2001 09 25 PCT4ht 4 4 Qum&
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
SEPTEMBER 25, 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 2001-121
Beginning Minute Motion 2001-017
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
I1. 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.
111. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on September 11,
2001.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item ................. CONTINUED -CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
2001-694
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... Northwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and
Adams Street
Request ............ Review of building elevations and landscape plans
for the La Quinta Community Park
Action .............. Request to continue October 23, 2001
B. Item ...................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-328
ADDENDUM, SPECIFIC PLAN 96-028,
AMENDMENT #2 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2001-709
Applicant...........
Bart Rinker
Location............
South of the southeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and
Dune Palms Road, within the Dune Palms Center
Request .............
1. Certification of an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment 96-328;
2. Specific Plan Amendment to allow ± 23,184
square feet of retail space on 1 .88 acres
currently approved for ± 1 1,010 square feet of
retail space and revising the total Specific Plan
building area to 118,884 square feet; and
3. Consideration of development plans for a
± 23,184 square foot retail building.
Action ...............
Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- ,
Resolution 2001-
C. Item ................... SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048, AMENDMENT #1 -
PALMILLA
Applicant........... Forrest K. Haag for RJT Homes, Inc.
Location............ Southwest corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson
Street
Request ............. To modify development standards and text
information for a private residential development on
no more than 178 houses on approximately 73
acres.
Action ............... Resolution 2001-
PC/AGENDA
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ...................
Applicant...........
Location............
Request .............
Action ...............
STREET NAME CHANGE 2001-012
Lake La Quinta Communities
Via Trieste within Lake La Quinta
To set a Public Hearing date to initiate a street
name change.
Resolution 2001-
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
X. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
September 11, 2001 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Fred Baker, Associate Planner
Michele Rambo, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
August 28, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 4, Item C be
corrected to read, "...on the north and west sides..."; Page 11, Item #8
to note the motion was made by Commissioners Tyler/Butler. There
being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected.
Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PRESENTATIONS: None.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Site Development Permit 2001-713; a request of Rancho Capistrano
Development Corporation for review of architectural and landscaping
plans for three new prototype residential units located north of Avenue
54 and east of Jefferson Street, within Country Club of the Desert.
G:\WPD0CS\PC9-1 1-01.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler stated there were only two facades per plan
and yet the report states that only Plan One can be built on
Avenue 52 and there are 32 houses on Avenue 52 which will limit
the number of facades on this street. It should have more variety.
3. Commissioner Butler asked if the Architecture and Landscape
Review Committee (ALRC) comments were added to the
conditions. Staff clarified they were comments which were not an
issue, only something the ALRC wanted the applicant to consider.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked how the applicant will be handling the
zero lot line/landscaping lot on the adjoining property. One
property owner would be responsible for maintaining the
landscaping of the adjoining property owner. Staff stated there
would be an easement to allow this. This is typical of most
common areas within a country club such as Rancho La Quinta
and Miraflores. It is handled in the CC&R`s. Commissioner Kirk
stated that under the phototypical landscape plan it appears there
are wall fountains. Would these be handled by the adjacent
property owner, but the water would be connected to the adjacent
property owner. Staff stated the applicant could address this.
5. Commissioner Robbins asked why the lot lines could not be moved
to the edge of the building so this issue could go away. Staff
stated it is approved under their Specific Plan.
6. Commissioners Robbins and Kirk stated they did not understand
the reasoning for this.
7. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Robert Wilkenson stated that regarding the zero
lot lines, they were trying to stay within what had been approved
for their specific guidelines. The way it is handled neighbor to
neighbor is through an access, or use easement. It is
G:\WPD0CS\PC9-1 1-01.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
acknowledged prior to purchase so an individual can use the
sideyard for decorating with landscaping or fountains without
getting permission from the neighbor. This would also be
acknowledged in the CC&R's.
8. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked if they would rather change
the Specific Plan and not have these easements. Mr. Wilkenson
stated it did not matter. It is just a use easement between the
two properties. Discussion followed regarding the easement and
property owner's use.
9. Commissioner Tyler asked what he thought of requiring the
additional facade. Mr. Wilkenson stated he thought there were
able to alternate all three plans and two facades each for a total
of six different elevations. The renderings show six different color
schemes, so he has two different elevations per three plans plus
six different color schemes for each one which creates a better
mix. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed on the interior, but if
he is limited to what the Zoning Code requires in regard to a
smaller one story house, less than 22 feet in height along Avenue
52 there is only one plan that fits. Mr. Wilkenson stated he is
unaware of the requirement and did not believe he was within the
22 foot requirement. Staff stated there is a potential for some of
the homes to be within the 150 feet right of way of the property
line limiting the height to 22 feet.
10. Commissioner Butler stated this was confusing. Avenue 52 has
a berm; are there homes on the other side of the berm. Mr.
Wilkenson stated there were homes on the other side of the berm
and they would not be seen from Avenue 52. Staff stated the
Code states that anything within 150 feet of the right of way, is
required to have a 22 foot height limitation, even if there is a
berm. The applicant could submit an additional elevation which
staff would review and approve for Plan 3, or reduce the height of
the Plan 2. Mr. Wilkenson stated he would prefer to have the
three different plans available and two different elevations and
address the height issue.
11. Commissioner Robbins asked if this would take a specific plan
amendment. Staff stated he can build Plan 1, or reduce the height
below 22 feet. Discussion followed.
G:\WPC)OCS\PC9-11-01.wpd 3
Manning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
12. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a way out of this. Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez stated he would be hesitant to reply
without having the Specific Plan before him. The Commission
could make a plausible argument, but he would be hesitant in the
absence of having the Specific Plan.
13. Commissioner Robbins asked what has been determined as low
profile as stated in the General Plan. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated 22 feet within 150 feet of the right
of way. Commissioner Robbins asked if that was a staff
determination, or part of the General Plan. Staff stated it was part
of the Zoning Ordinance which was approved by both the Planning
Commission and City Council. Discussion followed regarding the
tower element on Plan 2 to be approved by staff.
14. Commissioner Kirk asked if Plan 3 is next to a Plan 1 or 2
wouldn't the left side elevation include four windows that look out
into the neighbor's sideyard. Mr. Wilkinson stated they will be
glass block to let the light in, but not the view.
15. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment.
There being none, the public participation portion of the hearing
was closed and open for Commission discussion.
16. Commissioner Butler asked if the applicant did an amendment to
the Specific Plan, would the berm be an issue. Staff stated that
anything could be addressed. Discussion followed.
17. Commissioner Kirk stated he likes the design. The side access for
the golf cart is a nice change. It will be a nice asset to the City.
18. Commissioner Butler asked how this issue had not be addressed
with the applicant before this point. Staff stated it was discussed
with other members of the development team during the Specific
Plan preparation. Commissioner Butler stated he liked the design
and colors.
19. Commissioner Tyler stated he also liked the plans.
20. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-1 13 approving Site Development Permit 2001-
713, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as
amended:
G:\WPD0CS\PC9-1 1-01.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
a. Condition #6: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall modify the Plan 2 roof height to a maximum
of 22 feet in height along Avenue 52 and provide a third
facade to Plan 1, subject to the Community Development
Department approval.
b. Condition #7: Glass block shall be required on the Plan 4
elevation that faces the adjacent neighbor.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
B. Tentative Tract Map 30092; a request of Barton Properties for review of
conceptual parkway landscape plans for a 97-lot residential subdivision
located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if this project abutted The Palms project
along Monroe Street. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman clarified the first forty acres at the intersection of Monroe
Street and Avenue 58 belongs to the applicants and then there
was another forty acre parcel before The Palms. Commissioner
Tyler stated his concern was the sidewalk.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if the request for 40% turf was adequate
for staff. Staff clarified it was before the Commission for their
direction.
4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. The applicant not being present, Chairman Abels
asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. There being
no further discussion, the public participation portion of the
hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 2001-016
approving Tentative Tract Map 30092, subject to the findings and
Conditions of Approval as amended:
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
a. Condition #7: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
landscaping plan shall be revised to show that 25 % of the
parkway will be turf, subject to Community Development
Department approval.
C. Site Development Permit 2001-710: a request of Cody & Brady,
Architects for review of development plans for a permanent maintenance
and construction gatehouse located on the south side of Avenue 52, east
of the intersection with Washington Street, within the Tradition.
1. Commissioner Kirk excused himself due to a possible conflict of
interest and left the dias.
2. Chairman Abels 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. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Richard
Brady, representing the applicant, stated he was available for
questions. Mr. Brady asked that Conditions #36 and #37 be
deleted as they are not relevant. Staff stated they could correct
this as it did not appear they would be adding any new landscape
areas. Staff wanted to be sure the trees would be relocated. Mr.
Brady stated they do have one small landscape area which is a
planter. Staff stated they would like the applicant to submit a
landscape plan for the area for staff approval.
4. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission on this issue. There being no further public comment,
Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the
hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion.
5. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a concern with Condition #4 as
it seems to imply that if, at some time in the future they were to
install an entry rejection turning capability, then they could use it
for residential use and he does not believe that was ever the intent
of this gate. Therefore, he would like everything after "permitted"
deleted. Commissioner Tyler stated he was also concerned that
enough stacking room is available at the Avenue 52 entrance to
handle several delivery trucks at one time. Mr. Brady stated it
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
was designed to allow two 18 wheel semi trucks at a time.
Commissioner Tyler stated there has been a number of cars parked
along Avenue 52 which he assumed were employees and he
wondered why there wasn't enough room inside the development.
Mr. Brady stated he would bring it to the homeowners' association
attention.
6. There being no further public comment, the public participation,
the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and open
for Commission discussion.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-1 14 approving Site Development Permit 2001-
710, subject to the findings and conditions as amended:
a. Condition #4: delete everything after the word "not
permitted".
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission.
D. Site Development Permit 2001-712: a request of Michael Shovlin for
review of development plans for a 23,492 square foot commercial center
(Staples) to be located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, east of
Washington Street, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins stated there was an inconsistency between
the colored elevation and the black and white version in regard to
the archway over the Staples entrace. The version in the black
and white is consistent with what is currently at the Center and
the other is different. Staff stated the arch proposed is on the
black and white elevation. The colored elevation is for the sign
submittal only, not the arch.
G:\WPD0CS\PC9-1 1-01.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
3. Commissioner Tyler asked if the arcade would project out to the
street to match up with the other in -line shops. Staff stated it
was conditioned to match up with the existing shops.
Commissioner Tyler stated his concern was that the rear
landscaping would not be enough to hide the rear facade of the
building.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the right elevation would be attached
to a future building. Staff stated when a building is proposed it
will either be attached, or abutting. Commissioner Kirk asked how
the sign was measured. Staff stated it is the entire sign surface,
but in this instance, the background is painted so it could be
interpreted to just include the letters. If it were a cabinet sign and
illuminated the entire background would be included in the sign
size. The size allowed by a major tenant is up to 82 square feet.
5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Dave Smoley, project manager for the site,
stated he was available for any questions.
6. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Robbins stated he thought the rear
building elevation was unattractive and asked if the applicant
would be willing to improve it. Mr. Smoley stated this had been
discussed with staff and this was what the architects drew based
on those discussions, which they believe has enhanced the look.
The comments made at the ALRC meeting were about the rear
vegetation in regard to the fence. The fence parallels the truck
well and they thought the height of the Oleanders at the rear of
the property would suffice to mitigate any undesirable appearance
of the fence. They did not make any statement that the
landscaping would hide the building. They believe the rear
elevation is attractive with the recesses, shading, and color
variations.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked why they would rather have the fence
than a block wall. Mr. Smoley stated it was a Staples prototype
and their design request. It was a delivery area that was recessed
to serve as an additional screen for the trucks. Commissioner
Tyler stated he would prefer a low block wall versus a pipe or
chain link fence. Second, what is indicated by the bands at the
top of the building. It calls out stucco and he is uncertain what
G:\WPC)OCS\PC9-1 1-01.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
the material will be. Mr. Smoley stated it is a stucco covered
foam trim that projects from the wall that is decorative and applied
to the block wall, plastered over and painted. Commissioner Tyler
asked if it had a geometrical shape. Mr. Smoley stated it did.
Commissioner Tyler asked about the landscaping at the base of
each column. Mr. Smoley stated it would be consistent with the
remainder of the Center. They currently have bougainvillaeas at
the base of each column in the Center. Discussion followed
regarding the landscaping in the rear of the Center.
8. Commissioner Robbins asked that the applicant place the same
triangular shaped lighting accent that is on the front of the
building, on the rear of the building to break up the back. Mr.
Smoley stated they were wall sconces which are up -lights to wash
the wall with light at night. They saw no purpose having these in
the rear. Commissioner Robbins stated he was not concerned
with the lights, but rather the accent tiles to break up the look.
Mr. Michael Shovlin, owner of the Center, stated that in the back
of the building they have security lighting. Commissioner Robbins
stated he was not concerned that additional lighting be added only
that some type of tile inset be added that would mimick the look
of the front. Mr. Shovlin stated no other building in the Center
currently has that on the rear. Commissioner Robbins stated the
Commission should do whatever it can to improve the look of the
rear of the Center. Discussion followed regarding the lighting
issues and the rear elevations.
9. Chairman Abels stated he liked the entry vestibule facing the
south which will help to conserve energy. He also asked if this is
a typical size for a Staples store. Mr. Shovlin stated it was
approximately 24,000 square feet. In addition, there will be a
31,000 square foot Ross Dress for Less and later a Big 5 Sporting
Goods store.
10. Mr. Smoley asked that Condition #38 be changed to match the
rest of the Center. Staff stated this should be clarified to read the
rear elevation.
11. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment.
There being no further public participation, Chairman Abels closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the
meeting for Commission discussion.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-1 1-01.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
12. Commissioner Tyler suggested a wrought iron fence be installed
instead of the chain link fence. In regard to the landscaping
Conditions, #24, #25, #26, and #27, they no longer apply to this
application, and except for the last sentence of #27, should be
deleted.
13. Commissioner Butler stated he would like to see the fence
anodized or painted to make it look better. As to the landscaping,
he agrees there should be something added.
14. Commissioner Kirk stated he thought the application was better
than when it was first reviewed and he supports the application.
If it needs to be improved on the rear elevation, he would support
the other Commissioners in that regard.
15. Commissioner Robbins stated that with the inset tiles similar to
what is on the front elevation, it would improve the appearance.
He disagrees that there is a way to improve the look of chain link
and he would like to see a condition added requiring either
wrought iron or some type of pipe that accomplishes the need for
security as well as improves the appearance. He asked staff if the
Commission had the authority to require them to improve the rear
landscaping for the length of the entire Center. Assistant City
Attorney John Ramirez stated he saw no problem with this. The
Commission has broad discretion in regard to their review.
Commissioner Robbins stated he would like to see some type of
requirement added that would improve the rear landscaping to hide
the building. Also, it should be something other than the
Oleanders. This could be left up to staff. Mr. Shovlin stated he
has one mile of Oleanders planted, from Washington Street to
Adams Street. If he were to increase the water to grow the
Oleanders higher, would that help/ When he built the Center he
had an approved landscape plan. To change this plan for one
store does not seem right. Commissioner Robbins stated that in
his opinion, there is no landscaping behind the building.
16. Community Development Director Jerry Herman reminded the
Commission that the City is conditioned to install a bike path from
Washington Street to Jefferson Street. The City has to work with
CVWD to install this and the City does not want to create a
landscaping plan that will block the view of the police while
patrolling the area. Commissioner Robbins stated he was thinking
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-1 1-01.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
about some trees and bushes to break up the look. He does not
want a solid hedge. Mr. Shovlin stated he had dedicated an
easement for the bikepath.
17. Commissioner Kirk stated he thought it would be too much of a
burden to require the owner to replace a mile of Oleanders given
the investment he has already made in this Center. At the same
time it does not look as good as it should, and could. He would
suggest they require the applicant to hire an arborist, an expert in
trees, to go to the site and work with the applicant to determine
whether they need to increase their water use, change the
landscaping, add whatever it takes to improve the appearance and
have a report prepared for the Commission to be submitted with
his next application.
18. Commissioner Tyler asked if they were requiring him to change the
landscaping, would that not require a Specific Plan Amendment.
Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that when the
question was originally asked of him, he did not realize the
question was posed in regard to the entire Center. He thought the
question related to this proposal only.
19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-1 15 approving Site Development Permit 2001-
712, subject to the findings and conditions as amended:
a. Condition #35. Prior to issuance of a building permits,
revise the building elevations as follows:
1) Replace the chain link with an alternative material
such as tubular steel or wrought iron.
2) The rear elevation shall include inset tiles similar to
the light sconces along the building facade.
b. Condition #38. Modified to refer to the rear elevation.
C. Condition #40. Applicant to consult with an appropriate
landscape specialist as to the health of the existing
Oleanders and suggest improvements.
d. Remove all nonapplicable landscaping conditions.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Robbins. ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
G:\WPD0CS\PC9-1 1-01.wpd 11
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:28 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
8:34 p.m.
E. Site Development Permit 2001-705: a request of Mary T. Delgato, Kristi
Hanson, architect for review of development plans for Las Casuelas
restaurant located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and
Highway 1 1 1, within Point Happy Commercial Center
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins asked the Assistant City Attorney the
meaning of the letter just handed them from the attorney
representing the site developer. Assistant City Attorney John
Ramirez stated it implies there are some conditions in the sale
agreements that require a preapproval by the developer, but at this
stage it has no impact on the Commission. It is a part of the
record in terms of it being received, but has no impact on the
Commission's decision.
3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Chrisi Hansen, architect for the project, stated
that in regard to the letter received from Mr. Daniel Olivier of the
law firm Best Best & Krieger LLP, she has a letter of approval of
for the elevations in their original submittal to the developer,
should the Commission want to see it. The only item they have
not submitted to the developer for approval is the sign approval,
which they removed from this application. They originally
submitted plans including a basement for storage, but found out
that this space would be included in the overall square footage for
parking which puts them over the amount of square footage they
are allowed, so they are deleting the basement. The footprint of
the building and the elevations will remain the same. The square
footage of the floor space is 7,606 feet and the rear patio space
is 1,566 for a total of 9,172 square feet of actual building area,
which is within their development agreement.
G:\WPC)OCS\PC9-11-01.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the parking requirement was calculated
on seats, not square footage. Staff clarified as this is part of a
shopping center; therefore it is governed under the Specific Plan.
A restaurant is allowed so many parking spaces within the Specific
Plan.
5. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Tyler stated this was a marvelous
building and the architecture would make a strong statement at
a very important site in the City.
6. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission on this issue. Mr. Dan Olivier, attorney for the
developer, stated they were requesting the application be
continued to allow them time to review the footprint and size of
the building.
7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project
for Commission discussion.
8. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-1 16 approving Site Development Permit 2001-
705, subject to the findings and conditions as amended:
a. Conditions #51 and #52 deleted
b. Revise from the Resolution any reference to a sign program
C. Revise the Resolution to reflect the correct building size
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
F. Addendum to Riverside county Environmental Impact Report #232.
Environmental Assessment 2001-079 and Zone Chanae 2001-102: a
request of Coral Mountain LLC for certification of an Addendum to
Riverside County EIR #232; certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for 40 acres located at the
northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60 not included in
Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment No. 1; a
G:\WPC)0CS\PC9-11-01.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
preannexation General Plan designation from County designation MR
(Medium Residential - 2-5 units per acre) and GC (Golf Course) as shown
in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218 Amendment No. 1 to LDR
(Low Density Residential - 2-4 units per acre); a preannexation General
Plan designation from County designation 3A (00.4 - 2 units per acre) to
LDR (Low Density Residential) on the 40 acres at the northwest corner
of Madison Street and Avenue 50 not included in Riverside County
Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment No. 1; a Zone Change from Riverside
County designation of SP (Specific Plan) as shown in Riverside County
Specific Plan No. 218 Amendment No. 1 to RL (Low Density Residential)
and GC (Golf Course); and a Zone Change from Riverside County
designation of RA (Residential Agriculture) and W-2 (Controlled
Development) to RL (Low Density Residential) and GC (Golf Course) on
the 40 acres at the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60
not included in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment No.
1, for the property located at the southwest corner of Madison Street
and Avenue 58.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the two story house had any
historical significance to the City. Staff stated no.
3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Patrick O'Dowell, representing the applicant,
stated he was available for any questions.
4. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if there
was any other public comment. Mr. Brian DeCoster, asked what
properties were involved in this annexation. Staff explained the
area. Mr. DeCoster stated he jointly owned property in this area
with Dr. Kathy Carlson and their concern was whether or not they
would be allowed to have horses. He would like to ask that their
property be withdrawn from the annexation until such time as the
equestrian issues were resolved. He was raising the question
because their Assessor Parcel Number was not included in the
Public Hearing Notice and should have been if their property was
included in the annexation area. They are not interested in an
Equestrian Overlay, but zoning that would include horses.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-0l .wpd 14
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
5. Commissioner Kirk asked if their property could be excluded from
the annexation until it is verified that all the property owners had
been contacted. Staff stated the applicant is desiring to annex his
property into the City as soon as possible to develop their project.
The Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council
that this portion be left in and let them deal with the equestrian
issue, or it can be removed and the City Council can determine
whether or not to take it out. Staff included it in the annexation
because it created a logical boundary for LAFCO to accept.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked how many property owners were
objecting to this annexation. Mr. DeCoster stated he was only
aware of eight properties that are on Calle Conchita and he does
not speak for anyone except himself.
7. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to address the issue of
equestrian uses. Staff stated the Residential Zone, R-1 does allow
horses on one acre in size. The issue of equestrian/agricultural
uses will be addressed during the General Plan Update public
hearings. Staff is proposing to eliminate the Equestrian Overlay
and create an Agricultural/Equestrian Zoning District.
8. Commissioner Butler stated that in approving the application, they
were in a sense speaking for homeowners that are not
represented. Staff stated there could be a potential of 11 property
owners. Discussion followed regarding the property involved in
the annexation area.
9. Commissioner Robbins asked if the annexation went ahead as
proposed, how does it affect any current, or future property owner
from have horses. Staff stated the current Code states that if
there is an existing land use activity that is not permitted under
the Code you are allowed to continue that activity as long as you
do not abandon it for a year, or more. The issue that has been
raised with other property owners in the planning area to the east,
is that if they were to stop their activity for more than a year, they
cannot get it back. Staff is trying to change this during the
General Plan Update. Mr. DeCoster stated he thought his rights
were at risk. Commissioner Robbins stated that if Mr. DeCoster
were to move onto his property after it was annexed he would not
be able to have horses. Staff stated the current Code will allow
one horse if there is an acre or more. If there are no horses there,
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01.wpd 15
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
there is no use established. Staff stated that under the current
City zoning they would be allowed one horse for each 2.5 acres.
Mr. DeCoster stated that under the current County zoning they are
allowed more horses than this. If the City wants to continue the
annexation with this zoning, the other owners should be
contacted.
10. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff was confident that all the
property owners had been contacted. Staff stated they were
contacted. Mr. DeCoster stated he did receive the public hearing
notice but it did not include his parcel and that is why the others
are not at the meeting.
11. Dr. Kathryn Carlson, joint property owner with Mr. DeCoster,
stated she was concerned as to when this zoning would take
place. If they did not currently have horses on their 2.5 acres, and
their property was annexed and they were to move onto their
property, they would only be allowed one horse.
12. Commissioner Robbins asked what the County zoning allowed.
Staff stated five horses per acre for A-1-20 zoning. Staff stated
the County zoning for this acreage is R-A Residential Agricultural.
13. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project
for Commission discussion.
14. Commissioner Tyler stated their options were to exclude this
property and approve Coral Mountain's request, approve the entire
request as submitted, or deny the entire request. Staff stated that
is basically the options before the Commission. If the Commission
keeps the boundaries as recommended by staff and it goes to the
Council and they approve the same boundary, then it would be
submitted to LAFCO who would conduct their own public
hearings. Before it would even be sent to LAFCO a petition would
have to be circulated to all the property owners accepting the
zoning designations. If the City does not get all the signatures of
all the property owners, then it is based on assessed value and
percentages. The hearing notices for the City Council public
hearing did include all the Assessor Parcel Numbers for all
properties affected.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-1 1-01.wpd 16
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
15. Commissioner Kirk asked why the hearing notice for the City
Council public hearing was more comprehensive and precise than
the Planning Commission hearing. Staff stated the map and
description were correct, but not all the Assessor Parcel Numbers
were listed. Commissioner Kirk stated that as the Planning
Commission was not the final approval, but a recommending body,
the property owners would have an opportunity to speak again
before the City Council. This would give time for staff to work
with these individuals regarding their zoning. Staff stated the
proposed Equestrian/Agricultural zoning would be available for
public review and comment on September 19, 2001.
16. Mr. DeCoster stated this was a very diplomatic response and
certainly sensitive to the concerns raised, although he did not
understand how they could approve something that was not
correctly noticed. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated
that as he understands the facts, the notice was provided to
property owners. The issue is that the notice received did not
include the Assessor Parcel Numbers but did include the accurate
legal description. Assuming that is the case, that is adequate
notice. Obviously, one of the property owner did in fact appear
and as Commissioner Kirk has stated, there will be ample
opportunity to be heard at the City Council hearing.
17. Dr. Carlson stated this does not sit right with her that it would be
approved. Even though this is not the final judgement body, it is
setting a precedent of five peoples opinion, putting it on paper in
writing. There are people who trust each one of the
Commissioner's opinion and make governing decisions based upon
their opinions.
18. Commissioner Butler asked staff what would happen if they
approved this excluding this portion; what kind of a problem are
they creating. Staff stated all the property owners were mailed a
notice. The Commission could make any decision they wanted to
and staff would take that recommendation to the City Council ;
however, staff will reiterate their initial recommendation.
19. Commissioner Robbins stated he did not believe it was appropriate
to move forward without this property being included in the
annexation as it creates an island and LAFCO would not approve
that. With there being a questions as to how this was noticed, it
G:\WP[)OCS\PC9-11-01.wpd 17
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
should be re -noticed with a notice that accurately portrays what
the area is and lists the correct Assessor Parcel Numbers and then
brought back to the Planning Commission.
20. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Abels to continue the application to
October 9, 2001.
21. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant, Mr. O'Dowell for his
opinion on continuing the application. Mr. O'Dowell stated this
was a time sensitive project and a 30-day delay would affect their
future plans for the project. He understands the issues being
discussed and appreciates their deliberation over them. These
parcels were included with their annexation because it was the
proper way to complete the boundaries for the annexation. It is
appropriate to move forward and approve this application rather
than continue the process which does not void anyone's rights.
22. Commissioner Butler asked what the options were if the owners
did not want to be a part of the annexation. Staff stated that
depending upon what the percentages showed, they could be
forced into the annexation regardless of their objection.
23. Chairman Abels withdrew his second and the motion died.
24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 17 certifying an
Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Impact Report No.
232.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Butler and Robbins. ABSTAIN:
None. ABSENT: None.
25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 18 certifying a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the 40 acres
located at the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60
not included in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218
Amendment No. 1.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Butler and Robbins. ABSTAIN:
None. ABSENT: None.
G:\WPD0CS\PC9-1 1-01.wpd 18
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 19 recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-079, subject to
findings and Conditions of Approval as amended:
a. With the removal of the 11 or 12 lots from the application.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Butler and Robbins. ABSTAIN:
None. ABSENT: None.
27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-120 recommending
approval of Zone Change 2001-102, subject to the findings as
amended.
a. With the removal of the 11 or 12 lots from the application.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Butler and Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
G. Capital Improvement Project 2001-694; a request of the City for review
of building elevations and landscape plans for the La Quinta Community
Park to be located at the northwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and
Adams Street.
1. Staff requested this item be continued to September 25, 2001.
2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to continue this issue as requested.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Staff reminded the Commission of the Joint Meeting with City Council
on the General Plan to be held on September 19, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
There is also a Joint meeting with the City Council on September 25,
2001 at 5:30 p.m.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01.wpd 19
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
X. ,ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held September 25, 2001, at 7:00
p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on
September 11, 2001.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01.wpd 20
PH #A
DATE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
BACKGROUND:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-694
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PURKISS • ROSE - RSI
REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPE PLANS
FOR THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY PARK
NORTHEAST CORNER OF WESTWARD HO DRIVE AND ADAMS
STREET
The City Council at its February 5, 2001 meeting approved the park amenities to be
included in Phase I of the Community Park design, and authorized the finalization of
the Community Park design.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Staff is continuing to work with the consultant with regards to the design of the park
and the building elevations. Therefore, additional time is needed and staff is
requesting this item be continued to October 23, 2001.
Prepared and Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
G:\WPDOCS\PCStfRptCom Park.wpd
PH #B
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-328 (ADDENDUM)
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-028, AMENDMENT #2
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-709
APPLICANT: MR. BART RINKER
PROPERTY OWNER: BURGER TRUST, C/O ERNEST NOIA
REQUEST: 1. CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO EA 96-028,
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 4, 1997
2. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ±23,184
S.F. OF RETAIL SPACE ON 1.88 ACRES,
CURRENTLY APPROVED FOR ± 1 1,010 S.F. OF
RETAIL SPACE, REVISING THE TOTAL SPECIFIC
PLAN BUILDING AREA TO 118,884 S.F.
3. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR
A±23,184 S.F. RETAIL BUILDING
LOCATION: ±600' SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
HIGHWAY 111 AND DUNE PALMS ROAD, WITHIN THE
DUNE PALMS CENTER (ATTACHMENT #1)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED AN ADDENDUM TO
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-328 AND THE
PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION. BASED UPON THIS ADDENDUM, THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT NONE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET
FORTH IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 21166 HAVE BEEN
SHOWN TO EXIST AND, ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDENDUM
TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
C:\W rkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\perpt028#2. wpd
ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
BACKGROUND:
Specific Plan 96-028 was approved for Lapis Energy Corporation on February 4,
1997. The plan called for ± 81,000 square feet of commercial space, consisting of
a 2,500 square foot fueling station with CNG capacity, a ±67,000 square foot self -
storage facility, and ± 1 1,010 square feet of auto retail space, and a total of 79
parking spaces.
On April 7, 1998, Amendment #1 to the Specific Plan was approved, to allow an
increase in building area for the self -storage component (now Allstate Storage) from
67,000 to 91,000 square feet. At present, the fueling station site is approximately
75% complete, and is not set up for CNG fuel; Allstate Storage has been open for
several months.
The project site, Parcel 2, is currently approved for an 1 1,010 square foot auto
service complex, which would consist of 3 buildings. Two buildings were represented
as an alternative fuel vehicle repair facility, the third was proposed as a drive-in oil
change service. The site was cleared and rough graded along with the entire Specific
Plan area.
The applicant proposes a 23,184 square foot retail commercial project on Parcel 2 of
the Dune Palms Center, which lies between the fueling station (Parcel 1) and Allstate
Storage (Parcel 3). Retail tenancies are anticipated to be oriented to automotive parts
and accessories, with limited 'clean' auto services (i.e. installation of car stereos,
wheels, body kits and similar products) available.
�(i.fic Plan - The specific plan amendment proposes:
1). revisions to parking provisions for approved Parcel 2 site layout and use
description. This includes revising the parking space counts for Parcel 2 and
the total specific plan. The proposed building utilizes the same ratio (1/300 s.f.)
as was used for the existing approval
2). revised building area figures to permit one 23,184 square foot retail building
in lieu of the three previously approved 11,010 square foot (aggregate) retail
buildings on Parcel 2. This revises the total building area of the specific plan
to 118,884 s.f.
3). updating the document where necessary to generally reflect current conditions,
such as work completed, existing uses, etc.
Site C)evelopment Permit - The proposed retail building location is centered on the
Parcel. The roof line incorporates an alternating flat parapet and mansard treatment,
with rounded cornices at the top of the roof lines. The highest point at the parapet
roof lines, is 23' 6". The building architecture utilizes smooth texture plaster walls
and columns, solar bronze glass with aluminum moulding and rough sawn rafters and
wood beams. Service bay and man doors are metal, and building columns have a
formed wainscot appearance. Color tones for building surfaces are in shades of
brown, used to accent beams, roof edges and portions of the building elevation. No
exterior light fixtures are shown.
Proposed on -site landscaping for the site consists of several tree species (24" to 48"
box containers) for the parking lot and around the buildings. Turfed areas are primarily
located in and along the parkways as berms. Desert climate groundcover and shrubs
are provided throughout the project site. The parkway setback and, principally, the
east landscape setback areas are designed to incorporate the majority of required on -
site retention volume.
Acceas - An access is provided at the approved Specific Plan location on Dune Palms
Road. Alternate access will be taken from Parcel 1 (fueling station) and an easement
for access along the south side of this site, which was required with the original
Specific Plan.
Lighting - The applicant submitted a photometric study of the site relative to proposed
lighting facilities. This study indicates that the average foot-candle reading is 3.01 on
the east side parking area and 2.67 on the west (Dune Palms Road) side, with a
maximum reading of 7.2 and minimum of 1.0. This is not in compliance with the
zoning code parameters, which specify average illumination of between 1.0 and 2.0
foot-candles at parking area finish grade, and a maximum average light to minimum
light ratio of 3:1. Also, the pole heights used in the study are shown to be at 31 feet.
The Specific Plan text does not address lighting, but the applicant has submitted a
light standard detail showing shielded shoe -box fixtures (recessed lamp with flush
lenses).
Signs - A Sign Program was approved for the Dune Palms Center on June 13, 2000
(SA 2000-502). The Sign Program guidelines (text only) are included in the Specific
Plan document. The applicant has provided standard sign representations for the
various building tenants. They are consistent with City sign requirements. The sign
program requires specific end cap treatment and colors, which the proposed signs do
not comply with. It is important to note that Parcel 2 as proposed now varies from
the building design as relied on when the Sign Program was prepared.
Architecture and Landscape Review Committee Action - On September 5, 2001, the
ALRC reviewed the architecture and conceptual project landscaping for the proposed
building (Attachment #2, ALRC minutes). No significant issues were raised by the
Committee, which unanimously recommended approval of the site development
permit as recommended by staff. The only item recommended by staff was that the
wainscot area on the building columns incorporate a tile or split block treatment,
similar to the two existing structures.
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 4, 2001. All
property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice as required. No comments have been received. Any correspondence received
before the meeting will be transmitted to the Planning Commission.
Public Agency Review
Staff transmitted the applicant's request to all public agencies. All comments received
are on file at the Community Development Department. All other comments have
been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval, as appropriate.
TAT'EMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS•
Findings necessary to recommend approval of each item can be found in the
respective resolutions to be adopted for these cases with the exception of:
A. Site Development Permit - Site and architectural design
The proposed building is a flat roof, with a peak height of 23 feet, 6 inches.
The Regional Commercial district (CR) allows building heights of four stories,
up to 50 feet, but limits building height to 22 feet for structures within 150
feet of any Primary Image Corridor and Major and Primary Arterials, as
designated in the General Plan. The proposed building is ±93 feet from the
ultimate right-of-way for Dune Palms Road.
While the building height of 23.5 feet is well below the 50 foot height limit
established under the CR district, notwithstanding, no building within 150 feet
of Dune Palms Road may exceed 22 feet. Staff recommends that the building
as located on Parcel 2 be reduced in height, so that the building does not
exceed 22' at any point. Condition 59 has been added to address this.
A related issue pertains to screening of mechanical equipment, as lowering the
roof height may expose any planned mechanical equipment located on the roof.
Staff is also recommending Condition 58, to insure that such equipment is
screened by the roof parapet.
The overall project lighting is inconsistent with the Zoning Code. The zoning
code parameters specify average illumination of between 1.0 and 2.0 foot-
candles at parking area finish grade over the entire site and a maximum
average light to minimum light ratio of 3:1 . Also, light pole height limitations
of the Zoning Code defer to the manufacturer's recommendations, limited to
the greater of 18 feet, or the maximum building height of the zoning district
(50 feet), while the lighting plan shows heights of 31 feet. As this exceeds the
overall height of the building, the Zoning Code requirements, and will create
light spillage beyond the property lines, Condition 56 requires the applicant to
submit a revised lighting plan, based on photometrics for a maximum pole
height of 18 feet, average footcandle and average light to minimum light
requirements in the Zoning Code, and to address light spillage and shielding
requirements.
The conceptual sign designs as submitted do not fully comply with the existing
approved sign program for the Dune Palms Center, in part due to the revised
building design, which now will house multiple tenants. Individual tenant signs
will require separate sign approvals. The individual signs will need to meet the
existing sign program, or an amendment to the existing Sign Program will be
necessary. Condition 57 addresses the requirements for sign approval
processing.
The only item recommended by the Architecture and Landscape Review
Committee was that wainscot areas on the building columns incorporate a tile
or split block treatment, similar to the two existing structures. This is contained
in the proposed approval conditions as Condition 60.
RECOMMENDATION:
1 . Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending certification
of the Addendum to Environmental Assessment 96-328, subject to findings;
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending approval of
Specific Plan 96-028, Amended #2, subject to findings and conditions;
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending approval of
Site Development Permit 2001-709, subject to findings and conditions.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
Attachments:
Ch tine di lorio, Planning Manager
1. Location Map
2. ALRC minutes of 9/5/01
3. Project exhibits
4. Large-scale Lighting/Landscape plan and
photometric study (PC only)
RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-328,
FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-709, TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A 23,184 S.F. BUILDING LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF DUNE PALMS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY
600 FEET SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-328
BART RINKER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did
on the 25th day of September, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
adoption of an addendum to Environmental Assessment 96-328, for Specific Plan 96-
028, Amendment #2 and Site Development Permit 2001-709; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the
4th day of February, 1997, certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration as determined under
Environmental Assessment 96-328, prepared for Specific Plan 96-028 and related
applications as set forth in said Mitigated Negative Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, said Addendum complies with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution
83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study, and
has determined that none of the circumstances set forth in Public Resources Code 21 166
have been shown to exist; and,
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
certified for EA 96-328, by Resolution No. 97-05, prepared for SP 96-028, CUP 96-029,
SDP 96-590, and TPM 28422, for Lapis Energy Organization; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed project is on Parcel 2 of TPM 28422; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following facts
to justify certification of said Addendum:
1. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, as the addendum prepared for the Revised Project did not identify
any significant impacts.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals, as the addendum prepared for this Revised
Project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue, and
existing development on the SP 96-028 site has complied with most mitigation
measures incorporated with EA 96-328.
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Addendim to EA 96-328
September 25, 2001
3. The proposed Revised Project will not have impacts which are individually limited
but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as those impacts identified for biology, geotechnical,
hydrology, and cultural resources were mitigated to the extent feasible with regard
to this issue.
4. The proposed Revised Project will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, as the addendum prepared for
this Revised Project did not identify any significant impact with regard to the public
health, safety, or general welfare.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby affirm the environmental determination and recommend to the
City Council certification of an Addendum to EA 96-328 for Specific Plan 96-028,
Amendment #2 and Site Development Permit 2001-709.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 251h day of September, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY' HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
ADDENDUM TO
CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #96-328
(CEQA GUIDELINE 15164)
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-028 #2
AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-709
FOR PROPOSED 23,184 S.F. COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING
IN THE DUNE PALMS CENTER PROJECT
Presented to the Planning Commission
September 25, 2001
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\addea328.wpd
The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment #96-328 (EA 96-328), certified on February 4, 1997, by the La Quinta
City Council for Lapis Energy Organization.
The purpose of this Addendum is to document a modification of a portion of the
project, which will be implemented through the following land use approvals:
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-028 #2
AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-709
These are collectively referred to as "the Revised Project." All mitigation measures
included in EA 96-028 are incorporated into this document by reference.
The Revised Project consists of a 23,184 s.f. retail commercial building proposal on
Parcel 2 (± 1.9 acres), which would replace the existing approval for that parcel. The
current approval is for 3 buildings totaling 11,010 s.f. These buildings were to include
automotive repair and service uses. The proposed building will house auto -related
services and sales of auto accessories. The City has determined that the Revised
Project will be consistent with the intensity of development and character of the
adjacent commercial properties, and will be consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives of the City's General Plan and Specific Plan 96-028, approved by the City
in 1997.
The Revised Project does not propose any significant change to the land uses
proposed in Specific Plan 96-028, Amended #1 . The Specific Plan currently allows
for approximately 106,000 s.f. of commercial use on 8.2 acres (net). The approvals
requested as part of this amendment are:
1) Specific Plan Amendment to change the site layout, building siting and design,
and total building area associated with Parcel 2 of PM 28422, along with
revising the plan's figures and making updates based on existing conditions;
2) Site Development Permit to allow construction of a 23,184 s.f. retail
commercial building on Parcel 2 of PM 28422, within Specific Plan 96-028 as
amended (Dune Palms Center).
The City has compared the impacts identified in the Environmental Checklist prepared
for the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the adopted EA 96-328 and
finds as follows:
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\addea328.wpd
Aesthetics - Impacts no greater
than previously analyzed. The
proposed 23,184 s.f building will
create additional lighting impacts
similar to those associated with
the currently approved buildings
totaling 11,010 s.f. The
photometric analysis submitted
indicates that the average foot-
candle reading is 3.01 on the
east side parking area and 2.67
on the west (Dune Palms Road)
side,, with a maximum reading of
7.2 and minimum of 1.0. The
zoning code specifies average
illumination of between 1 .0 and
2.0 -Foot-candies at parking area
finish grade, and maximum
average light to minimum light
ratio of 3:1. The applicant
proposes a light pole height of
31 feet. The light fixtures will be
shielded, recessed lamp shoe -
box fixtures. A revised lighting
plan will be submitted to ensure
that lighting improvements are
consistent with City
requirernents.
Land Use and Planning -
Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The
development of the approved
Specific Plan will result in a loss
of habitat for the Coachella
Valley Fringe Toed Lizard
(CVFTL). However, this site is in
an area approved for mitigation
under an existing 10A permit,
pursuant to the Federal
Endangered Species Act. The
mitigation fee has been paid, and
initial grading of the site was
already completed in 1998.
Air Quality - Impacts no
greater than previously
analyzed. The Coachella
Valley has in the past
been a non -attainment
area for PM 10
(particulate matter of 10
microns or smaller). In
order to control PM 10,
the City has imposed
standards and
requirements on
development to control
dust. This project will
be required to comply
with the PM 10 Fugitive
Dust Control Plan
(FDCP) currently
approved for the entire
Specific Plan area.
Noise - Impacts no
greater than previously
analyzed. Development
of the site will create
construction noise
impacts of a short-term
(temporary) nature. The
City requires adherence
to construction hour
limitations during noise -
sensitive hours.
Geology & Soils -
Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The
site is not located in any
Earthquake Fault zones
as designated by the
State but is mapped in
Ground Shaking Zone IV
meaning seismic events
can cause damage to
building under certain
occurrences. Impacts
involving potential
seismic activity also
relate to possible risk
associated with upset of
hazardous substances
(i.e. fuels and auto -
related chemicals and
wastes) and potential for
upset/explosion/fire. The
project will be required
to adhere to seismic
reinforcement and other
requirements as called
for by the UBC.
Transportation/Traffic -
Impacts no greater than
those previously analyzed.
Development of the
project requires 77
parking spaces at 1 space
per 300 s.f. This was the
same standard applied to
this site in the original
approval, and is the
Zoning Code standard
applicable to this use.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\addea328.wpd
The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the
preparation of a subsequent EA pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public
Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve:
1) substantial changes to the project analyzed in the EA which would involve new
significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of
previously identified impacts;
2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is being undertaken, which would involve new significant effects on the
environment not analyzed in the EA; or
3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant
effects on the environment not analyzed in the EA, or substantially increase the
severity of previously identified impacts.
EA 96-328 has been incorporated with this addendum. A copy of the complete EA
document is attached.
CAW rkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\add ea 328.wpd
ATTACHMENT #2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Environmental Assessment No. 96-328
Case No's. SP 96-028, CUP 96-029,
TPM 28422, SDP 96-590
Date: September 11, 1996
L
Name of Proponent: Lapis Energy Organization
Address: 135 Saxony Road/P.0. Box 23 13 10
Encinitas, CA 92024
Phone: 619-942-2762 (John Gabbard, Rep.)
Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta
Project Name (if applicable):
Specific Plan 96-028, Conditional Use Permit 96-029, Tentative Parcel Map 28422 and Site
Development Permit (Plot Plan) 96-590, for construction of an approximately 81,757 square foot
auto -oriented retail and mini -storage complex, at the southeast comer of Highway 111 and Dune
Palms Road.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
ckbst.328
II. 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" or "Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities
X Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics
Water Risk of Upset and Human Health X Cultural Resources
Quality Noise Recreation
F-1 Mandatory Findings of Significance
III. DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least, I) one effect 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, if the effect
is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated".
An ENVIRONMENTAL DAPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
Signature �', ,�,c..�✓� Date Sotember 11, 1996
Printed Name and Title Wallace Nesbit_ Associate Planner
• ,% • — I . 14r MM ' ► qT7 coa a,
X
n
Potmgally
Poteuually Sigaifieant Lea loan
Sigaifttsnt unit" significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(source N(s): X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? ;
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? X
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? X
31. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? N
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major infrastructure)? X
Z) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housmg? X
3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
b) Seismic ground shaking X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Iandsfides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill? X
g) Subsidence of the land? X
Potamally
Potaotauv Significant Lou Time
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
h)
Expansive soils?
X
n
Unique geologic or physical features?
X
3.4. WATER. Would the project result in:
a)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
X
b)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
X
c)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
X
d)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
e)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
X
f)
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
X
g)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
X
h)
Impacts to groundwater quality?
X
3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard, or contribute to any
existing or projected air quality violation? X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X
c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? X
d) Create objectionable odors? X
Potattuany
Potmtully significant Lou Than
Significant unlan significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? }
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? x
d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists'? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? x
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? x
3.7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in
impacts to. -
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? X
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? x
c) Locally designated natural communities, (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? x
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? R
v
patenuany
Potnuauy Significant Len TbAA
significnat Unless signifiaAL NO
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.9. RISK OF UPSET[HUMAN HEALTH.
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not Limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
C) The creation of any health Wizard or potential health
hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
X
e) Increase-' fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
X
3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
X, X
3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
X
C) schools?
4
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
X.
3.12. UTILrMS.
Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
subsmdal alternations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
X
b) Communications systems?
X
C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
X
Potanttally
Potentially Significant Len Than
Significant Ualeu Sigal (cant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
X
e) Storm water drainage?
X
t) Solid waste disposal?
3.13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
c) Create light or glare? X
3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Dismrb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? ?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X
3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? Jfc
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
Vii
Potenually
Pououally Significant Las Thu
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the Potential to degrade the
quality of the environmental, 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? X
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 projects, 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? X
(EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated," 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.
INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-328
Prepared for:
LAPIS ENERGY ORGANIZATION
SPECIFIC PLAN #96-028
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #96-029
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #96-590
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
September 24, 1996
Amended October 22, 1996, January 10, 1997
EA963 28.wpd
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1
INTRODUCTION
3
1.1 Project Overview
3
1.2 Purpose of Initial Study
3
1.3 Background of Environmental Review
3
1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review
4
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4
2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting
4
2.2 Physical Characteristics
4
2.3 Operational Characteristics
5
2.4 Objectives
5
2.5 Discretionary Actions
5
2.6 Related Projects
5
3
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
6
3.1 Land Use and Planning
6
3.2 Population and Housing
7
3.3 Earth Resources
7
3.4 Water
8
3.5 Air Quality
9
3.6 Transportation/Circulation
11
3.7 Biological Resources
12
3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources
13
3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health
13
3.10 Noise
14
3.11 Public Services
14
3.12 Utilities
15
3.13 Aesthetics
15
3.14 Cultural Resources
16
3.15 Recreation
17
4
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
17
5
EARLIER ANALYSIS
18
EA96328.wpd
3
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City
of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to make a decision
on the proposal.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, the City of La Quinta Community Development
Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and
scope of the subsequent environmental review for the amendment. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated
in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following:
To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for a project;
To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse impacts
before an EIR is preparers, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration
of environmental impact;
To assist in the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues
that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project;
To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project;
To provide documentation for the findings in a negative declaration that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment;
To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and
To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Lapis Energy project was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA
in light of the potential project impacts. The Environmental Officer for the Community Development
Department prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and certification by the Planning Commission
and City Council for the City of La Quinta.
EA96-;28.wpd
4
1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Initial Study checklist indicates certain potential for significant environmental impacts. As a result,
specific mitigation measures have been incorporated, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact: will be recommended for this project. Mitigation measures proposed for each issue area are underlined
within the discussion, and are summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring Prop -ram attached to this addendum
Any changes made by the applicant to the project as a result of this assessment, design review or other
reason, which would necessitate changes to this addendum, are shown in italics as part of the issue area
which any such changes may affect.
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella
Valley. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and
Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal and county lands to the south. The City of
La Quinta was incorporated in May, 1982.
The proposed project consists of 8.05 net acres (10.29 gross), at the southeast corner of Dune Palms Road and
Highway 111. The applicants have submitted a specific plan application (SP 96-028), tentative parcel map
(TPM 28422), conditional use permit (CUP 96-029) and site development permit (SDP/PP 96-590). The site
is relatively flat, with minimal vegetation due to previous rough grading having occurred. A biological study,
geotechnical report, hydrology analysis and cultural resources survey have all been submitted with the proposed
project. The project has been through several revisions since it's original submittal on 8/30/96; most of these
have been related to architectural modifications and site plan revisions which do not change the project
components to any significant degree.
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Revisions to the project since its original submittal date of 8/30/96 incorporates the following uses:
• Compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facility on .75 net acres for the Desert Sands Unified School
District;
• Mini -storage on approximately 4.0 net acres, showing overall building area totaling 63,800 square
feet, which includes a 3,037 square foot on -site manager's quarters/office building;
• A lubrication and auto center on 1.7 acres, showing a total building area of 11,010 square feet;
• A 2,500 square foot food mart/fueling station on 1.55 net acres, plus an 800 square foot equipment
building.
The applicant has revised the project plans several times to incorporate staff comments and concerns
regarding on -site circulation, access and architecture. The project was continued by the Planning
Commission at their November 12, 1996 meeting, again due to concerns over the architectural proposal and
site plan provisions. At present, the project self -storage has been changed to 63,800 square feet, and may
incorporate both indoor and outdoor RVstorage. The foodmart/fueling facility remains at 2,500 square feet
on a 1.55 net acre parcel. This parcel also houses an 800 sf utility and equipment/restroom structure. The
EA96328.wpd
revises! specific plan document now indicates that a 500 s.f pizza restaurant will be part of this facility,
which would change the required parking. Currently, parking for the project exceeds City requirements (see
Section 3 6), and inclusion of the restaurant should not be an issue. Parcel 2, which incorporates the auto
retaillservice uses. has changed in size only slightly from 11, 034 to 11, 010 square feet. The major changes
involve, the architecture, building configurations and siting for these uses.
2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Prior to formal submittal, the project went through a preliminary development review process in May of 1996.
The north''/: of the overall site is located in the M/RC (Mixed/Regional Commercial) land use designation,
which requires a specific plan to be filed for project proposals. A Conditional Use Permit is required for both
the mire-mart/fueling station located on Parcel 1, and the auto lubrication and repair uses on Parcel 2.
The southerly '/2 is designated CP (Commercial Park), and zoned CP, which permits the self -storage use
proposed on Parcel. 3, subject to approval of a Site Development Permit. The CNG facility on Parcel 4 is
considered as an auto service station under the zoning, and also requires the Conditional Use Permit, a Parcel
Map and Site Development Permit applications have also been submitted. As set forth by the La Quinta Zoning
Code. all of the applications are being considered conjunctively.
2.4 ODJECTIVES
The objective of this project is to develop an auto -based commercial center and accompanying small
warehouse/storage use, to service not only La Quinta residents but also facilitate operations at the DSUSD
educational service center immediately south of the site.
2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government agency is
the City of La Quinta) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The
proposed Dome Depot project will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission and -City
Council for the following:
• Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the project;
• Approval of the Specific Plan and Use Permit applications for the fueling operations;
• Approval of a Site Development Permit(s) for the self -storage use..
2.6 RELATED PROJECTS
There are no related projects to this proposal under review at present. A previous application for the DSUSD
Educational Services Center was approved by the City Council on July 11, 1995 with a total of 164,000 square
feet proposed for development on 24.5 acres. The project is well under construction, and is intended to be
provided fueling services by development of the Lapis project. Previous environmental documentation consists
of a Negative Declaration adopted for the project (EA 95-300).
EA96328.wpd
R
SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. CEQA issue areas
are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the Initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the
environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions as the presently exist within the City
and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards
adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA, Appendix G.
3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The
Valley is abundant with both plant and animal life. Topographical relief ranges from 237 feet below mean sea
level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The Valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa
Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain Range. The San Andreas fault
transects the northeastern edge of the Valley.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject site is vacant, but has been partially disturbed in the past. The overall project uses as proposed are
consistent with the General Plan and zoning currently in effect; however, a conditional use permit is required
for the refueling and auto repair operations proposed. The storage use has been located as a buffer use between
the auto -based retail uses and the DSUSD CNG vehicle refueling site.
A - Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose uses inconsistent with the current or future
land uses contemplated for the project area, but the applicable land use policies for the M/RC and CP
categories indicate that the primary concern would be with Policies 2-3.1.1 and 2-3.2.1, which essentially call
for uses drawing from a regional trade area. The types of projects referred to under these policies are consistent
with the project type being proposed on this site, in that the uses do cater to a regional market, primarily
relating to the proposed automotive service uses which are predicated on alternative fueled vehicles.
The project is not in close proximity to any designated residential uses, although a small trailer park (30
spaces) is located about 400 feet east of the site. All properties bordering the site are designated for regional
commercial type use. A conditional use permit is required to ensure that the project maintains compatibility
with adjacent and surrounding land uses. Specific conditions related to the establishment and operation of the
project will be incorporated into the approval conditions to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses;
however, the proposed specific plan provides for some variation to development standards of the zoning code,
due to provisions of the site plan. These variations are necessary to achieve other objectives, both for the
project and in meeting the requirements of staff. Most of the variations relate to setback reductions to allow
staggered building faces. The applicant has also requested that a larger caretaker unit be permitted as part of
the specific plan, as the zoning code allows a maximum of 600 square feet. None of the variations create anv
physical impact, and do not conflict with any other provisions of the zoning code.
B, C., D - No Impact. The proposal will have no conflicts with any environmental policies or plans in effect
which would apply to the project. Operation of the project will encourage and facilitate maintenance and
conversion of cleaner burning alternative fuel vehicles (AFV's), and provide a source for obtaining such fuels,
thereby furthering and expanding AFV use and alternative fuel availability.
EA96328.wpd
3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Regional Environmental Setting
The City's population as of January, 1996 is estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 18,046
persons. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend
three to six months in the City (WDL Economic Overview; 1996 Ed.). It is estimated that 30% of all housing
units irk the City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.85 persons per occupied unit (1990
Census).
Local Environmental Setting
The site is designated Mixed Regional Commercial (M/RC) and Commercial Park (CP) on the City's General
Plan Land Use Policy Diagram. The areas surrounding the project are similarly designated; no residential land
use designations are assigned to other properties in the area. To the east lies the City of Indio, which designates
Neighborhood Commercial in their General Plan along Highway I I I at Jefferson Street (Indio General Plan
2020, October 1993).
A - No Impact. The project does not involve a housing component beyond the individual caretaker's unit for
the self storage. Development of the project site as proposed is consistent with the land use designation set forth
in the La Quinta General Plan. The proposal itself will not exceed any current growth forecasts currently
available to or used by the City, nor will it cause any change in anticipated growth patterns or numbers, based
on the build out scenarios in the General Plan.
B, C - Less Than Significant Impact. The project development may induce growth in the I I I corridor area,
due to extension and upgrade of existing infrastructure in the site vicinity. It is not anticipated to stimulate
residential development significantly, as the commercial nature of the project would indicate that an adequate
population base exists to support this use. There will be negligible effects on affordable housing demand from
employees attempting to locate in proximity to the site, as there is currently little available housing of this type
within one mile of the project. However, the City has acquired three sites specifically targeted for affordable
housing development, one of which is an approximately 40 acre site at the northwest corner of Jefferson and
48th Avenue. This site is less than '/4 mile from the project area, and the City is currently entering into a
development agreement with a potential developer. There is also substantial residential inventory in the
northerly residential areas of the City and more affordable single family units in the Cove area (Source: EA
92-241; LQGP).
3.3 EARTH RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans, steep hillside, to relatively
flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types are underlain by igneous -
metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on
the Valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands.
Local Environmental Setting
The site is approximately 60 feet above sea level, and consists of Myoma series soils. This soil type has rapid
permeability is commonly used for homesites and other urban uses. While it can be used in development of
croplands, it is not considered as prime agricultural soil as classified by the State. The site is located within
a Ground shaking Zone 4, referenced as a moderate level of shaking activity. There are no active faults in the
EA96?128.wpd
area (EA 92-241; LQMEA.
A - No Impact. The project will not present any additional exposure to geologic hazards associated with fault
rupture, as no faults have been identified on or in proximity to the site. The existing physical conditions in the
area will not be changed in a manner which would create any impacts beyond those associated with
development of the site in accordance with the General Plan.
B - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project is located in a Ground shaking Zone 4, associated
with moderate impacts from seismic activity. Impacts involving potential seismic activity also relate to possible
risk associated with upset of hazardous substances (i.e. fuels and auto -related chemicals and wastes) and
potential for upset/explosion/fire. The project will be required to adhere to seismic reinforcement and other
requirements as called for by the UBC.
C,D,E - No Impact. Although the site is identified as susceptible to moderate Ground shaking impact, the soil
characteristics indicate that ground failure due to such activity is negligible, based on its use in urbanized
development. The site is not identified as subject to liquefaction potential, and there is no potential for seiche,
tsunami or volcanic activity. The site is level and not subject to slide or mudflow impacts. The Whitewater
Chamiel does not affect the property during drainage flows (LQMEA; EA 92-241; site history).
F - Liss Than Significant Impact. There will be some change in surface features due to project grading. Such
changes will affect stability of the site as the natural substructure is modified. Soil erosion potential will be
affected due to loosening and movement of soil material during development. Standard erosion control and soil
management methods as identified in soil reports and addressed in grading plans required for the site will ensure
that such impacts will not be significant. Submittal of a dust control plan as required (see Air Quality) will aid
in wind erosion reduction.
G, H:, I - No Impact. The site is not identified as being subject to subsidence or having soils which are
expar,Lsive. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site with respect to Earth issues (LQMEA;
site survey), however, significant potential for archaeologic/cultural resources has been determined (refer to
Section 3.14).
3.4 WATER
Regional Environmental Setting
Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of rock
material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. Water
supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Carnal
and stored at Lake Cahuilla.
Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa
Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will
be a requirement in the near future.
Local Environmental Setting
The vicinity of the proposed project is protected from design storms by the Whitewater Channel flood control
facility and other improvements. The site is level and incorporates well drained soils. The site is designated
EA96328.wpd
9
Zone K on the federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps in effect for the area, subject to 500 year flood events, and
is generally surrounded by lands susceptible to 100 year events with average depths of less than 1 foot (CVWD
comments; LQMEA).
A - Less Than Significant Impact. Current runoff rates will be increased due to pad, building and hardscape
area development. The runoff produced by development of this site will be detained on -site via a series of linear
basins, which fall to a retention basin at the southwesterly portion of the site. The project will be required to
prepare a final drainage plan and comply with NPDES permit requirements as enforced by the Public Works
Department.
B through H - No Impact. The area is currently protected from flood impacts by existing flood control
facilitiies, specifically the Wlutewater and La Quinta Evacuation Channels. No surface waters or other streams
exist which could be affected, and ground water resource quantity and quality will not be significantly
impacted. Compliance with NPDES requirements attached to the project permitting will ensure that storm
water runoff associated with the project's development will not create any measurable impact to water quality,
quantity or hazards.
3.5 AIR QUALITY
Regional Environmental Setting
The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), and is located in the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air
pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SOCAB). Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal
standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter.
Local Environmental Setting
The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild
winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and
localized winds occur throughout the Valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality
conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. In the Coachella Valley, the standards for PM
10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that become suspended
in the air primarily due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads. The Valley is currently
designated by the EPA as a serious non -attainment area for PM 10, however SCAQMD anticipates that recent
data will show that the Valley has been in attainment over the last three years. Based on this, SCAQMD is in
the process of preparing a PM 10 Maintenance Plan in order to have the area redesignated to attainment status.
A - Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the project is not
anticipated to create any significant air quality impact. Based on the significance thresholds established by
SCAQMD, this project's total emissions [construction (short term) + mobile (long term traffic) + area source
(stationary)] are well below those standards set for the SEDAB. The project's total PM 10 emissions, for which
the SEDAB (Coachella Valley) is designated as a serious non -attainment area, are only estimated to be 2.3%
of the; emission standard for that pollutant. Carbon Monoxide emissions (CO) are 54% of the CO standard and
constitute the highest percentage by category.
EA96328.wpd
10
TOTAL•
yyy.�yy>�yyyyyyf.�yy.�
`iNiNiNi�iXiRiNil XiXi�i�i�i�i�i�i�i,
..............
• •
•
•
Estirriated Project Emissions
�■
• .
% Difference■
However, to be in conformance with the General Plan, the project must also comply with General Plan policies
regarding its development in order to mitigate these impacts to the full extent feasible. This would make the
project consistent with the General PIan, for which overriding considerations have been adopted.
Several policies promote the concept of pedestrian accessability and alternative travel modes, which assist in
both air quality and circulation impact mitigation (Policies 9-2.1.2, 9-2.1.3, 9-4.1.4). Policy 9-2.1.4 requires
the City to discourage design in retail/commercial uses which aggravate air quality, such as drive -through
windows and circuitous circulation. The project includes what is referred to as a "fast food" pizza restaurant,
which could, at some future time, incorporate a drive -through design, particularly with the service lane design
along the west elevation of the mini -mart building. Conditions attached to the project will rA ohibit
establishment or conversion of existing approved uses to a drive through use. unless the appropriate
appligations are filed at the time any such use may be proposed in conjunction with a specific plan
amendment. As part of the design review process, staff directed the applicant to minimize on -site traffic
conflicts, specifically the parking and circulation layouts, which help to reduce air quality impacts. Several
areas throughout the project were redesigned, due not only to circulation, traffic safety and air quality issues
but also in relation to potential cultural resource impacts (refer to Sections 3.14, 3.6). These redesign issues
have been well addressed by the applicant. Revisions to date do not significantly affect any of these issues.
Short term (construction -related) impacts will result primarily from grading activities, which will generate
fugitive dust. Prior to any soil disturbance or grading activi ies), the developer shall secure approval of a
Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP). 'Me plan shall address all -proposed development areas, as well as those
areas which may be disturbed by activity but scheduled for later development The FDCP shall be submitted
mnth any cleannw uradinv or other site activity reauest which will disturb, or is related to development of the
MR
B, C -• No Impact. The proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. The La Quinta High
School is the nearest non-residential sensitive receptor, and is located just over '/< mile from the site. Residential
receptor areas exist to the north (Westward Ho area) and east (111 Trailer Park) of the site. Construction -
related air quality impacts will occur primarily from grading activities and other soil disturbances. The required
FDCP will address these short-term construction impacts. Long term impacts from roadway emissions due to
cumulative impacts of growth in accordance with the La Quinta General Plan were considered in the EIR
document. The project has no potential to effect any climatological change.
D - Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed uses are commercial/retail in nature, and will have no known
manufacturing or processing on the site, beyond minor operations related to vehicular maintenance and repair.
This could include activities such as auto body and painting , which require processes relating to paint mixing
or color matching, which can be considered odor producing. These types of vehicular equipment related uses,
inclusive of refueling operations, do have potential for objectionable and possibly unhealthful odors. Such
F-A96?128.wpd
11
facilities are required to file for applicable operations permitting and comply with County, State and regional/
federal standards (refer also to Section 3.9).
3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Regional Environmental Setting
The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed by Riverside County and new
and resurfaced roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111,
Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, Miles Avenue and 50th Avenue. Traffic volumes in
La Quinta experience seasonal variation; late winter/early spring months represent the peak tourist season.
Loeal.Environmental Setting
The project has direct frontage on two major City thoroughfares; Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road. The
traffic study prepared for the Jefferson Plaza/Home Depot project indicates that existing average daily traffic
(ADT) counts on Highway 111 are 34,941. Current geometrics for Highway I I I along the project frontage
consists of four travel lanes with painted median and no curb/gutter; Dune Palms Road is currently under
improvement as part of the development requirements for the DSUSD educational services center. (Traffic
Impact Analysis; Jefferson Plaza, O'Rourke Engineering, June 11, 1996; Site Survey).
The La Quinta General Plan establishes a minimum Level of Service (LOS) "D" for all intersections during
A.M. or P.M. peak hours without adequate mitigation. LOS is a hierarchical classification of qualitative
measures of traffic flow, ranging from A (free flow) to F (unacceptable saturation).
A - Less Than Significant Impact. The project will unquestionably create increased trips and congestion;
however, the roadway capacities as designed for Highway 111, Dune Palms Road and other major
thoroughfares in the area will be able to absorb this additional traffic. Based on the square footage breakdown
and use assignments supplied by the applicant, it has been estimated that approximately 2,535 average daily
trips (ADT) can be assigned to this project. This number is considered conservative, in that the two highest trip
generating uses, the convenience store/gas station (1,780 ADT) and fast food (350 ADT; calculated as drive
through use as it is housed in the convenience store structure) will attract the majority of their trips as multi -
destination trips; that is, traffic that is already on the road for other purposes. These uses do not operate as trip
generators, but more as trip attractors for vehicles ultimately bound for another destination. In consideration
of this., it is anticipated that traffic actually generated by this project will not exceed 1,500 ADT. The applicant
will be required to dedicate and install all improvements as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department
in accordance with the conditions of approval for the project and any development agreement(s).
B - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project incorporates two driveway locations along Dune
Palms Road and one along Highway 111. Signalization of the Dune Palms Road/Highway 111 intersection will
help to significantly reduce traffic safety impacts from this development. The site plan shows less than 250 feet
between the intersection and the two access points at the northern Dune Palms Road access and the Highway
11 I access. The General Plan Circulation Element policies (3-3.1.1 through 3-3.1.4) specifically dictate the
reduction of curb cuts along arterial roadways, especially where parcels have minimal frontage distances;
specifically, that a minimum of 250 feet from end of ultimate curb return locations shall be maintained for any
arterial access (Policy 3-3.1.3). The Highway 11 I access would be better situated as a shared driveway with
the easterly adjacent property. The parcels fronting along Highway I I I in this area are only about 330 feet
wide, which makes maintaining the 250 foot spacing difficult if each parcel is permitted individual access
points to Highway 111. This Highway 111 access point should be modified, as it is anticipated to potentially
create intersection congestion and affect downstream traffic (i.e., traffic heading out of the intersection as
EA96328.wpd
12
opposed to heading in) on Highway 111.
The applicant modified the Highway III access point slightly as part of the redesign efforts directed by staff.
The access has been reduced from 40 feet in width to 28 feet and placed farther along the easterly boundary.
This creates a 220 foot spacing when determined based on the General Plan policy for driveway spacing.
However, the policy indicates that the 250 foot standard is to be applied "where feasible ". The northerly
Dune Palms Road access now meets the 250 foot standard relative to the Highway I II intersection, but there
are 22.5 feet between the two access points on Dune Palms, primarily due to staffs request to shift the
southerly Dune Palms access farther north, to line up the reciprocal access easement into the easterly
adjacent parcel. The General Plan policies are intended to be advisory and allow some degree of flexibility.
The feasibility of obtaining compliance with the 250 foot spacing standard is directly dependant upon the
easterly property owner agreeing to participate in a shared access point with the subject property for
Highway II L The applicant has been cooperative in attempting to effectuate an agreement to resolve this
issue, but to date there has been no progress. The feasibility of meeting the driveway spacing standard is
greatly compromised in consideration of the preceding factors. The City will condition the project to
continue to pursue a shared access arrangement with the ad,�aeent easterly propertp_If the issue cannot be
resolved heproiect conditions will reflect that development ofthe pro sect t may continue in conformance with
the site ,plan as conditionally approved Any modifications necessary and directly related to achieving a
shared access situation shall be reviewed by City sta„of for compliance with applicable conditions and City
standards. Traffic safety improvements as typically required of new development will also provide reductions
in traffic hazard impacts, commensurate with development of the site, and should improve the overall safety
level of the intersection and adjacent roadways in general.
C - Less Than Significant Impact. The project as mitigated will not impede or restrict emergency access
requirements, and provides for adequate access to surrounding uses. The applicant has redesigned the project
to provide a direct reciprocal access to the easterly property boundary. This is an important component, as
the easterly property will be permitted, at most, only one access point onto Highway 111, which will have
to be severely restricted as to its location on the site.
D Through G - No Impact. The project provides for parking areas which exceed the City's parking
requirements. Based on the latest footage numbers submitted, the project overall requires 90 spaces while
providing 117, including 5 handicap; therefore, no parking impacts will be created by the proposal which were
not addressed and provided for in the specific plan. The applicant has reduced some parking areas in order
to improve circulation, increase landscaping area and improve siting of facilities. Further staff
recommendations to improve the on -site circulation of the latest revision will reduce some of the parking
provided but those revisions will be required to maintain a minimum of 90 spaces. The project is not required
to provide for alternative transportation infrastructure, or to submit a TDM plan as the total number of
employees does not meet the 100 person threshold. No comments from Sunline Transit were received on the
project as to its impact on transit services. The site is not proximate to, nor is it affected by, water, air or rail
traffic.
3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City; the Sonoran
Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as urban or
agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the LQMEA.
EA96328.wpd
13
Local Environmental Setting
The subject area is vacant, with fairly level terrain and minimal vegetation. The native vegetation is desert
scrub, but the majority of the site has previously been disturbed in recent history. There are no riparian/wetland
habitats or streambeds on the site, and there are minimal mesquite dune sands associated with the parcel
(Biological Assessment for Lapis Energy Organization, Tom Dodson and Associates. June 1996). The LQMEA
identifies the entire site as within the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard habitat area, for which a federal
l0A permit was obtained pursuant to adoption of the CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
A through E - No Impact. According to the biological assessment prepared by Tom Dodson and Associates,
the site has been predominantly disturbed by previous activities, primarily related to vehicles traversing the site
and construction activities associated with the DSUSD educational operations facility along 48th Avenue and
Dune Palms, directly south of this site. There is negligible potential for wildlife habitat to exist on the site.
Mitigation fees will be conditioned to be paid for the CVFTL prior to any land disturbance or grading permits
being issued for the site. There are no significant or otherwise predominant tree stands or other vegetation on
the site. No wetland areas are shown to be on or traverse the site, and the location of the site adjacent to two
major roads and an ongoing construction project precludes any potential migration of wildlife.
3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
La Quints contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Areas (SMARA),
as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Energy
resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District and Southern California Gas Company.
Local Environmental Setting
The site does not lie within an identified area sensitive to mineral resources. Soils within the site consist of
Myoma fine sand, these soils are well -drained and permeable, and can be used for agricultural uses. There is
no immediate history that the site has been utilized for any specific purpose in the recent past.
A, B - No Impact. The proposed project has no potential to impact energy or mineral resources in any manner
which could be considered wasteful. The project will eventually facilitate a wider use of alternative fuels in the
Coachella Valley by providing for servicing and repair for vehicles and equipment which operate on such fuels.
Construction of the project will be required to meet State energy standards as typically enforced by the Building
and Safety Department, and to comply with conservation policies as established in the La Quinta General Plan.
3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH
Regional Environmental Setting
Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within La Quinta, the existence
of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape
irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may post significant threats to various sectors of the
population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, transportation
of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place.
Local Environmental Setting
The project site is vacant and has not been used for any type of manufacturing in the past.
A - Less Than Significant Impact. There is limited potential risk of explosion and/or release of hazardous
EA96328.wpd
14
substances due to the project. The automotive uses will have on -site storage and sales of certain amounts of
chemical compounds in various packaging (i.e., lubricants, batteries, metallics, fuels, etc.), and other potentially
hazardous materials. Storage and inventory of potentially hazardous products are regulated by State and
Federal legislation, and will also be subject to Fire and Health Department standards as in effect and applicable
at the time.
B Through E - No Impact. The project does not have any potential to interfere with emergency response or
create any health hazards. The site is not in an area susceptible to increased fire hazards relative to brush, grass
or trees, as minimal or no susceptible vegetation exists in the immediate area.
3.10 NOISE
Regional Environmental Setting
Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include
vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels
are dominated by vehicular noise along the Highway and major arterials, but can be impacted by aircraft noise
from Bermuda Dunes, usually of a short duration.
Local Environmental Setting
Primary noise sources in the subject area are associated with vehicle traffic. The property is vacant and
therefore not a current source of noise. The site is currently impacted by construction activity at the DSUSD
facility to the immediate south of the site.
A - Less Than Significant Impact. Increases in noise levels are anticipated due to the proposal, though not
expected to be significant. Roadway noise will increase as traffic volumes increase. The majority of the traffic
volume in this area is related to other projects and pass through trips. Most of the project's on -site uses will
be operational during daytime and early evening hours. There are no designated residential areas that are within
proximity to the project so as to be impacted by operational noise associated with the proposed uses. An
existing trailer park across from the site, approximately 400 feet to the east, will be the most impacted from
this development, primarily from traffic noise. However, the park is within 200 feet of Highway 111 and
currently absorbs a significant amount of existing traffic noise. It is not anticipated that the additional volumes
attributable to this site's development will create any significant increases in noise levels from this source. The
potential noise impacts from operational sources are primarily related to the vehicle repair and servicing uses.
The noise impacts from these uses will be minimal, as these uses generally are enclosed facing to the east (no
perimeter wall is shown on the plans along the easterly boundary), and eventual development of the adjacent
easterly parcel will further buffer any potential noise impacts from this project. Irregardless, the anticipated
noise levels are not expected to impact existing land uses in the immediate area.
B - No Impact. Minimal noise impacts are anticipated due to development of this project. The on -site uses are
not considered as typically being a source of extreme or severe noise levels to surrounding uses. The related
nature: of the automotive uses indicates that similar noise sources on -site will be experienced. These uses are
adequately separated from the self storage use on the southerly portion of the property.
3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
Regional Environmental Setting
Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's
Department. Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire
EA96328.wpd
15
Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, and Station #70, at the
intersec ion of Madison Street and Avenue 54. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service.
Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower
Immediate Care Clinic located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center.
Local Environmental Setting
Riverside County Fire Station #32 and Station #70 are located approximately 4 '/2 miles south of the project
site; Station 431 is located in Bermuda Dunes on 42nd Avenue and Adams Street, approximately 2 '/2 miles
north of the project site. T'he Sheriff's office maintains a check -in facility in the City's EOC. Other
governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center.
A through E - No Impact. The project will not impact public services, based upon the comments received.
All necessary public services can be provided to the project without compromising any existing levels of public
service. The proponents will have to pay school fees as established by Desert Sands Unified School District
for commercial projects. Recommendations from other agencies will be considered as part of project review.
3.12 UTILITIES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and the
Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. General Telephone Exchange (GTE)
provides telephone services for the City. Continental Cablevision services the area for cable television service.
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains
its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. The City's stormwater drainage system is
administered by CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows
through the City.
The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed
municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject site is undeveloped at present. Street and flood control improvements have been partially
completed, along with sewer and water line extensions being in place. Some utility trunk extensions and
connections will be necessary to develop the property. CVWD has provided the applicant with a "will serve"
letter for the project.
A through F - No Impact. The proposed project will require some degree of alteration to existing facilities;
however, the responses received from the responsible purveyors do not present any significant concerns to
indicate that major new systems or retrofitting will be necessary to serve the project.
3.13 AESTHETICS
Local Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south
of the; City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the
City. Views of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains exist to the south and west.
EA96328.wpd
16
A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have limited impact on scenic vistas, as there are no
scenic viewsheds identified in the LQMEA. The height of the proposed structures may block some view lines,
but the impact will be minimal, as most residential views in the area do not originate within a close proximity
of the project and therefore have extended line of sight perspectives. The primary concern is with impact due
to the buildings' visibility from Highway 111. With the exception of the storage officeimanager's unit,
structures are one story, ranging between 17 and 23.5 feet from ground to roof line; roof peaks on the lube
facility and retail/repair buildings are 24.5 and 27.3 feet, respectively. The storage office/manager unit is two-
story, and is 23.5 feet at its highest point. The general mass of the project is maintained at a low profile, and
the architectural treatment will be required to incorporate a low -contrasting color scheme which will soften the
visual impact of the structures against the mountain backdrop along Highway 111.
C - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. As a commercial project the proposal will create additional light
and glare. The City has adopted a "Dark Sky" ordinance which regulates lighting types and shielding
characteristics. The developer originally submitted a preliminary lighting plan for the project, but as of the last
revision had not submitted a revised landscape and lighting plan. A revised landscape and lighting plan will
be conditioned for review, to be consistent with the Outdoor Light Control provisions of the Zoning Code for
h i t shielding and lighting tune pursuant to approvals by the Planning Commission and City Council
3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills. The
settling; ofthe La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta Historical Society in several publications
and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the California Historic
Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan.
Local Environmental Setting
The proposal is located along Highway 111, a developing urbanized commercial area. No historic structures
exist in the immediate area. The site is generally barren of any significant vegetation. A cultural resource
assessment (CRA) was required to be submitted with the development applications. The report indicated that
the area has a high degree of archaeologic sensitivity, and that significant cultural resources are likely to exist
on the site. Archaeological testing accomplished pursuant to the assessment discovered significant subsurface
prehistoric cultural deposits (Cultural Resource Assessment Report: Phase 11; Archaeological Testing and Site
Evaluation, CA-RIV-5832 on Lapis Energy Property; June 1996).
A,B - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Significant cultural resources will be impacted due to the
proposal. The applicant has completed both Phase I and H investigations for the site, which resulted in the
discovery ofsignificant artifacts. Two options for mitigation were explored; in place preservation of the site
and 100% salvage of the remaining artifacts. After meetings with the applicant, it was determined that the
salvage option was preferred by both staff and the applicant, who also agreed to redesign the impacted area
in response to this and other site planning issues of the project. The project's cultural resource assessment
was reviewed by the City's Historic Preservation Commission on September 19, 1996 The recommendation
was nude to require that the applicant carry through with the salvage excavation procedure. As of the date
ofthe latest revision (1/10197), the applicant has completed most of the mitigation activities prescribed by
the archaeological report, but a final report and grading monitoring have yet to be undertaken. Prior to
issuance of agrading Hermit or any earth disturbance the applicant shall have prepared and obtained
apprc►val from the CommuniV Development Department fvr a Phase III archaeological mitigation program
EA96328.wpd
17
or CA-RN-5832 The program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist. and shall include provisions
or strictly controlled archaeological monitoring and data recovery including research and field methods,
lab analysis methodology, Native American consultation and monitorinz curation procedures, report
rg aration and disposition of artifacts and records The final report shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department.
C Through E - The cultural resources survey did not identify any historic resources on the site. Development
of the project has no potential to affect cultural values beyond those which may be addressed by cultural
resource monitoring, and no existing religious uses are associated with the site.
3.15 RECREATION
Local Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and
facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland
for Quimby Act purposes. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City and
designated pedestrian hiking trails.
A, B - No Impact. The proposed project will not affect demand for recreational facilities or existing recreation.
While the project will attract additional customer base from within La Quinta and other communities, it is not
likely that the project will attract a significant number of new residents beyond those which may relocate for
employment purposes. This project is not anticipated to employ more than 50 persons, probably less; the
applicant submitted an initial figure indicating that no more than 21 employees would be on -site at any time.
The Initial Study for the Lapis Energy project identified potentially significant impacts associated with the
project, as summarized in the areas of Earth Resources, Transportation/Circulation, Aesthetics and Cultural
Resources.
The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065
of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment:
a) The proposed Specific Plan and related applications will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner
inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards. The project does have the
potential to eliminate an important example of California prehistory; however, extensive
investigations of the site have identified the existence of cultural resources and required
mitigation alternatives. The applicant has agreed to implementing the necessary mitigation
prior to site development activities and is in concurrence with project conditions relating to
this.
b) The proposed Specific Plan and related applications will not have the potential to achieve
short term goals, to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals, as the proposed
project will not significantly alter the types or intensity of the commercial uses already
contemplated in the General Plan.
EA96328.wpd
18
c) The proposed Specific Plan and related applications will not have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, in that the proposed project, whether approved or not,
is a consistent representation of the project type to be proposed for the site as long as the
current General Plan land use and zoning designations are applicable, and the impacts as
identified in the Initial Study will remain similar to subsequent projects.
d) The proposed Specific Plan and related applications will not have environmental effects that
will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates uses
similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan,
and which were addressed in the EIR previously certified for the General Plan.
SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES
A. Earlier Analyses Used. The following documents were used and/or referred to in the preparation of
this assessment:
0 La Quinta General Plan Update; October 1992
• La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment; October 1992
• SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993
• Cultural Resource Assessment Report: Phase II; Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation, CA-RIV-
5832 on Lapis Energy Property; June 1996
• Biological Assessment for Lapis Energy Organization, Tom Dodson and Associates, June 1996
• Traffic Impact Analysis; Jefferson Plaza, O'Rourke Engineering, June 11, 1996
• Environmental Assessment 92-241; prepared for Specific Plan 92-022 and Plot Plan 92-490.
These; and various other documents on file with the Community Development Department were used in the
preparation of this Initial Study.
B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. The following potentially significant impacts identified in the
checklist were determined as adequately addressed by the previously listed documents
♦ Earth Resources
♦ Transportation/Circulation
♦ Aesthetics
♦ Cultural Resources
C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum where underlined. A
Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) has been prepared for the project that will become a part of the
conditions of approval attached to the project approvals and permits.
EA96:328.wpd
Prepared by:
Wallace H. Nesbit
Associate Planner
Date:
wt
EA96328.wpd
U
z
I.d.�
a
O
U
w
z
W Q
d LU
a CZ
�E- o
Ouv
z
LU
a
dax
cc
00
N
O
m CK
C
�o
N=+N
O U �
O rii w
F
A
z
�w
U
U�
a
U
c�
O
�a
z�
00
E
�o
w
rij
o
a
�+ w
d •_
U
O
W •�
rjj
a�
�z
o
za
F
A
z c
�w
U
O�
UU
W�
F
U
G�
as
�a
zz
a0
O
w
�v
y
rA
Cc
w
�z
�
z o,
w
F
as
CW w
N
eh z
( Q' •• ii C �
a
lit
Q
zm
a
�w
UWW
Uv
c�c
a �
a
^'
y O
4
a'°
a
c
d a
It
U
G�
•v p
v
aso
ut
.We
9 O
U R
:off
u�
.yEe
g
I A
Q u
M.
G.7 v,
wz
w
o
ct
u
.2
�a
i
oa
aQ
Gi 8
°°
E
a
3
5
OG
.ii a
V to
�
w
d=' C
o3a A
W
--
�
L
w
V1
G� �
...
•o �;
O
V
�W
..7 R
.u°. o
o`oo•
U
o0
en
_
4 C.
U
via
E�
d
A
U�
z®
�w
U U
►•.
�
N 'O .per.
�
W
r
a.
O U
:;
ao
Ix
•�
'> �
� .fin
lz
G7
w
04®
�'
w
A
w
00
AGog'�
..
UO
4;U
Ld
Q0
Cc
'� w
0o
a+
�
v a
W
r
�
�
a
v)
C4
ru
.. a .
to •^' o
w
ao
E�
R
.r
�+
F
A
z
U
O x
-
UU
.w di
=OU
�U
U
U
U
o�
�o
Ce
°
o a°1
go
�
r
a
G�
aac
aA
a 3
rA
..
.
a
m
U O
A
U
J
U0
c�
w
Q
z
aw
�
�
F
°
C
..
W a...
����
•o
+�+
.r
= U
c.
o
F,,�E�
�.
U�
�o
.-Cc
E
in 0
e•; >
0
O F
v
v� Or
0�
A
z 0
�W
04
U
O
UU
w
oc
�a
moo°
(fir R
f%� eas u
C» as
ao 8
5.
w
CA
°ao
3
3 A
as
d
y
L
a:
y�
d
u
0., C
ao
V �
�
�•
c PCUP=•p
�p 'fl
ce
� a �
W �
� .0
F
Q '
zm
�w
U
O�
UU
Wa
,�
a
V
�
W
ao
a
G7
�
ao
F
i
G�
Wz
•o�
z
�.
a�
�a
I°
Q3
w
Ua
w�
U 4;
0
�
O V
o L
u
14
�-r Fr L
al ►.,
E�
A
Um
z
I�w
u
ox
UU
a
U
G7
WZ
�Q
zz
0
00
�o
�
�
J
`a Z
°
>4
aw
°
M z
o
zo►
F
Q
zm
c
�w
�U
O�
UU
a
a
U
V
Wz
�a
z
�o
a.
ril
a�
O
w
�
a
�
o
w
W
v� a
..
M z
o
za
A
0D
z
�w
�x
UWW
a
U
I�
as
�a
o�
E
�o
w
a
.r
o
4r
°
v�
•o
CL
G�
o
�z
�za
0o
,o \6
am
as
U
F
A
°w
�a
U
O�
UU
Q
o
0
w�
w o
o
.oa
G7
as
rn
NO
a
00
Q
a°e
N X
to
ap
�
�
o
ao
v
Qz
Wa��
o
W
u
r
F
Q
O
Um
z
°w
U
Ow
UU
a
U
O
O
�a
�a
zz
0
w
as
w
a
0
0
e�
O
rA
F
a"
F
A
z
�x
V
W
OV
�
w
w
a
aN
a
U
as
a C4
as
co
Z
oc
c
°
rA �
a
zz
U
U vA
�
a
a
L
'{/�j �a
u
re,
W
w
0 R
tn
z
UR
ao
to
..
d
Po-
PO
„°.o o
E-�
W DO
F
G
zm
a
.
W
►d..
U
O�
UU
H O
►'.
U
> b4
O
� O
a
,�
�o
�8
08v°
G�
as
rAa
zz
U
U
W
W
w
y
04
F
ca 4
W= o
...p
6 'd w
tPC
F�
U
ig C%Co
+►
R o `'
cm
e+���
OOGu
aE
(AEI
F
d
A
c�
u
ox
UU
d
a
U
G7
z
a oc
r�
zz
0
lad
v� o
w
.
�
�
a
o
00
�,z
o
za
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 96-028, AMENDMENT #2
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-028, AMENDMENT #2
BART RINKER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California
did, on the 25th day of September, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to
consider a recommendation on Specific Plan 96-028, Amendment #2, a request by
Bart Rinker to revise building siting, architecture, colors and materials, landscaping
and drainage to allow an increase in building area pertaining to Parcel 2, located
± 600 feet south of Highway 1 1 1, east side of Dune Palms Road, more specifically
described as follows:
PARCEL 2 OF PM 28422
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on
the 71h day of April, 1998, approve Specific Plan 96-028, Amendment #1, to revise
building siting, architecture, colors and materials, landscaping and drainage to allow
an increase in building area pertaining to Parcel 3; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on
the 41h day of February, 1997, approve Environmental Assessment 96-328 and
Specific Plan 96-028, to allow various uses in conjunction with requesting approval
for a 81,110 square foot commercial project on a 10.29 acre (gross) site; and,
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan amendment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (City Council Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community
Development Department has completed an addendum to Environmental Assessment
96-328 and the previously certified mitigated negative declaration. Based upon this
addendum, it has been determined that none of the circumstances set forth in Public
Resources Code 21166 have been shown to exist and, accordingly, an addendum
should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning
Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\resopcsp028#2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Specific: Plan 96-028, Amendment #2
September 25, 2001
1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the La Quinta
General Plan, as it will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the
General Plan land use designation of Mixed/Regional Commercial and other
current City standards.
2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, as the site design
aspects of the accompanying proposed Site Development Permit will be
compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Dune
Palms Center Specific Plan and surrounding area, and with the overall design
quality prevalent in the City.
3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with the zoning on
adjacent properties, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially
equivalent to those permitted under existing zoning for Mixed/Regional
Commercial permitted uses, the uses contemplated with the Dune Palms Center
Specific Plan. Specifically, development of existing Regional Commercial zoned
land is considered to implement zoning consistency with the General Plan.
4. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is suitable and appropriate for the
subject property, as the project contemplates a land use that is substantially
similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta
General Plan. Specifically, development of the site as Mixed/Regional
Commercial land use is considered to be suitable and appropriate due to the
General Plan designations for existing and approved commercial land use in the
surrounding areas.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of Specific Plan 96-028, Amendment
#2 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 25th day of September, 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Specific: Plan 96-028, Amendment #2
September 25, 2001
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-028, AMENDMENT #2 - BART RINKER
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
All recommended changes/additions/deletions in bold italics and strikeout
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Specific Plan 96-028 (SP 96-028) shall be developed in compliance with these
conditions, the specific plan document as amended, and all approved site plan,
elevation, color, materials and other approved exhibits submitted for this
application and any subsequent amendment(s). In the event of any conflicts
take precedence.
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 Specific
Plan or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in
selecting its defense counsel.
._
..,sLT.
..
wintol am LOAN 11. 91111LIMP�;W1111 WTIA-. law
4. The specific plan document for SP 96-028 shall be revised in conformance with
the following:
A. Section 2.4.6 - The document shall incorporate language to allow
unenclosed shade and/or screen structures to locate within the 10 foot
building setback, which is behind the 20 foot landscape setback. In
general, the document shall reflect reductions in building setbacks for
C:\Wrkgrp\C:asedocs\SP028#2\coaSP028#2.wpd 1
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Specific Plan 96-028, Amendment #2 - Bart Rinker
September 25, 2001
beyond those identified in the Specific Plan, minor site, building area or other
revisions necessary due to changes in technical plan aspects such as drainage,
street improvements, grading, etc. Such changes may be approved on a staff -
level basis and shall not constitute a requirement to amend the Specific Plan.
Consideration for any modifications shall be requested in writing to the Director
and submitted with appropriate graphic and/or textual documentation in order
to make a determination on the request.
6. All aspects of this project (plan preparation, all construction phases,
operations, etc.) shall be subject to and comply with the adopted Mitigation
Monitoring Program and Negative Declaration (EA 96-328), as certified by the
La Quinta City Council.
7. All applicable conditions of approval for SDP 96-590 and any subsequent
amendment(s) shall be incorporated into the revised text for Specific Plan 96-
028 in the appropriate sections. The revised Specific Plan document shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for compliance review
at the time of initial building permit submi prior to issuance of a building
permit for Parcel 2.
• - - - - -
- _ ��-
low
8. The retention area adjacent to Highway 111 shall be modified and or relocated,
to be in conformance with the Highway 1 1 1 Design Theme. Specifically, the
front setback shall only be used for some storm water retention failing within
the setback and adjacent right of way designed per the guideline criteria motet°
to issuance of a building permit for the Pare@l 1 fueling faeflity.
P:\WALLY\coafinalsp028amd1.wpd 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2001-709, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A
23,184 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/COMMERCIAL BUILDING
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-709
BART RINKER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 251h day of September, 2001, consider a Site Development Permit
application for a 23,184 square -foot retail/commercial building, located ± 600 feet
south of the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, more
particularly described as:
PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 28422
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with
the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development
Department has prepared an Addendum to EA 96-328, and has determined that the
proposed Site Development Permit could not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, and that Addendum should be certified and filed; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning
Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site
Development Permit:
1 . The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General
Plan, as it will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General
Plan land use designation of Mixed/Regional Commercial and other current City
standards when considering the level of mitigation measures completed to
date.
2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning
Code, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially equivalent
to those permitted under existing zoning of permitted uses, and which were
previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan. Specifically,
development of existing Regional Commercial land use is considered to
implement zoning consistency with the General Plan, Specific Plan 96-028.
C:\Wrk:grp\Casedocs\SP028#2\resopcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Site Development Permit 2001-709
September 25, 2001
3. The proposed Site Development Permit complies with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), as it has been determined that the
Site Development Permit could not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, based on the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact prepared as Environmental Assessment 96-328,
adopted by City Council Resolution 97-05 on February 4, 1997.
4. The architectural design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will
be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the
Dune Palms Center, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City.
5. The site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be
compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Dune
Palms Center and surrounding area, and with the overall design quality
prevalent in the City.
6. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit has been
designed to unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed project with
the surrounding development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-709 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 City Planning Commission, held on this the 25th day of September, 2001, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
C:\W rk.grp\Casedocs\SP028#2\resopcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Site Development Permit 2001-709
September 25, 2001
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
C:\W rk:grp\Casedocs\SP028#2\resopcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-709
BART RINKER
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Site Development Permit 2001-709 (SDP 2001-709) shall be developed in
compliance with these conditions and all approved site plan, elevation, color,
materials and other approved exhibits submitted for this application, and any
subsequent amendment(s). In the event of any conflicts between these
conditions and the provisions of SDP 2001-709, the conditions shall take
precedence.
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.
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:
Riverside County Fire Marshal
La Quinta Public Works Department
La Quinta Community Development Department
Riverside County Environmental Health Department
Desert Sands Unified School District
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Southern California Gas Company
Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
is Waste Management of the Desert
'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.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\coapcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
4. A, plan for refuse storage and recycling bin space(s) shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for review/approval prior to any building
permit issuance. Said plan shall be and submitted with written clearance from
Waste Management of the Desert as to design detail provisions.
5. All aspects of this project (plan preparation, all construction phases, operations,
etc.) shall be subject to and comply with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring
Program and Negative Declaration (EA 96-328), as certified by the La Quinta
City Council.
6. All applicable conditions of approval for SDP 2001-709 shall be incorporated into
the revised text for Specific Plan 96-028, as amended, in the appropriate
sections. The revised document shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for compliance review prior to issuance of the j[Lat
building permit.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
7. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights required of this approval or otherwise
necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development.
Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access
easements to the City for emergency services, and for maintenance,
construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
8. '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.
9. 'The applicant shall dedicate or grant access and drainage easements over the
northerly and southerly driveways off of Dune Palms Road to the owner(s) of the
abutting properties to the north and south. The applicant may propose easement
language requiring a reciprocal easement and participation in maintenance costs
from abutting property owners.
10. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with
and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to
five feet, with the express concurrence of IID
C:\Wrk:grp\Casedocs\SPO28#2\coapcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
11. 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.
12. 'The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and
properties from all frontage along the streets and properties, except at access
points as shown on the approved site plan.
13. '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.
14. 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.
15. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be
submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise
Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall
have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building
Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer.
Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike
paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally
include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\coapcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
16. 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.
17. 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.
FIRE PROTECTION
18. The applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system
plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Plans will conform to the
fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans will be approved and 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." NOTE ON PLANS: "All buildings will
be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system approved by the Fire
Department". Prior to the issuance of building permits, system plans will be
submitted for approval.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, will be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
Automatic fire sprinkler systems are required in all new structures 5,000 square
feet or greater, in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code 8.08.090.
Minimum fire flow is 2,000 gpm for a 4-hour duration at 20 PSI residual.
19. The minimum dimensions for fire apparatus access roads entering and exiting
this project shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet in each
direction and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet, 6
inches. Parking is permitted on one side of roadways with a minimum width of
28 feet. Parking is permitted on both sides of roadways with a minimum width
of 36 feet.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\coapcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
20. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flows shall be
constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of CVWD Standard W-
33, subject to approval by Riverside County Fire Department.
21. Ultimate fire flows and hydrant locations will be stipulated when building plans
are reviewed by the Fire Department.
22. Specific fire protection requirements for each occupancy will be determined
when final building plans are submitted for review. Final conditions will be
addressed when building plans are submitted. A plan check fee must be paid to
the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted.
IMPR )VEMENT AGREEMENT
23. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment
for applicant's required share of improvements which have been constructed by
others (participatory improvements) for the required improvements for Parcel
Map 28422. Those improvements consist of off -site streets and signal
modifications, domestic water, sanitary sewer, electrical, landscaping, irrigation,
drainage and monumentation. These improvements are now complete, with a
final construction cot of $638,647.71, of which $61,817.71 was funded by the
developer of Parcel Map 28422.
The applicant's share has been determined to be $14,216.92, or 23% of the
additional funds required to complete the improvements. This percentage has
been determined based on parcel acreage ands street frontage ratios.
GRADING
24. 'this development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard
Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building parcel in the development
is or may be located within a flood hazard area, as identified on the City's Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to insure that all floors
and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project flood (100-
year storm event) and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density, as
required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a)(6). Prior
to issuance of building permit(s) for parcels so located, the applicant shall
furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been
met.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SPO28#2\coapcsdp7O9.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
25. 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.
27. 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.
28. 'the applicant/developer shall comply with the existing approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan (FDCP 97-15). the applicant may be required to furnish a renewal
security, in a form acceptable to the Public Works Department, in an amount
sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit for the
Parcel 2 site.
29. -The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and
water erosion of soils, commencing from the date of grading permit application.
The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion
control measures acceptable under the approved FDCP.
30. Prior to issuance of building permit(s), 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 parcel number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different
times.
DRAINAGE
31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97-03
and the following:
A. Storm water falling on -site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year
storm event (the design storm) shall be retained within the development.
The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public
streets.
B. Nuisance and storm waters shall be retained in retention basin(s) or other
approved retention/infiltration system(s). In design of retention facilities,
the soil percolation rate shall be considered to be zero, unless the applicant
provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. The design percolation
rate shall not exceed two inches per hour.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\coapcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditicns of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
If retention is in an open basin, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a
trickling sand filter and leach field approved by the City Engineer. The sand
filter and leach field shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 s.f.
of landscaped area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,00 s.f.
C. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a
designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route.
D. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be
retained on -site or passed through to the overflow outlet. If storm flows
are directed off -site, written permission or drainage easements from
adjacent property owners will be required.
E. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall
be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual lot retention.
I=. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety
entities (e.g. La Quinta Building and Safety, Riverside County Sheriff),
retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall
shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community
Development Department and the City Engineer.
32. The applicant/developer shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's
NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific
NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB
acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a
grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall insure that the required
Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) is available for inspection at the
project site.
UTILITIES
36. '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.
33. 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.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SPO28#2\coapcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
34. 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
35. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs,
markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and
Sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
36. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g.,
grading).
37. 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 access and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
38. 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.
39. The City will conduct final inspections only when the buildings have improved
street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The
improvements shall include required traffic control devices and pavement
markings. If on -site improvements are initially constructed with partial pavement
thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections.
40. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. One 30-foot right-in/right-out driveway, centered about the northerly
property line of Parcel 2 (existing driveway approach to the existing service
station).
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\coapcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
B. One 30-foot right-in/right-out/left-in driveway, centered about the southerly
property line of Parcel 2 (existing driveway approach to Allstate Storage).
Any necessary modifications to existing improvements, including curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, driveway approaches and street improvements along Dune Palms
Road 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.
LANDSCAPING
41. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots, and parking areas.
42. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
-rhe 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.
43. 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.
44. 'The applicant shall ensure that landscaping and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
45. Landscaping within the overall project area shall be commonly maintained under
a single maintenance contract. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of
Occupancy, documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with this
requirement shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the Community
Development/Public Works Departments. Said documentation must include that
landscape materials shall be maintained as planted in perpetuity, and that dead,
dying or otherwise missing landscape improvements shall be replaced, re -planted
or provided within 30 calendar days.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\coapcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
QUALITY ASSURANCE
46. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the
City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD
or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed
conditions.
MAINTENANCE
50. 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.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
51. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any earth disturbance, the applicant shall
have prepared and obtained approval from the Community Development
Department for an archaeological monitoring program for the project site (Parcel
:2). The program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist, and shall include
provisions for strictly controlled archaeological monitoring and data recovery,
including research and field methods, lab analysis methodology, Native American
consultation and monitoring, curation procedures, report preparation and
disposition of artifacts and records.
C:\Wrk13rp\Casedocs\SP028#2\coapcsdp709.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
FEES AND DEPOSITS
52. 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.
53. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the
City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of
building permits.
54. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for
modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions,
the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s)
against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment.
55. This approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program
and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
MISCELLANEOUS
56. The applicant shall submit a detailed project area lighting plan, based on the
following parameters:
a. All pole -mounted light standards shall be limited in height to 18 feet
maximum.
b. Shielding shall be placed on the west side light standards, along Dune
Palms Road, so as to eliminate any light washover beyond the right-of-way
line (property line).
C. The plan shall be in compliance with the standards set forth in the Zoning
Code, Sections 9.100.150 and 9.150.080. K, working within these
parameters.
'The lighting plan shall be approved prior to issuance of the main building permit.
57. No tenant signs are approved as part of this application. Individual tenants shall
submit for sign permit approval, based on the approved Sign Program 2000-502.
Any deviations from the Sign Program may require Planning Commission review
and/or a sign program amendment request, to be determined by the Community
Development Director.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\coapcsdp709.wpd
Planninc Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
Site Development Permit 2001-709
58. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened and installed using
compatible architectural materials and treatments, in a manner so as not to be
visible from surrounding properties and streets. Specifically, the roof line along
parapet areas shall be of sufficient height, relative to the ceiling height, to
screen such equipment from view along the west side of Dune Palms road.
Overall parapet height shall conform to Condition 59. Working drawings showing
all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety
Department along with the construction plan submittal for building permits.
Method and design of screening must be approved by the Community
Development Department prior to any issuance of building permits.
59. The retail commercial building shall not exceed 22 feet in height, as measured
from finish grade to it's highest roof point or projection that is part of the roof
structure.
60. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the building elevations shall be revised to
incorporate a stone veneer (e.g. split face block, non -ceramic tiles, etc.)
wainscot treatment on the column features, similar in color/texture to those
provided on the existing buildings.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\SP028#2\coapcsdp709.wpd
fr PM 190/61
64A'l PAR 1 co
N a q
c� Q� N
V-
ci 1.57 AC NT
0
O
m
IN
N 278.21
PAR 3
I ,
Coe
r
�i
r
_ Cr!
a
N �
r
Sr
40
C
` PAR 4 m
i 276.00
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
September 5, 2001
C. Site Development Permit 2001-709; a request of Bart Rinker for review
of building elevations and landscaping plans for a 23,184 square foot
retail/service building located at the southeast corner of Highway 1 1 1
and Dune Palms Road, within the Dune Palms Center.
1. Associate Planner Wally Nesbit presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Mr. Bob Ricciardi, representing the applicant, gave a presentation
on the project.
3. Committee Member Cunningham clarified that the staff
recommended tile treatment would be added to the columns, but
not the building's front elevation. Mr. Ricciardi stated that was
what they would request.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what plans were being taken to
make sure the mechanical equipment was hidden. Mr. Ricciardi
stated this was a taller building and it would have a parapet wall
high enough to hide it. Mr. Ricciardi asked that the largest tree
they plant be a 36-inch box.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion
2001-033 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2001-709, subject to the conditions as recommended.
D. Site, Development Permit 2001-710; a request of Cody & Brady
Architects for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for a
construction gatehouse at Tradition for the property located on the south
side of Avenue 52, .east of the intersection of Washington Street
1. 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. Committee Member Cunningham asked if The the would be random
mudded. Staff stated a condition could be added to require this.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the purpose of the gatehouse.
Staff stated it was for maintenance and construction vehicles.
G:\VYTDOCS\ALRC9-5-Ol.wpd 3
H
Z'
81
toI
F
IF
Awl
Ordering, Information:
Prefix Size Configuration'
EC 14
18 1
2 ��]
4
ECA 181 -
EMCOO LIGHTING
ECOLUME
The Ecolume is a rectilinear area luminaire. The precision segmer
ed optical systems provide required illumination levels, ev(
illumination, wide pole spacings, and glare control. Housing
dieformed, door frame is extruded aluminum and lens is cle
tempered glass. Luminaire is completely sealed and gasketed.
Photometric Distributions:
Vertical Lamp
Type V Square (QV)
Distribution
Wattage
Horizontal Lamp
14
3H = Type III
70 HPS
F = Forward
100 HPS
150 HPS
Throw
100 MH
QH'= Type V
175 MH
Square
18
250 HPS
Vertical Lamp
250 MH
QVZ= Type V
400 HPS
Square
400 MH
I
3H - 40OMH -
Horizontal Lamp
Type III (31-1)
Fomard Throw (F) �, (
Type V Square (Qit)
Finishes:
BRP =
Bronze Paint
BLP =
Black Paint
WP =
White Paint
NP =
Natural Aluminum Paint
SC =
Special Color Paint (Specify)
BRP - RA - MVR 400/
Mounting°
i Options:
I Clear Lamps' (with fixtures):
A = Arm Mount PCB = Button Photocell
MP
= Mast Arm Fitter
LU70 = 70W HPS (E-23 1/2)
W = Wall Mount PCT = Twistlock Photocell
Poly
= Polycarbonate Sag Lens
LU100 = 100W HPS (E23 1/2)
PI = Yoke Mount F = Single Fuse
ACRE
= Acrylic Sag Lens
LU150/55 = 150W HPS (E-23 1/2)
WA ='Wall Mount (Specify 120V or 277V)
AP
= Adjustable Knuckle
LU250 = 250W HPS (E-18)
with Arm FF = Double Fuse (Specify
Pole Mount
LU400 = 40OW HPS (E-18)
208V, 240V or 480V)
AT
= Adjustable Knuckle
M100/U/MED = 100W MH (ED-17)
HS = Internal House Side Shield
Tenon Mount
MVR175/U = 175W MH (E-28)
LA = Less Arm
AW
= Adjustable Knuckle
MVR250/U = 250W MH (E-28)
RA = Radiused Arm
Wall Mount
MVR400/U = 40OW MH (E-37)
(round pole)
MVR175/HOR = 175W Super MH (E-28)
480V5 = 480V Primary
MS250/BU = 250W Super MH (E-28)
Notes:
MVR250/HOR = 250W Super MH (E-28)
' ECW and ECF - always use (1)
MVR400/HOR = 40OW Super MH (E-37)
P 18" units only
MS400/BU = 40OW Super MH (BT-37)
'Medium Base Lamp
° For Direct to pole mount specify LA option
-
5120/208/240'277V Standard
6 Supplied Standard with OV Optics
7 Leave blank if lamp by others
-
_
SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
Each EMCO Ecolume is a sharp cutoff luminaire for
high intensity discharge lamps. Internal components
are totally enclosed, rain tight, dust tight, and corro-
sion resistant. No venting of optical system or electri-
cal components is required or permitted. Lamping
requires no lifting or hinging the luminaire housing,
disturbing wiring or exposing uninsulated live parts.
HOUSING:
The housing; wrapper is one piece dieformed alu-
minum with an integral reinforcing spline and no
welded corners. Silicone seals provide a weathertight
seal at all points of material transition.
LENS:
Mitered, extruded anodized aluminum door frame
retains the optically clear, heat and impact resistant
tempered flat glass in a sealed manner using hollow
section, high compliance, memory retentive extruded
silicone rubber. Non yellowing drop acrylic lens stan-
dard on vertical lamp luminaires. A single flush 1/4 turn
captive fastener permits easy access to the luminaire.
OPTICAL SYSTEMS:
The segmented reflector system consists of 2 levels of
highly specular aluminum facets precisely aligned to
achieve specified photometric distribution. Entire opti-
cal system is field rotatable in 90' increments. Position
oriented mogul base socket is glazed porcelain with a
nickel plated screw shell. Lamp stabilizer is standard
on 3H and QH 40OW MH units.
EPA'S AND WEIGHTS
Ecolume EPA (Effective Projected Area) Ft2
Single Arm Twin 180
14" units 1.1 2.2
18" units 1.9 3.8
- -- - IF -- --
lighting
2661
2661 Alvarado St.
Son Leandro, CA 94577
800/227.0758
510/357-6(= (California)
KING FAX:510/357-3088
ELECTRICAL:
Each high power factor ballast is the separate compo-
nent type capable of providing reliable lamp starting to
-20°F. The quad tap (120V/208V/24OV/277V) ballast
is mounted on a unitized tray and prewired with quick
electrical disconnects to the supply wire and the socket
assembly. Entire ballast assembly is secured within the
luminaire, above the reflector system.
High Pressure Sodium ballasts operate lamps within
ANSI trapezoidal limits.
Metal Halide ballasts are medium regulation auto -
transformer providing ±10% power regulation with
±10% variation from rated input voltage. Component -
to -component wiring within the luminaire will carry
no more than 80% of rated current and is listed by UL
for use at 600 VAC at 150' or higher. Plug disconnects
are listed by UL for use at 600 VAC, 15A or higher. -
FINISH:
Each luminaire receives a fade and abrasion resistant,
electrostatically applied, thermal cured polyester powder
finish after fabrication.
LABELS:
All fixtures bear UL Wet Location and IBEW labels.
EMCO reserves the right to change materials or modi-
fy the design of its product without notification.
Single Fixture
Quad
Weight
2.7
3b Ibs
4.8
50 Ibs
'WALL MOUNT
ECW14 ECW18
A
14"-sq18' sq
- -
B
7" 101,
0
-2.- _-_
-_ _-__ p
K WIN
I, - VN!L
In Canada:
TOL
640 Cure Bolvin Blvd.
Boisbriand
Quebec, Canada J7G 2A7
Tel: 514/433-3216
FAX: 514/433-9441
ARM MOUNT
ECA14
ECA18
A
14" sq
18" sq
B
7"
10"
C Arm Length
6"
9"
D Arm Height
5"
5"
E Drop Lens
2"
4"
E
T.H"OJJ,4S
NW /NDCSrR/ES /Nr-
79215.1/1193
omm
cc*#
cig
IL v.
c
a
ZOM
IN i
N
Phi
M
CL
E
z
c
:::) 0
3 rlrr
<
wm
si
C,
LJJ
LU
Z
Z
LU
DZ
LU
U
(S)
Lu
<LIJ
Lu
�5
<
<
o
(S)
Lij
<
n:-z
:cl:i:
z
<
0
1.4
Q
<
C,
V--
<
Z
--I
n
z
=
<
C)
Z
1
(J)
��:
c)
-r
C)
oz
R
(S)
R.
MA
LU
VJ
LU
LU
I
LL
Q)
LU
N
H
J
c
�ft
KJ C
LO to
(N(N
CL
(5)
Q)
-:� E
0
r
<
U) YOM
<
T- •16
9; 3: moms
<
0
LL. Cn
�'� WL.
�, OUA
2L(0)
C*
CO3
MCC
4c cc
C>
4) ill
vo
Oacc
mw*lf
"m Cid
Los.
Zoo
a
0
0
n
0
I
C),
LU
LU
Z
Z
aJ
LLI
DL
LLI
LLI
<
LU
LU
<
DZ
<
(Z:)
(�Z)
(S)
LLI
<
U
�
n
z —
T-
C,
7-
N-1
<
NZ
C)
<
C,
V.-
<
Cl
Ljj
Z
��z
<
LU
�:�-
(z)
V---
Z
(s)
C)
0
z
IN-
T-
T-
<
I
C,
Z
Q
C)
DZ (S)
LU
< fl-
PH #C
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048 (AMENDMENT #1), PALMILLA
APPLICANT: FORREST K. HAAG FOR RJT HOMES, INC.
REQUEST: TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND TEXT
INFORMATION FOR A PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OF NO MORE THAN 178 HOUSES ON
APPROXIMATELY 73 ACRES
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 50 AND JEFFERSON
STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA 2000-401)
WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER
21, 2000 (RESOLUTION 2000-150) FOR THE 73 ACRE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. NO CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW
INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT WOULD
TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
GENERAL
PLAN/ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE); RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: ACROSS AVENUE 50, VACANT AND THE UNDER
CONSTRUCTION TALANTE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OF 78 HOUSES
SOUTH: CITRUS RESORT AND CLUB
EAST: ACROSS JEFFERSON STREET, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN
INDIO
WEST: THE ESTANCIAS DEVELOPMENT
SR PC SP Palmilla2 Setbacks - Greg/52
Rec 9/11; Routed 9/19 Page 1 of 3
BACKGROUND:
The Palmilla development, located at the southwest corner of Avenue 50 and
Jefferson Street, is under construction. A list of development approvals for the 73-
acre site are noted below:
Specific Plan 2000-048 (City Council Resolution 2000-152) - The adopted Specific
Plan provides the design guidelines and standards for 178 single family houses. The
project is designed around a series of internal water features (Attachment 1).
Tentative Tract Map 29858 - City Council Resolution 2000-153 allows a mix of 90
single family attached residences and 72 detached single family homes on lots ranging
from 8,208 square feet to 21,136 square feet. The average lot size for the attached
product is 10,446 square feet and 15,534 square feet for the detached product.
Recordation of Tract 29858 (Phase 1), consisting of 141 residential lots on
approximately 65.36 acres, occurred on July 13, 2001.
On June 19, 2001, the City Council, on a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution 2001-82,
approving design changes to Tentative Tract Map 29858 (Phase 2) consisting of a
reduction in the number of lots, cul-de-sac streets, and reconfigures rear yard common
open space areas on seven acres. Recordation of Phase 2 of Tract 29858 is pending.
Based on tract map approvals, the developer is planning to build no more than 159
houses.
Site Development Permit 2001-694 - On March 27, 2001, the Planning Commission
adopted Minute Motion 2001-008 approving six prototype houses ranging in size from
2,894 square feet to over 4,000 square feet.
The Building and Safety Department issued construction permits for some of the
developer's model houses in July.
Project Request:
The applicant has requested changes to the Specific Plan document and conditions as
follows:
• Rear yard setbacks of 10 feet instead of 20 feet per Condition 56 of City
Council Resolution 2000-152 for lots that do not back up to common
open space areas. This setback change would match lots backing up to
open space areas within the project.
• Architectural projections are being requested to be allowed into front
yards. However, no specific encroachment distance is noted and
architectural projection is not defined.
SR PC SP Palmilla2 Setbacks - Greg/52
Rec 9/11; Routed 9/19 Page 2 of 3
Project changes are proposed because the developer is having difficulty plotting their
prototype units on lots that do not back onto common open space areas when lot
depths are less than 120 feet and irregularly shaped.
Public Notice: This Amendment request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper
on September 15, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site.
To date, no comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any
written comments received will be handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency/ Review: Only City Departments were asked to comment on this
Amendment request. All comments have been incorporated into the attached draft
Conditions of Approval, as appropriate.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings needed to approve this request can be made, and are contained in the
attached Resolution. Changes requested by the developer, and staff, to the existing
conditions are highlighted in the attached material. See Conditions 32, 56, 67-70, and
73-7Fi.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, approving Specific Plan 2000-048
(Amendment #1), subject to the attached findings and conditions.
Attachments:
1. Specific Plan 2000-048 Exhibit
"red by:
�r roupdeII
,ss ciatd Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lono
Planning Manager
SR PC SP Palmilla2 Setbacks - Greg/52
Rec 9/11; Routed 9/19
Page 3 of 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TEXT AND CONDITION
CHANGES TO SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048 FOR A PRIVATE
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ON APPROXIMATELY 73
ACRES
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048, AMENDMENT #1 (PALMILLA)
APPLICANT: FORREST K. HAAG FOR RJT HOMES, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 25t' day of September, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for an
Amendment to the design guidelines and development standards for a master planned
community of 178 housing units on approximately 73 acres, generally located on the
southwest corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as:
Portion of the NE 1 /4 of Section 5, Township 6S, Range 7E, S.B.B.M.
APN: 772-050-007 and -008; Tract 29858
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 2111 day of November, 2000, approve Specific Plan 2000-048 establishing design
guidelines and development standards for a master planned community of 178 housing
units on approximately 73 acres by adoption of Resolution 2000-152.
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2000-401) was certified
by the City Council on November 21, 2000, under Resolution 2000-150 for the
Palmilla development. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new
information has been provided that would trigger the preparation of a subsequent
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify
a recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan Amendment:
That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and
policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Low
Density Residential (0-4 units per acre) which permits the uses proposed for the
property and is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the General Plan
Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. Under this Plan, the
project density is roughly 2.4 units per acre which is within the density range
for this low density residential area.
RESOP12 SMPalmilla2 - Greg52
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1 - Palmilla
Forrest K. Haag for RJT Homes, Inc.
September 25, 2001
Page 2
The Amendment provides varied setbacks that are different from the City's
Zoning Ordinance standards which are necessary to plot houses that were
approved by the Planning Commission under Site Development Permit 2001-
694 on March 27, 2001. These private development standards will not
adversely impact off -site properties in that open space features augment
setback requirements for the project's residential lots.
2. That the Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare in that original
development objectives are being met through extensive public improvements
and good land use practices of encouraging common open space corridors,
varied development standards (i.e., setbacks, etc.) and unique housing designs.
Housing units are primarily one story not exceeding 19 feet in height. Two
story housing units will be plotted internally to the development to protect off -
site views of adjacent property owners.
3. The Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with the zoning of adjacent
properties in that the site is bounded by residentially designated properties with
the exception of the area to the north, across Avenue 50 which is designated
commercial. The mitigation measures of EA 2000-401 are binding on this
development for such issues as noise, archaeological monitoring and on -site
water retention.
4. The Specific Plan Amendment is suitable and appropriate provided the
recommended Conditions of Approval are met.
5. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is an update to the original plan for
development of a private residential development of not more than 178 houses
on a 73-acre site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required
in Environmental Assessment 2000-401 (City Council Resolution 2000-150);
and
RESOPC SP48Palmilla2 - Greg52
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1 - Palmilla
Forrest K. Haag for RJT Homes, Inc.
September 25, 2001
Page 3
3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan
2000-048 (Amendment #1) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and
subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of September, 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC SP4MPalmilla2 - Greg52
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048, AMENDMENT #1 (PALMILLA)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
GENERAL
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 Amendment.
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 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)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
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.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES
construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB
acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a
grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required
Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project
site.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
3. Prior to approval of any future final tract map(s), the applicant shall acquire or
confer easements and other property rights required of future tentative map(s)
or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed
A:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacks.wpdm - Greg52 Page 1 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or
grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for
maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements.
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.
5. Right -of- way dedications required of this development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1. 50th Avenue (Primary Arterial) - no additional dedication required
2. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - no additional dedication required
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1. Residential: 31-foot width. On -street parking is prohibited and
provisions shall be made for adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors. The CC&R's shall contain language
requiring the Homeowner's Association to provide for ongoing
enforcement of the restrictions.
C. CULS DE SAC
1 . Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset)
with 39.5-foot radius, or larger.
6. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with
Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
7. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
8. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with
and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to
five feet with the express concurrence of IID.
9. 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:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacksmpdm - Greg52 Page 2 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
A. 50' Avenue - 20 feet
B. Jefferson Street - 20 feet
The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
10. 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.
11. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and
properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access
points shown on the approved Specific Plan.
12. 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.
13. 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.
GRADING
14. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard
Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is
or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors
and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year)
flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in
Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to
issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall
furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been
met.
A:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacksmpdm - Greg52 Page 3 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
15. Prior to issuance of any grading permit(s), 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.
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.
17. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting
properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development.
Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three
feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street
frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet.
The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements
and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking
process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will
consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties
and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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:
21. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm
(the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise
A:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacks.wpdm - Greg52 Page 4 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the
centerline of adjacent public streets.
22. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -
lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for
lots 2.5 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is
impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet
the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
23. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated,
unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route.
24. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on
site or passed through to the overflow outlet.
25. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which
shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design
percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour.
26. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be
six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention.
27. 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 leechfield shall be designed to contain
surges of 3 g.p.h./1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 g.p.d./1,000
sq. ft.
28. 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.
29. 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
A:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacks.wpdm - Greg52 Page 5 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public
use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney.
If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make
provisions in the CC&R's for meeting these potential obligations.
30. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blow -off 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
31. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within the right of way and all aboveground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
32. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all
proposed utilities shall be installed underground, unless otherwise allowed by
General Plan Amendment 2000-073. Power lines exceeding 34.5 Kv are
exempt from this requirement.
33. 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
34. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements
shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1. 501h Avenue (Primary Arterial) - Construct 38-foot half of 76-foot
improvement (travel width, excluding curbs) plus 6-foot sidewalk.
2. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - applicant shall pay cash fee to
reimburse City for street improvements made to applicant's
frontage through the City's Capital Improvement Program.
Reimbursement amount shall cover all costs related to installing
curb, gutter and outside 20 feet of roadway paving; the
A:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacksmpdm - Greg52 Page 6 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
reimbursement amount shall be reduced by the percentage of non -
City funds expended on the Jefferson Street Widening project.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1. On -site streets:
a. Two -Way Traffic: construct 28-foot wide full -width
improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter
flowline) within the 31-foot right of way. All on -site streets
shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as
approved by the City Engineer.
b. One -Way Traffic: the following streets shall be designated
as one-way travel only:
i. Lot D: construct minimum 20-foot wide full -width
improvements (measured from gutter flowline to
gutter flowline) within a minimum 23-foot right of
way. Street shall be constructed with "wedge" type
curb design as approved by the City Engineer.
ii. Lots C and G: construct minimum 16-foot wide full -
width improvements (measured from gutter flowline
to gutter flowline) within a minimum 19-foot right of
way. Street shall be constructed with "wedge" type
curb design as approved by the City Engineer.
C. Cul-de-Sacs: All cul-de-sac bulbs which contain raised
landscaped islands shall be designated as "One -Way" and
applicant shall construct minimum 20-foot wide full -width
improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter
flowline) within a minimum 23-foot right of way. Construct
a "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City
Engineer.
d. Lots S & U: provide for two-way traffic by constructing
minimum 22-foot wide full -width improvements (measured
from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a minimum
25-foot right of way. Street shall be constructed with
"wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer.
2. All on -street parking is prohibited with the exception of guest
parking by permit only and enforced by the Homeowners'
A:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacks.wpdm - Greg52 Page 7 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
Association and the applicant shall be required to provide for the
perpetual enforcement of the restriction by the Homeowners'
Association.
C. CULS DE SAC
1. Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset),
with 38-foot curb radius.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the
City Engineer.
35. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs,
markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and
sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
36. 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).
37. 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.
38. Knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with Riverside County
Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
39. Public streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations
which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust
and residue for street sweeping. Onsite private streets shall have a wedge curb,
the design of which shall be approved by the City Engineer. The lip of the
wedge curb at the flowline shall be vertical (1/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1'
in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior
to final inspection of permanent buildings► on the lot.
40. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design
procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
A:\CoridPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacksmpdm - Greg52 Page 8 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
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.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
41. 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.
42. 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 project or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
43. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. 50t' Avenue - Main project entry, to be located approximately 1,250 feet
west of the centerline of Jefferson Street. No restrictions applied to
turning movements at this location.
B. 50th Avenue - Emergency access entry (20-foot wide) from the end of the
cul-de-sac in "B" Street, to be located approximately 2,400 feet west of
the centerline of Jefferson Street. This point of entry will be restricted
to right -turn movements only.
C. Jefferson Street - Secondary project entry, to be located approximately
600 feet south of the centerline of 50t' Avenue. This point of entry will
be restricted to right -turn movements, and a left -turn into the project if
the applicant desires to construct an appropriately designed opening in
the median island.
A:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacksmpdm - Greg52 Page 9 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
LANDSCAPING
44. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots, and park areas.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. A 6-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along 501' Avenue and also along
Jefferson Street. The sidewalk shall meander within the 32-foot right-of-way
and setback.
PUBLIC SERVICES
48. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline
Transit and approved by the City Engineer.
MAINTENANCE
49. 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
50. 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.
A:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacks.wpdm - Greg52 Page 10 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51. The Specific Plan shall be amended throughout, wherever appropriate, to clearly
state that the following shall require approval of Site Development Permits:
A. Perimeter wall and landscaping
B. Common area landscaping
C. Model homes, both attached and detached
D. Monument identification signage
52. The Specific Plan Plant List on pages 2.35 through 2.38 shall be amended to
focus on native and non-invasive plant types.
53. The project shall be surrounded on the north and east boundary by a 4-foot
berm topped with a 6-foot wall, as measured from finished grade for all areas
shown in Figure 3 of the Noise Analysis as requiring a 10-foot wall. The project
shall be surrounded on the north and east boundary by a 2-foot berm topped
with a 6-foot wall, as measured from finished grade for all areas shown in
Figure 3 of the Noise Analysis as requiring a 8-foot wall. Design of the berm and
wall shall be subject to Site Development Permit review.
54. The last paragraph in Section 2.6.3, Recreation, on page 2.11 shall be deleted.
55. The tables on pages 3.4 and 3.5, "Detached Single Family Units" and
"Attached/Zero Lot Line Units," respectively, shall be amended to allow only a
6-foot wall height.
56. The tables on pages 3.4 and 3.5, " and
"AttachedRero Lot Lone Units," respectively. -shall be amended to allow 10 foot
rear yard setback for lets backing onto open speee, and a 20 feet rear y
. as follows:
A. Rear yard setbacks for houses and guest houses shall not be less than
10 feet.
B. Pop -out design elements can protrude a maximum of two feet into the
front yard setback.
57. The Specific Plan shall be amended to state that all project signage shall
conform to the standards for monument signage contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
A:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacks.wpdm - Greg52 Page 11 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
58. The Specific Plan shall be amended to require the location of two story homes
in conformance with the standards of Section 9.60.310 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
59. On page 3.3 of the Specific Plan, under "B. Permitted Uses," and anywhere else
it may occur, the word duplex shall be replaced by the word "attached."
60. Five copies of the Final Specific Plan, with all amendments required above
integrated into the document, and with these conditions of approval appended
to the document, shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to the issuance of any permit.
61. The project proponent shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the
Environmental Assessment 2000-401.
DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITARY SEWER
62. Pursuant to the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD),
the project proponent shall annex to Improvement Districts No. 1 for irrigation
service.
63. Landscaping, irrigation and grading plans shall be submitted to CVWD for review
and approval.
64. All plans for domestic water connections to existing CVWD lines shall be
submitted to the District for review and approval.
65. The project proponent shall obtain all necessary approvals from the District for
the well site located at the northeastern corner of the property.
66. The project proponent shall demonstrate, prior to recordation of the final map,
that Bureau of Reclamation facilities on the project site do not conflict with the
proposed project, to the satisfaction of the District.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
67. All water mains and fire hydrants required fire flows shall be constructed in
accordance with the appropriate sections of CVWD Std. W-33, subject to the
approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. Fire hydrants shall be
located at each intersection and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any
lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be
1,000 G.P.M. for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be
A:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacks.wpdm - Greg52 Page 12 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific; Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
placed in the street eight -inches form centerline to the side that fire hydrant is
on, to identify hydrant locations.
Public access buildings (i.e., recreation halls, clubhouses, etc.) require Super fire
hydrants to be placed no closer than 25 feet and not more than 165 feet from
any portion of the first floor of said building following approved travel ways
around the exterior of the building. Minimum fire flow for these areas would be
1,500 G.P.M. for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI.
68. The minimum dimensions for fire apparatus access roads entering and exiting
this project shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet in each
direction and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6
inches. Parking is permitted on one side of roadways with a minimum width of
25 feet. Parking is permitted on both sides of roadways with a minimum width
of 36 feet. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with
appropriate lane painting and/or signs.
69. All interior fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet
unobstructed width and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13'6". A"y
portion of an exterier wall of the first story of any building shall be leca
within 150 feet from fare apparatus aceegg as measured by an approved route
around the exterior of the building-. All structures shall be accessible form an
approved roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the first
floor.
70. Gate entrance/exit openings shall be not less than 15 feet in width. Gate
entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the travel lane
serving that gate. All gates shall be located at least 40' from the roadway and
shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road.
Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate
entrance, a 38-foot turning radius shall be used. Gates shall have either a
secondary power supply or an approved manual means (KNOX) to release
mechanical control of the gate in the event of loss of primary power. Automatic
gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates
activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid
entry system. Gating plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation.
71. The maximum dead-end street length is limited to 1,320 feet for areas not
located in a designated high fire hazard zone. A secondary access roadway is
typically provided when such a condition exists.
A:\CondPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacks.wpdm - Greg52 Page 13 of 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Conditions of Approval- Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment #1
September 25, 2001
72. Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum outside radius of 38 feet to face of curb with
a minimum inside radius of 26 feet to islands or center landscape features. The
entire radius of 38 feet is required to properly turn fire department vehicles.
Vehicle parking along the curb should be prohibited when the minimum radius
is used.
73. Any nonresidential building greater than 5,000 square feet shall have internal
fire sprinkler systems per NFPA 13 Standard, and be approved for use by the
Fire Department.
74. The proposed street bridges shall be designed to handle a live load of 60,000
lbs. over two axles.
75. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
SCHOOL FEES
76. The project proponent shall demonstrate their payment of school fees prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
AAConcIPC SP48#2 Palmilla Setbacks.wpdm - Greg52 Page 14 of 14
ATTACHMENTS
M
8§
\t
�
}
�
q
I
2
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 2001-012
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: LAKE LA QUINTA COMMUNITIES
REQUEST: SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO INITIATE A STREET
NAME CHANGE
LOCATION: VIA TRIESTE WITHIN LAKE LA QUINTA
ZONING: ON -SITE:
RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
NORTH:
CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) AND RH
(HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
SOUTH:
RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
EAST/
WEST:
CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
GENERAL PLAN: ON -SITE:
LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
NORTH:
M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) AND
HDR (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
SOUTH:
LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
EAST/
WEST:
M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15301 (EXISTING
FACILITIES).
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Lake La Quinta Communities, has been informed by the United States
Postal Service that mail can not be delivered to residences along the parallel portions of
Via Trieste as it is a "U" shape. Due to the required addressing system, the two parallel
portions of the "U" shape are both in the 47-XXX range of addresses. This causes
confusion in delivering the mail as to which of the two mail boxes to use. The United States
Postal Service computers are unable to process these varying address numbers.
September 21, 2001 Page 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
To correct the mail delivery problem, the applicant is requesting a street name change.
The proposal is to change the eastern -most portion of the "U" from Via Trieste to Via
Verona.
REQUIRED PROCESS:
Section 14.08.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code requires that "the commission shall
adopt a resolution of intention to change name and set a date for public hearing not less
than thirty days from the date of adoption of the resolution."
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- declaring the Planning
Commission's intention to hold a public hearing on Street Name Change 2001-012
on November 13, 2001.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Parcel Map
Prepared by:
Michele Rambo, Associate Planner
September 21, 2001 Page 2
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER
13, 2001 TO CONSIDER A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR
VIA TRIESTE, LOCATED IN LAKE LA QUINTA.
CASE NO. STREET NAME CHANGE 2001-012
LAKE LA QUINTA COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did
on the 251h day of September, 2001, discussed, at the request of Lake La Quinta
Communities, a street name change for Via Trieste, located in Lake La Quinta, more
particularly described as:
TRACT NO. 26152
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission meeting, upon hearing and
considering all available information, said Planning Commission did make the following
findings to justify their intent to hold a public hearing regarding said street name change per
Section 14.08.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code:
Determination of Sufficiency. The proposed street name change is a reasonable
request based on the concerns expressed by the United States Postal Service. The
change of name will provide for better service to the citizens of La Quinta.
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 Resolution of intent to hold a
public hearing on the proposed street name change.
September 21, 2001 Page 1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 2!5h day of September, 2001, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
September 21, 2001 Page 2
ATTACHMENT #'
VICINITY MAP
NTS
`3 -- -OL�p 11 I
• o a �O r
jot
Lo
N Off?
LO
N5�
N C � lD
W z
CFO
Ulwoa - m�
w Wk
az�= o p
d.,� �
a o Ll r` s tv M
^I I WtD j
WC m
CL 4_ ri \� -j,' �t•1 Q II
J
V ° 111 N �N I l o-o ~ �rn �— A` I rIn
m� I I c
o I Q
q lf1 (TI CY,
u) N O (M Ql (rIn
N. I j� 1':• N� Q � ' h • p • � ' M T • I
&'>S N`'TN �'N I I rn O� 0.�. O �� I I aq
10
J
O - - - In ;
z _ _ _ m� �,
In
lq
In
In
Uj
w W lfllfl _ _ _ - qq
► CU
\-� N 1 to 'Pu J to tD ,� ro m
,( N a i�`�' a I j N I rn to ^
\� Z 0.
° I
n UJ - - N I
NO3i13N 0%
03A83$32i 1N3W3SV3 {� _�+r% x s
r(�J
r� Nitao W21015 .01
zg
rn �N 5
�CNJ
_•-
r
� t110^O pIQ .+O[r�1N 01 N O N � �`• _
Of \ �_ --/ ..., • .. i C M - v 9 , 9 Z . 0_N
p4
007N..
I!i
Z
01 2 J 1- r
. . 6•
Q O
In
• _
N2Jt-T`d
m
•
Z
m
m. ••
�rVN r
N
A
.�
N�
m I
��.
. �,
.•.0���
.
N�,�
p re n^
O ism