing what is in the best interest of
-the whole community, and felt that KSL has alternative locations to place their
'temporary corporate offices.
Larry Lichliter, 80-138 Hermitage, representing KSL, advised that KSL has tried
-to be sensitive to the homeowners' concerns by painting the trailers and
planting additional landscaping, and as for the new trailers, he believed the
impact to the homeowners on Pebble Beach has been lessened because of the
change in elevations. He also noted that under the current permit, there's no
timeframe for the trailers, but they only need them for a few more years.
Although the trailers are corporate offices, a lot of time is spent on PGA West
issues, making it an appropriate use under the Specific Plan. They also need to
have all their offices together, and the proposed location is where the
infrastructure and communication facilities exists. He advised that they were
unaware of these issues, such as the fence, and will try to solve them. They're
also willing to increase the size of the trees around the trailers to help minimize
the impact.
In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Lichliter advised that they're
moving the trailers because the land was sold to Centex.
Council Member Adolph stated that he felt it would have helped if KSL had
discussed this issue with the homeowners associations. He asked about the
possibility of moving the trailers to the pad at the end of Madison Street.
Mr. Lichliter advised that there's insufficient infrastructure there. They have
looked at other alternatives, but some of the sites are inappropriate for the use,
and timing is also an issue.
There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED.
Council Member Sniff commented on the mailing list for the hearing notices, and
wasn't sure that the lists are totally accurate. He recognized KSL's need to
relocate on a temporary basis, but temporary to him should not exceed a
reasonable period of time, which he felt in this case, should not exceed two
years. He noted that even Mr. Lichliter has agreed that there is a problem, and
that they are trying to minimize the impact. He felt "temporary" needs to be
defined in a more restricted way, and that perhaps approval of this project
should be for only two years. Instead of using "temporary," he felt that in the
future everything should have a specific timeframe. He suggested limiting this
City Council Minutes 18
June 1, 1999
approval to two years, with trees required of sufficient size to provide a
significant cover for the buildings. He hoped the Council is never placed in this
particular position again where so many people are upset.
Council Member Adolph read the objectives of the Tourist Commercial
designation from the Zoning Ordinance, and stated that he felt the ghetto of
portable units are not totally compatible to surrounding properties. He was
concerned that the City is allowing things to occur on a temporary basis in areas
that are not compatible for them, and he had a problem with these buildings
being relocated in an area that's going to interfere with the ambiance of the
community.
In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Herman advised that some of the
temporary units have existed since 1985. As for hearing notices, he advised
that the 500-foot designation for mailing notices is from the property line of the
subject parcel.
Council Member Perkins felt that when a homeowners association is involved,
the hearing notices should be sent registered mail with return receipt. He
didn't feel that the City has satisfied the noticing procedure, and didn't like the
idea of moving more temporary buildings into an area that's been temporary for
a number of years.
Council Member Henderson felt there are concerns on both sides, and that the
developer is trying to address them. However, this is a permitted use under the
Specific Plan. She noted that the trailers have been used for multiple purposes
by multiple entities, including the homeowners association. She supported
looking at a two-year compromise, and agreed that the trees should be
substantially larger, given the short period of time for growth. She noted that
public notices have always been a problem, but felt it's because the mailing lists
that are provided to the City are inadequate.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Herman advised that the
homeowners association address on file with the County Assessor's Office is
either old or incomplete. The City is not allowed to change the property
owners' addresses; the property owners have to contact the County Assessor's
Office to change the address themselves.
Mayor Pena felt that perhaps while the City meets the "letter of the law,"
sometimes the "spirit of the law" is not met, and suggested that sites be posted
for public hearings as it's done in some other cities. In regard to the two appeal
issues, he advised that, legally, the hearing notices were done correctly, and
that the proposed use is a permitted use under the Specific Plan. He then
City Council Minutes 19
June 1, 1999
commented on the increase in attendance at the public hearings, and stated that
he felt it's due to the increase in full-time residents who are beginning to notice
their views more and things are having a greater effect on them. He noted that
the City cannot enforce the CC&Rs, and according to what he understood, no
one has ever filed a complaint about the trailers before. He advised that KSL
is entitled to do what they've done, and he hoped the Council could help solve
some of the issues raised by the appellant, such as screening, noting that the
trailers will be somewhat lower, and that the temporary containers will be
removed. He also commented on the lack of communication between the
homeowners associations and KSL.
Council Member Perkins suggested a continuance to allow the homeowners
associations and the applicant to try to resolve some of these problems.
Mayor Pena noted that the applicant has stated that time is of the essence.
In response to Council Member Adolph and Mayor Pena, Mr. Herman advised
that temporary/interim buildings are allowed under the Specific Plan, and it does
not identify the use of interim buildings.
Council Member Sniff reiterated that he felt the approval should be modified to
two years, with trees of sufficient size to provide adequate screening. He also
felt the issue of the mile -long fence should be addressed.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Honeywell advised that the
application is before the Council for final decision, and the Council may choose
to uphold the Planning Commission decision, but revise any of the conditions
of approval if desired, or it may uphold the appeal.
Mayor Pena asked if the applicant would have the right to file an appeal if the
current appeal is upheld, to which Ms. Honeywell responded no.
Mr. Herman suggested the following changes to the conditions of approval,
should the appeal be denied: 1) change Condition No. 6 to read, "Specimen
trees, size defined with American standards for nursery stocks having a
minimum 15-foot canopy in a 36-inch box or larger, shall be installed abutting
the modular office complex as depicted on the site plan exhibit, subject to
Community Development Department approval. All trees shall be double -staked
to prevent damage from seasonal winds, and shrubs shall be five -gallon or
larger; and 2) change Condition No. 18 to read, "All existing interim modular
units and units approved by this permit shall be removed by June 1, 2001." He
noted that Condition No. 1 should also be deleted.
City Council Minutes 20 June 1, 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL REQUEST OF MR. ARTHUR E. BRANDT
AND APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-651, PERMITTING THE
RELOCATION OF EXISTING MODULAR OFFICE UNITS AND PLACEMENT OF
NEW MODULAR UNITS ON A DEVELOPED FOUR -ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 55-910 PGA BOULEVARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002 (APPELLANT: MR. ARTHUR E. BRANDT;
APPLICANT: KSL RECREATION CORPORATION).
It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to adopt Resolution No.
99-71 as amended.
Council Member Adolph wished to see the trunk size and height of the trees
specified, as well as the location of the trees.
Mr. Herman advised that the nursery standard and specimen of tree determines
the trunk and box size to accomplish the 15-foot span, and that the locations
are noted on the site plan.
Mayor Pena asked about requiring a wall along the street.
Council Member Sniff was somewhat concerned about requiring them to build
a wall for a two-year approval.
Council Member Adolph was concerned about the temporary buildings being
screened from the street.
Council Member Perkins advised that he would vote NO because of improper
notification, even though it was done legally. He also didn't like the
interpretation of "temporary," which he felt should not mean more than one
year.
Council Member Adolph advised that he would also vote NO because he felt it's
not a proper place for a trailer park.
Motion carried with Council Members Adolph and Perkins voting NO.