2002 01 08 PCPlanning 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
JANUARY 8, 2002
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2001-001
Beginning Minute Motion 2001-001
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for
public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
111111. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on December 11, 2001.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item .................
CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-
387, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-063, ZONE
CHANGE 99-091, SPECIFIC PLAN 99-039, AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-659
Applicant ..........
Point Happy Ranch, LLC
Location ...........
West side of Washington Street, approximately 350
feet south of Highway 1 1 1.
Request ............
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for an Environmental
Assessment; General Plan land use designation from
Medium Density Residential to Office Commercial for
five acres of the 43 acre site and from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential for 11.55
acres for the 62 villas; change of zone designation
from Medium Density to Office Commercial for five
acres of the 43 acre site and from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential; review of
design guidelines and development standards for
senior care units consisting of 62 one story high
independent living villa units in duplex to 4-plex
configurations with a two story club building, and
310 rooms for assisted living, independent living and
continuing care in two 2 to 3 story high building, a
one story high maintenance building, two commercial
office buildings (two stories high) with a total of
44,00 square feet of floor area and a 9,500 square
foot one story high project administration building.
Action ..............
No action required
B. Item ................... CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2001-415, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29963 AND
STREET NAME CHANGE 2001-013
Applicant........... Dr. & Mrs. Bruce Baumann.
Location ............. Terminus of Kirk Court, north of Avenue 58
Request ............. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact; subdivision of approximately
9.1 acres into four single family lots and one street
lot; and initiation of a Street Name Change from Kirk
Court to Coral Mountain Court.
Action ............... Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002- and
Resolution 2002-
PC/AGENDA
C.
n
14
Item .................
CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2001-417 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092,
AMENDMENT #1
Applicant ..........
Barton Properties
Location ...........
Northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street
Request ............
Certification of an Environmental Assessment and
subdivision of approximately 38.4 acres into 130
single family and other common lots.
Action ..............
Resolution 2002- and Resolution 2002-
Item ................. CONTINUED - SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034,
AMENDMENT #1
Applicant .......... Lundin Development Company
Location ........... Northwest corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street
Request ............ Request to amend the text of the development
standards and design guidelines for the Specific Plan
and amend the site plan design adjacent to Avenue
50 for a 100,500 square foot shopping center.
Action .............. Resolution 2002-
Item .................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-437,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-081, ZONE
CHANGE 2001-104, SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016,
AMENDMENT #1, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
30357
Applicant ..........
Toll Brothers, Inc.
Location ...........
The east side of Jefferson Street between Avenue
50 and Avenue 52.
Request ............
Request for approval of an Environmental
Assessment; a General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change to change 14 acres at the northeastern
corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 from Low
Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial; a
Specific Plan Amendment modifying standards and
guidelines for the construction of 490 single family
residences, 60 fractional ownership units, an 18 hole
golf course and a 14 acre neighborhood shopping
center; and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide
portions of the project area into 178 residential lots,
lots for future residential subdivision, casitas
development, golf course, maintenance and
clubhouse facility lots, and other lettered lots for
streets and other facilities.
Action ..............
Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002- ,
Resolution 2002-, Resolution 2002- and
Resolution 2002-
PC/AGENDA
F
Item ................. CODE COMPLIANCE CASE 3859
Applicant .......... Christopher D. Kiernan
Location ........... 46-201 Washington Street (Point Happy Ranch)
Request ............ Appeal of Public Nuisance Notice regarding a halogen
light on the south side of the property line, on the hill
in front of a residential structure.
Action .............. Resolution 2002-
Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-431,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-080, AND
ZONE CHANGE 2001-103
Applicant .......... TD Desert Development
Location ........... Bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60,
and Madison Street. Also, also a portion of the area
east Monroe Street between Avenue 59 and Avenue
61.
Request ....... 1. A) Certification of an Addendum to Riverside
County Environmental Assessment No. 232;
B) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact for the area bounded by
Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and
Madison Street, outside of Riverside County
Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1;
2. Change the land use designation from:
A► Medium Residential, Medium High Residential,
and Golf Course, Community Facilities and
Commercial as shown in Riverside County
Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1 to Low
Density Residential, Medium Density Residential,
Major Community Facilities, Neighborhood and
Community Commercial;
B) From Agriculture to Low Density Residential for
the area bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street,
Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside of
Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218,
Amendment #1;
3. Change the zoning from:
A) Riverside County designation Specific Plan as
shown in Riverside County Specific Plan No.
218, Amendment #1 to Low Density Residential,
Medium Density Residential, Golf Course, Major
Community Facilities, Neighborhood and
Community Commercial;
B) From Agriculture to Low Density Residential and
Golf Course Bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe
Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside
of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218,
Amendment #1.
Action .............. Continue to January 22, 2002
PC/AGENDA
H. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-722
Applicant .......... Wayne Price, Price's Nursery and Supply, Inc.
Location ........... 80-420 Avenue 52
Request ............ Development plans for a 3,600 square foot
equipment storage building and convert a mobile
home residence into an office.
Action .............. Resolution 2002-
Item .................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-083, AND
ZONE CHANGE 2001-105 AND SPECIFIC PLAN
2001-055 "THE GATEWAY"
Applicant ..........
City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Location ...........
The southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles
Avenue.
Request ............
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for an Environmental
Assessment; General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change from High Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential and Tourist Commercial; and
review of development principles and design
guidelines for Tourist Commercial uses including
hotels, and retail related uses, and residential
development including townhouses and single family
residences.
Action ..............
Continue to January 22, 2002
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on the City Council meeting of January 3, 2002
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
December 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 Robbins 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, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal
Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty
Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Agenda be kept as presented and not
combine Public Hearing Items E and F. It was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to hear Public Hearing Items E and F
separately. Unanimously approved.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
B. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
November 27, 2001. Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 4 be amended
to include the discussion regard traffic counts and specialty retail.
Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 8 be amended to move the result of
the vote to after the motion. There being no further corrections, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to approve the
minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
C. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 2001-415 Tentative Tract Map 29963, and
Street Name Change 2001-013; a request of La Quinta Construction for
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact;
approval of a subdivision of approximately 13.4 acres into six estate
single family lots that are 2.15 acres in size and larger; and initiation of
a street name change from Kirk Court to Coral Mountain Drive for the
property located at the northwest corner of Kirk Court and Avenue 58.
1. Staff informed the Commission that a letter had been received
from the applicant requesting a continuance to January 8, 2002.
Staff was recommending the continuance.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to
continue this item to January 8, 2002. Unanimously approved.
B. Environmental Assessment 2001-417 and Tentative Tract Map 30092,
Amendment #1; a request of Barton Properties for certification of a
revised Environmental Assessment and approval of the subdivision of
approximately 38.4 acres into 130 single family and other common lots
for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and
Monroe Street.
1. Staff informed the Commission that a letter had been received
from the applicant requesting a continuance to January 8, 2002.
Staff was recommending the continuance.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to
continue this item to January 8, 2002. Unanimously approved.
C. Site Development Permit 2001-719; a request of Puerta Azul Holdings,
for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for four prototype
resort villa units with two facades each and a two story 5,274 square
foot Greathouse (Clubhouse).
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 for clarification on the height of the
units. Staff stated they were up to 18 feet. Commissioner
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
Robbins asked if they would be able to achieve two stories. Staff
stated yes. Commissioner Robbins asked why the Architecture
and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) had requested a
mudded tile roof. Staff stated they thought it would give a more
authentic look.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked why the ALRC did not want the color
change at the base of the columns. Staff stated they thought it
would look better without the color change.
4. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with the deletion of the
wood garage doors, but asked if it would not be too restrictive on
the applicant to limit him to a composite door. He recommended
it be either composite or metal.
5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant if they would
explain how the common wall worked; Unit 2A side elevation has
very little detail; Unit 2B appears different on the colored drawings
than on the black and white version; Unit 4A also has very little
detail on the ground floor side elevation; and whether or not they
agreed with the ALRC recommendations. Mr. Steve McCormick,
representing the applicant, stated that in regard to the common
wall between the two adjacent units, this is a zero lot line where
one of the units borrows space from the other. This is a use
easement instead of a lot line which allows for a more useable
yard space instead of having a fence down the middle with two
narrow sideyards. Mr. Glen Walters, Design Workshop, explained
the use easement area. It has to do with increased usability
without sacrificing privacy, and the area is not visible to the
surrounding public, therefore, less detail on the walls.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had any objection to the
ALRC recommendations. Mr. McCormick stated he interpreted
their intent was to bring more detail to the Greathouse because it
was the focal point of the community. In concept they agree with
the recommendations, if they can afford the cost. In regard to the
color on the columns, they had no objection. Mr. McCormick gave
a presentation on the project. Mr. Glen Walters gave a
presentation on the landscaping plan.
6. Commissioner Tyler questioned the use of the Jacaranda trees on
the street as they would be very messy. The Desert Willow can
be beautiful only at certain times of the year, but is also deciduous
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
and at the peak of the season it will have dead branches. Mr.
Walters stated the biggest consideration forming their plant
pallette was water conservation. They will take this under
advisement and see if there are better alternatives.
7. Commissioner Butler questioned the location of the two story units
on the perimeter. As currently plotted there would be one two
story adjacent what right now is nothing, but it opens the issue
that if they build two story units it will allow the adjacent property
owner to build a two story house. Also, in regard to the letter that
indicates the two story units would not be on the perimeter but on
the interior. Mr. Walters stated the letter misinterpreted the
concept of the project and what was approved under the Specific
Plan. There are a limited number of two story units as part of the
clusters. Commissioner Butler stated he didn't question the
number, but the plotting of the clusters placing all the two story
units on the perimeter of the project. Mr. Walters stated the way
the clusters are positioned now, it works the best for this project.
Commissioner Butler asked staff if the two story units were
approved on the perimeter under the Specific Plan. Staff stated
it was not specifically stated, but according to the Zoning Code it
is based on who builds first.
8. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding
this project. There being no further discussion, the public
participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for
Commission discussion.
9. Commissioner Robbins stated his only concern was the use of two
story units on the perimeter of the project. He would recommend
restricting two story units from being built on the south property
line.
10. Commissioner Kirk stated he would agree with Commissioner
Robbins, although this should have been addressed during the
Specific Plan approval, but he would concur with Commissioner
Robbins. He commended the applicant on his product and
presentation.
11. Chairman Abels stated he concurred with the comments that had
been made.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
12. Commissioner Butler asked if the clusters could be rotated. Mr.
Walters explained the second story was not a true story. It is
more of an architectural feature. Discussion followed as to the
construction and location of the two story units. Mr. Walters
stated they had no objection.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked if the development on Kirk Street would
back up to this project. He has a concern about setting a
precedent that the Zoning Code governs over.
14. Commissioner Butler stated this is normally an issue because there
are adjacent properties and in this instance there are no adjacent
units. Is this setting a precedent. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated the only affect is that once the first
unit is built, no matter which project is first, the property owner
who builds a two story will allow the adjoining property owner to
build a two story. Discussion followed regarding the affect of a
two story unit on an adjoining property owner.
15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-148, approving Site Development Permit 2001-
719, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
C. Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1; a request of Warner Engineering
for Lundin Development Company for an amendment to the text
development standards and design guidelines and an amendment to the
site plan design adjacent to Avenue 50 for a 100,500 square foot
shopping center located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and
Avenue 50.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins asked if the primary concern of staff was
that no berming would be provided on the streetscape. Staff
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
stated that is true. Commissioner Robbins asked the depth of the
retention basins. Staff stated it is approximately five or six feet
deep.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if there were any standards in terms of
the number of curb cuts for access on commercial projects like
this or is it a decision made by staff. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated the General Plan requires it to be a minimum, which is a
judgement call of staff. If the City Council and/or Planning
Commission believes that what is being requested is too many,
staff has reviewed it and determined it will work and it is not an
unsafe situation. Staff has recommended eliminating the public
access on the fourth access point requested by the applicant. The
only minimum stated in the General Plan is how close they can be
to a signalized intersection. Other than that staff indicates they
should keep the driveways to a minimum. Commissioner Kirk
stated one of the applicant's rationale for the increased number of
accesses is the concentration of traffic on the previous access
points. Staff stated this was a statement of the applicant.
4. Commissioner Butler asked if the fourth access would also be an
access for the smaller pads. Would this close off truck traffic to
service the smaller pads. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated
those stores would be serviced from the front instead of the rear.
5. Commissioner Tyler questioned the number of driveways when
you consider these as well as the adjacent tracts. Staff stated it
is an issue before the Commission for their determination.
Discussion followed regarding the access points. Commissioner
Tyler questioned the gate at the north property line that would be
gated to the tract. Staff stated a condition had been added not
allowing the gate.
6. Commissioner Butler asked staff where the retention basins would
go if not allowed in the setback. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated they would either lose parking spaces or work with the
adjoining property owner to create the basin.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked if the sign program had been approved.
Staff stated -the applicant is conditioned to bring a final sign
program back to the Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1 2-11 -01.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
Commissioner Tyler asked about the need for future expansion for
right turns; is this still required? Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated this has already been acquired.
8. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Mike Smith, Warner Engineering, representing
the applicant, explained their request.
9. Commissioner Tyler asked about the roadways in the rear of the
buildings and why he thought the Fire Department would want to
use it. Mr. Smith stated they had no objection to making it an
emergency exit or right turn out.
10. Commissioner Butler questioned whether or not the landscape
architect would be able to buffer the parking lot without berms.
Mr. Smith stated he was proposing to use short walls and plant
materials. Commissioner Butler stated the driveways could be
obstructed by the landscaping plan. Commissioner Butler asked
what the elevation was of the parking lot. Mr. Smith stated it was
hard to read.
11. Commissioner Kirk asked about the concrete pipe. Mr. Smith
stated this was a proposed solution if they could not use the
retention basin in the landscape setback. Commissioner Kirk
asked if the applicant knew about the deceleration upon the initial
approval. Mr. Smith stated yes they did and it was given to the
City. Commissioner Kirk asked if the percolation rate had
changed. Mr. Smith stated it is less than what is contained in the
soils report. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the City's
standard has always been 2-inches per hour maximum.
Commissioner Kirk questioned why another access point was
needed. Mr. Smith stated to accommodate the buildings in the
"L" shaped area.
12. Mr. Greg Bever, Lundin Development, explained the purpose in
regard to adding the accesses. Commissioner Kirk asked why the
access to the east would not accommodate the shops instead of
adding the additional access. Mr. Bever stated it would give
better access to the pads.
13. Commissioner Robbins noted there is no deceleration lane for the
main entrance off Avenue 50. There is a deceleration lane on the
two smaller accesses and this seems backwards. Senior Engineer
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
Steve Speer stated the Municipal Code requires 90 feet of throat
depth for an access to a parking lot. This particular site is
constrained along its frontage making the site shallow front to
back in several locations. As a result of not having the 90 feet,
staff was allowing to use a deceleration lane. Staff noted they are
not moving the right-of-way line which should be done as the City
does not want the curb back of the right-of-way line. Staff
considers this as an alternative and does believe it is being
overused in this instance. It is not needed on the main entrance
because the throat going into the parking lot is 90 feet.
14. Commissioner Tyler asked if the parking lot on the west end was
employee parking. Mr. Bever stated it was. With regards to using
the retention basin, it is a large economic repercussion for them.
They do comply along Avenue 50 with the 20-foot landscaping
setback. As far as a visual buffer for those traveling on Jefferson
Street there is 60-feet of dense landscaping which will allow them
the depth to provide visual screening.
15. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding
this project. There being no further discussion, the public
participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for
Commission discussion.
16. Commissioner Robbins stated that conceptually he has no problem
with the retention basin encroaching into the landscape setback.
He is concerned with the northerly part of Jefferson street where
the retention basin backs up to the two fast food pads, as they are
not usually maintained. He would be more comfortable if they had
a landscape plan the Commission could review. On the other hand
he does not want to create a high water usage landscape plan.
17. Commissioner Kirk stated he also has a concern with the retention
basin, but believes it could be resolved. On the access issue,
there are too many curb cuts. If an emergency access is needed,
then he cold support it as an exit only. Regarding the minor
setback issue, he supports the applicant's request.
18. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs with the lack of detail on
the landscape plan. If it were in more detail, he could probably
agree with the retention basin request. In regard to the access, he
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
would agree with closing off the one on the western end and
making it an emergency access only. This would still allow three
accesses on Avenue 50 and three on Jefferson Street.
19. Commissioner Tyler stated the Specific Plan states on Page 12
that the trees will be mature in 15-20 years. He would like to see
a more detailed landscaping plan before approving it. He does
believe there is a need for all the access points as requested.
Also, he would like to see the access in the rear of the pads
eliminated.
20. Mr. Smith requested this project be continued to allow them time
to bring a landscape plan back to the Commission. He noted the
entry to the north to the tract will not be gated.
21. Commissioner Kirk suggested the applicant be given direction as
to what to bring back. He needs to address the access points and
prepare a landscape plan. Discussion followed regarding access
points.
22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to continued Specific Plan 98-034 ,
Amendment #1, to January 8, 2002, as requested by the
applicant. Unanimously approved.
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:51 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
8:57 p.m.
E. Environmental Assessment 2001-433, General Plan Amendment 2001-
082 a request of the City for certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for an Environmental Assessment
and consideration of an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation
Element Table CIR-2 on Major Arterials to amend the minimum
intersection spacing of 2,600 feet for commercial frontage.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins asked staff to explain the purpose of this
request and if it conformed to General Plan. Staff stated this
project is being processed before the General Plan update can
occur.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked why 1,060 feet. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer stated the distance criteria evolved as a result of
accommodating something different than quarter -mile spacing.
Under the original General Plan, staff was doing spacing at 1,320
feet which is a quarter mile. Staff found it was difficult to get
driveways right at 1,320 feet, so staff softened the figure and
went to 1,200 feet. This even became difficult so staff looked at
what distance would be the most accommodating in a one mile
distance. That distance is 1,060 feet; you cannot fit the fourth
signal in, in a one mile distance. Commissioner Kirk stated the
analysis indicated that other than special circumstances, capacities
would not be affected on our major roadways and signals do not
affect capacities much in terms of through -put. Staff stated
intersections are where the impacts occur. Commissioner Kirk
stated he did not see this referenced much in terms of travel
times. What could be expected for instance, if a dozen more
signals were placed on Washington Street, it would not affect the
volume, but what would be the travel time? Staff stated there are
two ways of measuring the Level of Service. One is based on
delay and the City has used this method for several years. Level
of Service "D" takes into consideration delays and so far it is
considered acceptable. Commissioner Kirk stated it appeared to
be a measurement of volume versus capacity and not a delay
measurement. Is staff saying that by adding additional
intersections on our major Arterials, we would not expect
increases in delay. Staff stated there would be delays.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked why this application is being done on
a City-wide basis. From a safety factor you would want to reduce
the number of intersections. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste
explained the volume to capacity versus delay, as discussed by
Commissioner Kirk. For Level of Service "D" there is a range of
delay time that can be added in and still maintained Level D. In
this case the traffic engineer added the mitigation measures
regarding the interconnection of signals to optimize the movement
through a Major Arterial.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
4. There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
5. Commissioner Robbins stated he has no objection.
6. Commissioner Kirk stated he understands this would add more
signals. Staff stated it depends on whether or not it is a Primary
Arterial or Major Arterial. The current standard for Major Arterials
use 2,600 feet and this will add a potential of two more signals a
mile where the street is adjacent to commercial property. It has
more to do with Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, if it
meets warrants.
7. Commissioner Butler asked if one of the entrances to the shopping
center will have a signal. Staff stated yes, the one at the south
end closest to the canal and the condition will be rewritten to
allow a full turn movement. Commissioner Butler asked if this was
not counterproductive to the round -a -bout. Staff stated that as
you start coordinating signals, if you keep them within the 1,060
feet range rather than the half mile range, the platoon of cars will
stay together better and make it through the coordinating system.
The further apart the signals are the more the cars will stretch out
and will not work well on a coordinating system.
8. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a traffic analysis completed.
Staff stated it was a policy analysis. Commissioner Kirk asked
how these determinations were made without an analysis. Staff
stated they were referring to a traffic analysis in general where a
Level of Service "D" represents a range of acceptable traffic flow
at intersections. Discussion followed regarding traffic flow.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-150 certifying the Environmental Assessment.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Tyler. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-151 recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-082, as submitted.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 11
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Tyler. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
F. Environmental Assessment 2001-433, Specific Plan 2001-0454,
Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-
71 1; a request of RLF Development for certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an Environmental
Assessment, Consideration of an amendment to the City's General Plan
Circulation Element Table CIR-2 on Major Arterials to allow the minimum
intersection spacing to be 2,600 feet for commercial frontage as
previously required, review of design guidelines and development
standards for a 120,000 square foot shopping center; consideration to
allow a gas station; and review of development plans to include a
supermarket, associated retail tenants, bank, and drugstore for the
property located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson
Street.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked what mechanical equipment they were
referring to on Page 25 of the Environmental Assessment. Staff
stated it was the market's trash compactors. Construction hours
would be governed by the Zoning Code. Commissioner Tyler
asked about the proposed changes submitted by the Public Works
Department. Senior Engineer Steve Speer noted additional
changes being proposed by staff.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked staff why when a specific plan is
submitted they all seem to contained a different tone and
structure; is staff giving the applicants specific plan guidelines?
Staff stated they are each given examples and a standard outline
and this is how they chose to present it. Commissioner Kirk
stated that if the specific plan is silent on any particular issue, he
assumes the Zoning Code will govern. Staff stated that was true.
Commission Kirk questioned why lighting was mentioned. Staff
stated just to bring it to the applicant's attention. Commissioner
Kirk asked how the nursery could function as a retention basin, as
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
he thought it was an interesting idea. Staff explained there is no
hydrology study to base any opinion on. Commissioner Kirk asked
if the applicant were to expand the size of the retention basin
volume to accommodate a commercial nursery would the City be
interested. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the City would
need to see the details of what was being proposed. There are
some uses you can have in a retention basin.
4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Richard Frandsen, principal in the project, gave
a presentation on the project. In regard to percolation, it seems
the same amount of water would be percolated. There have no
specific user and if the City does not think it will work, they
accept the conditions as recommended.
5. Chairman Abels asked if this supermarket will be adequate in size
for future planning. Mr. Frandsen stated it can be any size; the
average supermarket is 21-85,000 square feet. It is a matter of
the customer base.
6. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Abels
asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project.
There being no further discussion, the public participation portion
of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
7. Commissioner Robbins stated his concern is always the rear of the
building and how it will look to the residents to the south and
southeast. Without seeing additional detail and how it will
interface with the surrounding projects, he is unable to support it
at this time.
8. Commissioner Kirk stated he could support the project if staff
worked with the applicant to clean up the Specific Plan and if we
were allowed to be creative with the retention basin.
9. Commissioner Butler stated he did not see a plant pallette. Staff
stated it is contained in the attachments. Commissioner Butler
asked if the tree size proposed was adequate. Staff stated they
are.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
10. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was pedestrian access behind
the arch. Staff stated yes.
11. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-150, recommending certification a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental
Assessment 2001-433, as modified:
A. Addendum #1 1.A deleted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-152, recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2001-054, as modified:
A. Condition #43.A.2: Per Public Works revision.
B. Condition #45.A.: Include a full turn movement.
C. Condition #45.C.: Include a left turn in.
D. Condition #80: Remove reference to a building pad and
leave the nursery in but make it subject to City Engineer
approval.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Abels. NOES: Commissioner Robbins. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-153, recommending
approval of Conditional Use Permit 2001-066, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-154, recommending
approval of Site Development Permit 2001-71 1, as recommended.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 14
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
A. Condition #3: Coachella Valley Unified School District.
B. Condition #43.A(2): Per the Public Works Department
revisions.
C. Condition #49.A.: Include a full turn and left turn in.
D. Condition #49.C.: Include a left turn in.
E. Condition #71: Add: specific attention shall be to provide
articulation along all the buildings rear elevations.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Abels. NOES: Commissioner Robbins. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
F. Right of Way Vacations 2001-07, 08, 09, 010; a request of KSL Land
Corporation, The Keith Companies, Blaine and Susan Grimes, and La
Quinta Arts Foundation respectively, for a determination of consistency
with the La Quinta General Plan of the proposed right of way vacations
located on portions of Avenida Bermudas north of Calle Tampico, Calle
Amigo near Avenue 52, Lots 16 an 17 of Tract 2667, and Avenue 48
west of Washington Street.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Senior Engineer Steve Speer 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 who holds the easement on Westward
Ho Drive and do they agree with its elimination. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated that is a public utility easement and letters are
being sent out to the utilities for them to respond. Once the
Commission has determined whether or not there is a consistency
with the General Plan, it will then go the City Council for a Notice
of Intent to vacate and then a public hearing to make a decision on
the vacation.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-155, determining consistency with the General
Plan for Right of Way Vacations 2001-07, 08, 09, and 010 as
recommended.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 15
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of
December 4, 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 January 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. on December
1 1, 2001.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 16
PH #B
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2002 (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 11, 2001)
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-415, TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 29963, AND STREET NAME CHANGE 2001-013
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: DR. AND MRS. BRUCE BAUMANN
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2) SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 9.1 ACRES INTO FOUR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
AND ONE STREET (LETTERED) LOT; AND 3) INITIATION OF A
STREET NAME CHANGE FROM KIRK COURT TO CORAL
MOUNTAIN COURT
LOCATION: TERMINUS OF KIRK COURT, APPROXIMATELY 659.85 FEET
NORTH OF AVENUE 58
ENGINEER: COACHELLA VALLEY ENGINEERS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-415.
BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) AND RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
STPC29963 58`°Estates
41ots/48GREG
Page 1 of 4
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: HERMITAGE STREET (PRIVATE) IN PGA WEST WITH
SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL HOUSES BEYOND
SOUTH: VACANT RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PARCELS FRONTING
ONTO KIRK COURT AND AVENUE 58
EAST: VACANT AND A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
WEST: VACANT RESIDENTIAL PARCELS
BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission Action
The public hearings for this project occurred on November 13, 2001, and December
11, 2001, respectively, and the application was continued to allow the applicant to
make changes to the proposal.
Site History
The 9.1 acre site, consisting of two parcels, is vacant and fronts onto the terminus of
Kirk Court, an unimproved 50' wide cul-de-sac street that takes access from Avenue
58 (Attachment 1). Dense vegetation exists on portions of the site and a six-foot high
wall separates this site from PGA West properties to the north. Avenue 58, a public
street, is improved with two travel lanes, one in each direction; curbs and sidewalk
improvements are not present.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The Map proposes to create four estate single family lots that exceed two acres in size
(roughly 252' wide by 295' long). fronting onto proposed Coral Mountain Court
(Attachment 2). Under the subdivision request, the length of proposed Coral Mountain
Court has been increased by approximately 180 feet (Street Lot "A") to serve each lot.
Infrastructure improvements will be extended to the site to provide adequate urban
services, including two lanes (28' wide) of paving. As proposed, each lot will contain
its own stormwater retention facilities.
Concurrent with the land division request, Staff received a request to rename Kirk
Court to Coral Mountain Court (previously noted as Coral Mountain Drive). Regarding
this request, only four existing lots front onto the unimproved local street to which the
applicant owns two of the affected parcels. The two remaining residential property
STPC29963 581''Estates
41ots/48GREG
Page 2 of 4
owners on Kirk Court, to the south of the site, have not submitted written comments
opposing the change.
Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October
31, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no
comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments
received will be handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency Review: A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public
agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the
Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been
included in the recommended Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve this request pursuant to Section 13.12.130 of the Subdivision
Ordinance can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. Findings to
approve SNC 2001-013 have also been prepared and are contained in the attached
Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact (EA 2001-415) according to the findings set forth in the attached
Resolution;
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29963, subject to findings and
conditions; and
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council that a public hearing be held to consider changing Kirk Court to Coral
Mountain Court.
Attachments:
1 . Location Map
2. Reduced Tract Map Exhibit
3. Large Exhibit (Planning Commission Only)
STPC29963 581hEstates
41ots/48GREG
Page 3 of 4
Submitted by:
ell, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Plan ing Manager
STPC29963 58thEstates
41ots/48GREG
Page 4 of 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-415
APPLICANT: DR. AND MRS. BRUCE BAUMANN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 131h day of November, 2001, 1 1 th day of December, 2001, and 81h day of
January, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearings for Environmental Assessment 2001-
415 for Tentative Tract Map 29963, located at the northernmost terminus of Kirk
Court which is approximately 659' north of Avenue 58, more particularly described as
follows:
Parcels 1 & 2 of Parcel Map 8843, including portions of Kirk Court;
APN: 762-240-007 and -008
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-415,
Revised) and has determined that although the proposed residential development could
have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant
effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the
assessment and included in the conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to recommend to the City Council
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1 . The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2001-415.
2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
P:\GREG\EA PCResoTTM29963 4 lot.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Environmental Assessment 2001-415 for TTM 29963
January 8, 2002
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map does not have the potential to achieve short-
term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals,
as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
revised Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not result in impacts which are
individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the
area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
415 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Deveiopment Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
P:\GREG\EA PCResoTTM29963 4 lot.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Environmental Assessment 2001-415 for TTM 29963
January 8, 2002
2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment
2001-415 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the
Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community
Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-415 reflects the independent judgment
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 81h day of January, 2002, 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
P:\GREG\EA PCResoTTM29963 4 lot.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 9.1
ACRES INTO FOUR SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE AND ONE
LETTERED STREET LOTS LOCATED AT THE
NORTHERNMOST TERMINUS OF KIRK COURT,
APPROXIMATELY 659 FEET NORTH OF AVENUE 58
CASE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29963
APPLICANT: DR. AND MRS. BRUCE BAUMANN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California
did, on the 131h day of November, 2001, and 1 1 th day of December, 2001, and 8th day
of January, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider a request by the
Baumann Family to create four single family and one lettered street lots on 9.1 acres
located at the northerly terminus of Kirk Court in an Low Density Residential (RL)
Zoning District, more particularly described as:
Parcels 1 & 2 of Parcel Map 8843, including portions of Kirk Court;
APN: 762-240-007 and -008
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has
completed Environmental Assessment 2001-415. Based upon this assessment, the
project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended.
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify a recommendation
to the City Council for approval of said Map:
Finding A - Consistency with General Plan, Zoning Code and any applicable Specific
Plan
The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The Land Use Element of
the General Plan encourages differing residential developments throughout the City.
This project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General
AAResoPC T29963 CV Eng. on 58th.wpd - Greg 48
Ref: TT30125
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
TTM 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
Page 2
Plan insofar as the creation of estate residential lots (0.43 dwelling units per acre) will
provide another type of housing market for La Quinta residents while not exceeding
the City's maximum density of four units per acre. Concerning the construction of Kirk
Court to its ultimate width, Conditions are recommended requiring two lanes of paving
from the site to Avenue 58 and obligations for expansion of Avenue 58 to its ultimate
width based on the City's General Plan Circulation Element provisions.
The property is designated Low Density Residential (RL) and is consistent with the
City's General Plan Land Use Element. The estate lots exceed the City's minimum of
7,200 square feet. No houses are proposed for the project under this application.
All plans for future single family homes shall be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code in effect at the time building permits are acquired. The development of
the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area.
Finding B - Site Design and Improvements
Infrastructure improvements to serve this project are located in the immediate area and
will be extended based on the recommended Conditions of Approval. Extending Kirk
Court to the north will not adversely impact surrounding areas nor impact
implementation of Section 13.24.070(F) of the Subdivision Ordinance in that flag lots
would be required to serve the newly created lots which is not a preferred alternative
for Fire Department serve needs. The private street cul-de-sac bulb extension will
provide street frontages for the future houses that meet Zoning Code requirements,
as prepared.
Improvements on Avenue 58 will be guaranteed as required by the City's General Plan
Circulation Element at the time the final map is considered pursuant to Section
13.20.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Findings C through E - Compliance with the California Environmental Qaulity Act
Various environmental studies were prepared for this project, and after careful
evaluations, the Historic Preservation Commission and various City Departments have
determined that the proposed Map could not have a significant adverse impact on the
A:\ResoPC T29963 CV Eng. on 58th.wpd - Greg 48
Ref: TT30125
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
TTM 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
Page 3
environment provided that recommended mitigation is required pursuant to
Environmental Assessment 2001-415.
Finding F - Public Health Concerns
The design of the proposed subdivision map and related improvements are not likely
to cause serious public health problems, in that responsible agencies have reviewed
the project for these issues with no significant concerns identified. The health, safety
and welfare of current and future residents can be assured based on the recommended
conditions, which serve to implement mitigation measures for the project.
Site improvements comply with City requirements, provided on -site water retention is
handled on the private lots, or a common basin. Dust control measures shall be
required during any further on -site construction work as required by Chapter 6.16 of
the Municipal Code. The site is physically suitable for the proposed land division, as
the area is flat and without physical constraints, and the Map is consistent with other
surrounding parcels.
Finding G - Site Design (Public Easements)
Public easements will be retained and required in order to construct any houses on the
proposed lots, ensuring adequate facilities for future homeowners in compliance with
Section 13.24.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
said Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2001-415 in that no significant effects on the
environment were identified, provided mitigation measures are met; and
3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Tentative Tract
AAResoPC T29963 CV Eng. on 58th.wpd - Greg 48
Ref: TT30125
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
TTM 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
Page 4
Map 29963, 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 81h day of January, 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOTES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
AAResoPC T29963 CV Eng. on 58th.wpd - Greg 48
Ref: TT30125
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29963, BAUMANN FAMILY
JANUARY 8, 2002
GENERAL
1. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of
TTM 29963 and certification of EA 2001-415. The City of La Quinta shall have
the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Map approval shall expire and become null and void within two years of
approval unless an extension of time is granted according to the requirements
of Section 13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
3. This tentative tract map, and any Final Map thereunder, shall comply with the
requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58
(the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code
("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site
at http://la-quinta.org.
4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City,
the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the
following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
cond PC T29963 41ot-gt48 Page 1 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq., and 13.24.170,
LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources
Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ .
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of
land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than
five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that
encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be
required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for
inspection at the project site at all times through and including
acceptance of all improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020, LQMC):
1 . Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2. Temporary Sediment Control.
3. Wind Erosion Control.
4. Tracking Control.
5. Non -Storm Water Management.
6. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved
by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in
relation to this project.
cond PC T29963 4lot-gt48 Page 2 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working
order throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements
have been accepted by the City.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements.
7. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Tract Map all private street
right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
8. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
A. CUL DE SACS
1. Lot "A" - Kirk Court/Coral Mountain Court (Cul-de-sac): Use
Riverside County Standard 800 for symmetrical Cul De Sacs.
9. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public
utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets.
Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written
approval of HD.
10. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins,
mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map.
11. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and
properties from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting
those access points shown on the Final Map.
cond PC T29963 41ot-gt48 Page 3 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will
occur.
13. Before the applicant may be permitted to vacate, or abandon, any existing right-
of-way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any
properties owned by others, the applicant shall submit a proposed alternate
right-of-way or access easement to those properties, or shall submit notarized
letters of consent from all affected property owners; the final approval of which
rests with the City.
14. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the tentative
tract map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is
approved by the City Engineer.
FINAL MAP(S)
15. Applicant is not required to refile for a new parcel map number.
16. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker
on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a
standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD
program.
Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a
file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept
a raster -image file of such Final Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed
to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
cond PC T29963 4lot-gt48 Page 4 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
17. The following improvement plans shall be required for this tentative tract map,
and prepared to the scale specified:
A. On -Site Street Plans (Including Kirk Court to Avenue 58): 1 " = 40'
Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and
separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk,
mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback
area.
B. Grading Plans: 1 " = 50'
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show
all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of
Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover,
or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
18. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the
provisions of Section 13.24.040, LQMC.
19. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the
applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction
notes from the City.
20. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The
files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully
retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order
to reflect the as -built conditions.
cond PC T29963 41ot-gt48 Page 5 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD
format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City
Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
21. Prior to the conditional approval of any Final Map, or the issuance of any
permit(s), the applicant shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision
Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the future construction of 50%
(fifty percent) of the improvements of the half width of Avenue 58, from the
intersection of the southerly prolongation of the easterly lot line of lots 3 & 4
with the northerly right-of-way line of Avenue 58 to the intersection of the
southerly prolongation of the westerly lot line of lots 1 & 2 with the northerly
right-of-way line of Avenue 58; along with the necessary appurtenant pavement
transitions. Such half width improvements shall comply with the Primary
Arterial street construction standards of the General Plan in effect at the time
of approval of this tentative tract map.
22. Prior to the conditional approval of any Final Map, or the issuance of any
permit(s), the applicant shall either fully construct and satisfy its obligations for
same, or furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement
Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of Lot "A" (Kirk Court/Coral
Mountain Court Cul-de-sac).
23. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between
the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the
completion of any improvements related to this tentative tract map, shall
comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28, LQMC.
24. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of
any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the
proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey
monumentation.
25. Depending on the timing of the development of this tentative tract map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required
to: (1) construct certain off -site improvements, (2) construct additional off -site
improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others, (3)
reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are
considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map, (4) secure the costs
for future improvements that are to be made by others, or (5) to agree to any
combination of these means, as the City may require.
cond PC T29963 4lot-gt48 Page 6 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final
Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the
costs of such improvements.
26. Prior to any conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the
applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -
site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey
monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such
estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution,
or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for the
conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall
also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the
Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's
detailed cost estimates for its own on and off -site improvements.
Cost estimates for the security of telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements will not be required.
Development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance by
the City Council until the City has received confirmation from the telephone
authority that the applicant has met all the requirements for telephone service
to all lots within the development.
27. In the event the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the
development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely
manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or
final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development
of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
28. The applicant shail comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
cond PC T29963 4lot-gt48 Page 7 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
29. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
30. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer, and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Maps that a soils report has been prepared
in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
31. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped
land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such
other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control
Plan.
32. 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.
33. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or
surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved
grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if
any. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if
submitted at different times.
cond PC T29963 4lot-gt48 Page 8 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
DRAINAGE
34. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03.
35. Nuisance water shall be retained on site.
36. Individual lot retention is approved for Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4. The applicant shall
meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24.120 K, LQMC.
UTILITIES
37. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
38. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves,
and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic
purposes.
39. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development,
and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles
are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
40. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply
with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City
Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
41. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Off -Site
Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally), LQMC, for public
streets.
cond PC T29963 4lot-gt48 Page 9 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
42. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements
shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1. Avenue 58 - No improvements are required at this time. However,
the applicant shall enter into a secured Subdivision Improvement
Agreement for the deferred improvements of 50% (fifty percent)
of the half width improvements of Avenue 58 to City Standards
as outlined in the General Plan in effect on the date of Council
approval of this tentative tract map.
B. ON -SITE PUBLIC STREETS
1. Kirk Court/Coral Mountain Court (Local Street) - Construct 28-foot
paved street section, for ultimate 36-foot wide street improvement
as measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline, from south
boundary line to Avenue 58. (710-feet ±).
Provide appropriate off -site pavement transition from south
boundary line to Kirk Court/Coral Mountain Court.
2. Kirk Court/Coral Mountain Court (Existing Public Cul-de-sac) -
Construct improvements similar to Riverside County Standard 800,
to conform to existing and proposed right-of-way line, and provide
a full 36-foot wide paved throat through the Cul-de-sac.
C. ON -SITE PRIVATE STREETS
1 . Kirk Court/Coral Mountain Court (Lot "A") (Cul de sac) - Construct
per Riverside County Standard 800.
2. Gated entries shall provide for a two -car minimum stacking
capacity for inbound traffic; and shall provide for a full turnaround
outlet for non -entry accepted vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a
detailed exhibit at a 1 " = 10' scale, demonstrating that those
passenger vehicles that do not gain entry can safely make a "U"
cond PC T29963 4lot-gt48 Page 10 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
Turn back out onto Kirk Court/Coral Mountain Court from the
gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided at the entry gate side, one
lane for residents, and one lane for visitors.
43. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength
and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum
structural sections shall be as follows:
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
44. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. Primary Entry (Avenue 58): Full turn in, Full turn out.
45. 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.
46. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved
by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
47. Standard corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings
#805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
CONSTRUCTION
48. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
time of construction) for base, asphaltic concrete and Portland cement concrete.
The submittal shall include the test results for all specimens used in the mix
design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall
include the most recent (less than six months old at the time of construction)
aggregate gradation test results confirming that the design gradations can be
cond PC T29963 41ot-gt48 Page 11 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction
operations until mix designs have been approved.
LANDSCAPING
49. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscape Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscape Plans), LQMC.
50. The applicant shall provide estimates for the landscaping in the required
setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas in the secured
Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the deferred improvement of Avenue
58.
51. 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 the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant
shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
52. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with
no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public
streets.
53. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all
required landscaping in a healthy and viable condition as required by Section
9.60.240 (E3) of the Zoning Ordinance.
54. Trees shall be staked with 1.5-inch diameter lodge poles to protect against
damage from gusting winds.
55. Prior to building permit issuance, a front yard landscape plan shall be prepared
for each homesite to include a minimum of two shade trees (15 gallon with
0.75 caliper), five ten-gallon shrubs, and groundcover.
cond PC T29963 4lot-gt48 Page 12 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
QUALITY ASSURANCE
56. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
57. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such
other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with
which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate
construction supervision.
58. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements,
sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program,
but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction
materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and
other applicable regulations.
59. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by
the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or
"As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant
shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City,
revised to reflect the as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
60. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
61. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access
drives, and sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
62. 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.
63. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC.
cond PC T29963 4lot-gt48 Page 13 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
64. The developer shall pay school mitigation fees to the Coachella Valley Unified
School District based on their requirements. Fees shall be paid prior to building
permit issuance by the City.
65. Within ten days of Planning Commission's decision for TTM 29963, the
property owner/developer shall submit to the Community Development
Department a check made out to the County of Riverside in the amount of
$64.00 to permit the filing and posting of EA 2001-415 (DeMinimus) after final
review by the City Council.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
66. Applicant/developer will furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to
the Fire Department for review and approval. Plans shall conform to the fire
hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans will be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and
the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the
design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed
by the Riverside County Fire Department."
67. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot.
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'-8".
Parking is permitted on one side of roadways with a minimum width of 28 feet.
Parking is permitted on both sides of the roadways with a minimum width of 36
feet.
69. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 1,500
g.p.m. and an actual fire flow available from anyone hydrant will be 1,000
g.p.m. for a two-hour duration at 20 psi. residual operating pressure. Minimum
thrust velocities shall not exceed 10 feet per second.
70. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with
fire hydrants.
cond PC T29963 4lot-gt48 Page 14 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29963, Baumann Family
January 8, 2002
71. Applicant/developer will provide written certification from the appropriate water
company that the required fire hydrant(s) are either existing or that financial
arrangements have been made to provide them.
MISCELLANEOUS
72. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file
documents for plan checking purposes.
73. Custom house design guidelines shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission per Section 9.60.340 of the Zoning Ordinance.
74. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and R's) for the project shall
be submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval concurrently with
review of the Final Tract Map. Recordation of the CC and R's is required.
cond PC T29963 4lot-gt48 Page 15 of 15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR
KIRK COURT TO CORAL MOUNTAIN COURT
CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 2001-013
APPLICANT: DR. BRUCE R. BAUMANN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 13" day of November, 2001, 11 to day of December, 2001, and 8tn day of
January, 2002, hold duly noticed public hearings to consider a street name change for
Kirk Court (Street Lots A-C of Parcel Map 8834) to Coral Mountain Court (previously
noted as Coral Mountain Drive), pursuant to Section 14.08.1 10 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code, and recommended approval subject to a public hearing being held
during consideration of Tentative Tract Map 29963 before the City Council on
February 5, 2002; and
WHEREAS, said street name change consideration has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Community
Development Department has determined that the proposed street name change is
categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301(Class 1 c) of the Guidelines and no
further review is deemed necessary; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation to the City
Council for approval of Street Name Change 2001-013:
1 . Due to the landowner controlling two of the four lots fronting onto Kirk Court,
an unimproved street established under Parcel Map 8834 in 1980;
2. Changing the street name will not create confusion for the public or hinder
emergency response based on written responses for Tentative Tract Map 29963
and Street Name Change 2001-013; and
3. No written letters of protest were received from adjacent property owners who
have been mailed a copy of the public notice concurrently with the posting of
Tentative Tract Map 29963.
A:\Reso SNC for TR 29963.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Street Name Change 2001-013
January 8, 2002
Page 2
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; and
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of Street Name Change 2001-013, subject to Kirk Court being
renamed Coral Mountain Court per Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 8t' day of January, 2002, 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
A:\Reso SNC for TR 29963.wpd
EXHIBIT A
PcxA West Resort
I
e�
qS toxox �a �
a_
nm ewas
PAR I
O
10 03 AC OR
moos I
11
PAR 2 1 1 P
O it
4 63 AC 1 1 4
11
�I
aw of
CASE 14M
i
CASE MAP
STREET NAME CHANGE 2001-013
KIRK COURT TO
CORAL MOUNTAIN COURT
,RA 22 02"660
28 `I
Ml 10117 DADITI ►IAD NA 9177 I
I -NORTH
SCALE: Nip',
ATTACHMENTS
1-11
PGA West Resort
SO A67 � 1
20 �"4
16707 tea
16 jTA Qr- TRA 02"60
,Misr" Sao as a o7
TRA 02 0 7s TRA 020-073
PAR 1
P 1
2 >"
O F
%
B S
7
4
4.
1003 AC OR
ACG
XAX
N n�
'
004
II
12
13
/
978AC
978AC
978AC
1700�
I 33007
37002
I =02
sel
I
PAR JI
I� PAR
PAR I
PARS
I ^
S
e
O I
I O
I
I
ESAC GR
B AC GR
Nal`th
463AC I
I 463AC
4.61ACNT I
1481ACNT
1Aa 0t I
I ao-,a01-1
Va> ".. ... i
I 33001
- " W ti- - - - 1 4 r-----
I
DATA: PM 192 6-2i O
PN 199P-2 766
07
w
1956=
Attachment 1 C
IONAr
1
�s r� C36
/ 25 1 9 98 AC 0_]
21 22
n 1 27
PM 19/77 PARCEL MAP N0, 6377
PM 75/65-66 PARCEL MAP NO. M
1 May gal
S
f.
I
64MV ID A -tv Us
Attachment Z
a
A
02
t A
F
>
0 t�
a
rq�
m
Q
O'
�ZQ
2
Y
°o
Z
m
y N
vmO
fl
m
�(ZIZ
o>°
o
{
>_U
3;gc-
C
°ZZF
mmOp.
V N
�
O
y
I
z��
O
OooA
Z
i��
m
o
�I
M
MC
0
M>Z
ZAO
>�
O
O
m
T
O O P
oil
I'
z
i H
AO
z�
O
p
O
1
c
...
.mo
@ ;
is 6 (® eH
e� • •p Ap�li�l) •o ; 11115 �1 �A ; 11 �I�
!� itlp¢ggilI
11 N
PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2002, CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 27,
2001
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-387, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 99-063, ZONE CHANGE 99-091, SPECIFIC
PLAN 99-039, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-659
APPLICANT: POINT HAPPY RANCH, LLC (MR. ROBERT SUNDSTROM)
ARCHITECT/PLANNER: THE GALLOWAY GROUP
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, APPROXIMATELY
350
FEET SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 (POINT HAPPY
RANCH)
REQUESTS: 1.)
CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AS DESCRIBED BELOW FOR THE PROJECT
2.)
CHANGE OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO OFFICE COMMERCIAL (OC)
FOR 5 ACRES OF THE 43 + ACRE SITE AND FROM
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) FOR 11.55 ACRES
FOR THE 62 VILLAS .
3.)
CHANGE OF ZONE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM
DENSITY (RM) TO OFFICE COMMERCIAL (CO) FOR
5 ACRES OF THE 43+ ACRE SITE AND FROM LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) TO MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL(RM).
4.)
SPECIFIC PLAN FOR DESIGN GUIDELINES AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SENIOR CARE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND TWO COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS ON THE 43+ ACRE SITE.
5.)
REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING
PLANS FOR SENIOR CARE UNITS CONSISTING OF
62 ONE STORY HIGH INDEPENDENT LIVING VILLA
UNITS IN DUPLEX TO 4-PLEX CONFIGURATIONS
WITH A TWO STORY CLUB BUILDING, AND 310
ROOMS FOR ASSISTED LIVING, INDEPENDENT
LIVING AND CONTINUING CARE IN TWO 2 TO 3
STORY HIGH BUILDINGS, A ONE STORY HIGH
p\stan\sp 99-039 et al jan 8 pc rpt.wpd
MAINTENANCE BUILDING, TWO COMMERCIAL
OFFICE BUILDINGS (TWO STORIES HIGH) WITH A
TOTAL OF 44,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA
AND A 9,500 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY HIGH
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
ZONING OF SITE: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), RM (MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL), AND OS (OPEN SPACE)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION OF SITE: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), MDR (MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), AND OS (OPEN SPACE)
SURROUNDING ZONING/
LAND USES: NORTH:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
BACKGROUND:
CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) / PLAZA LA
QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER
RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) / SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES AND OS (OPEN SPACE) /
VACANT HILLSIDES
M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) /
SHOPPING CENTER UNDER CONSTRUCTION
AND VACANT LAND
RESIDENTIAL IN THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS
/ VACANT HILLSIDES AND SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
This request was reviewed on November 27, 2001, and after discussion continued
to this meeting in order to allow time for further information to be submitted
(Attachment 1). Since that meeting Staff received a letter from the property owners,
Earl and Florence Kiernan, withdrawing their approval for the developers, Point Happy
Ranch, LLC, to process the proposed applications on the property. Therefore, Staff
is discontinuing processing of this request.
RECOMMENDATION:
No action is needed by the Planning Commission.
Attachment:
1. Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of November 27, 2001
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
-- - -- -- - - -
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
p\stan\sp 99-039 et al jan 8 pc rpt.wpd
ATTACHMENT #'
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
VI. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Environmental Assessment 99-387 General Plan Amendment 99 063
Zone Change 99-091 Specific Plan 99-039 and Site Development
Permit 99-659; a request of Point Happy Ranch LLC for: 1) Certification
of an Environmental Impact Report; 2) Change of General Plan Land Use
Designation from Medium Density Residential to Office Commercial for
five acres of the 43 + acre site and from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential for 11.55 acres for 62 villas; 3) Change of
Zone Designation from Medium Density to Office Commercial for five
acres of the 43 + acre site and from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential; 4) Specific Plan for design guidelines and
development standards for a senior care residential project and two
commercial buildings on the 43 + acre site; and 5) Review of
architectural and landscaping plans for senior care units consisting of 62
one story high independent living villa units in duplex to 4-plex
configurations with a two story club building, and 310 rooms for assisted
living, independent living and continuing care in two 2 to 3 story high
buildings, a one story high maintenance building, two commercial office
buildings (two stories high)' with a total of 44,000 square feet of floor
area and a 9,500 square foot one story high project administration
building, for the property located on the west side of Washington Street,
south of Highway 111.
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 palms trees shown on the site
plan represented what was actually there. Staff stated yes.
3. Commissioner Butler asked what the elevation difference was
between the project and the existing homes. Staff stated the
elevation was 67 feet and the top of the existing berm is 76.5
feet. The elevations proposed are in accordance with the grading
plan. Discussion followed regarding the grading and pad
elevations of the site.
4. Commissioner Kirk questioned why he had not received the Draft
Environmental Impact Report and asked if it was normal to receive
the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) this early in the
process. Staff stated the Commission had asked to receive the
GAMDOCSWC Minutes\PC11-27-01.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
Final EIR before making a recommendation. Commissioner Kirk
asked if there was a public hearing on the Draft EIR and if
comments would be taken on the Draft as well as the Final EIR.
Staff stated the comment period had ended and therefore
comments could not be taken on either. Commissioner Kirk asked
why the drainage was not being retained on site. Interim City
Engineer Steve Speer explained that at Washington Street and
Singing Palms it is the high point. Anything north of Singing
Palms drains to the channel and anything south of the Singing
Palms drains south. This site, as it is high enough, could drain into
the existing storm drain and they are conditioned to purchase the
capacity to do this. Commissioner Kirk asked if the EIR looked at
the alternative of building this site out with the current zoning and
General Plan designation and if this would create more or less
traffic generated as opposed to the proposed land use. If the
applicant did not request these changes to the General Plan and
Zoning Code, presumably they could come forward and build out
the project under the current General Plan and Zoning and that
would have some kind of an impact; is that greater or less than
what is proposed at this time. Staff stated this proposal will
generate more traffic than the existing zoning; about 1,600 more
trips a day. Commissioner Kirk asked if the proposed villas would
be 60 feet from the existing homes. Staff indicated where they
were to be constructed. Commissioner Kirk asked if the property
were to be developed under the existing zoning, how close could
the homes be built to the existing properties. Staff stated 20 feet.
Commissioner Kirk noted the proposed villas are 40 feet further
from the existing homes than they could be under the existing
zoning.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to again explain the traffic as
what was stated seemed inconsistent. In the Alternative Section
6.0-5 under the existing General Plan Alternative, it states the
number of trips would be a 29% decrease and on Section 8 it
states something different. Interim City Engineer Steve Speer
explained that if the project was built out in accordance with the
existing zoning and General Plan it would be a decrease of 700
trips per day. The all residential Low Density was another
alternative, but would be less than what the current General Plan
allows. The current General Plan designation would allow 1,766
trips a day and the proposed would allow 2,494 trips. This is
based on using the Specialty Commercial trip generation
(sAWPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-27-01.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
classification which generates more trips than if the office trip
generation classification was used. It appears they have identified
the wrong category to generate their traffic impacts.
6. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain the third overriding
consideration in the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di
lorio stated it could be removed as it was not worded correctly.
Commissioner Kirk pointed out that in Exhibit B under C.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, Utilities and Service Systems
there is reference to a golf course that should be removed.
7. Commissioner Butler asked when the zoning is changed on a piece
of property that is unique because of the use, how do you make
a distinction between the two as a comparison, because this type
of use obviously would have fewer vehicles. Staff stated the
traffic study accounts for this and the parking count is lower under
the Zoning Code. Commissioner Butler stated Commissioner Kirk's
comments seem to state that it appears the traffic study does not
show this and he questions this. He asked about the emergency
access being used for vehicles moving furniture, etc. Staff stated
this would be corrected to read "emergency access only". Interim
City Engineer Steve Speer went on to explain the traffic study.
Discussion followed regarding the traffic study.
8. Commissioner Tyler questioned a "second non -visitor gated access
on the north property line". Staff clarified it gave access to the
house on the hill. It did not open to the shopping center to the
north. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the parking.
The assumption that the people living in the villas will not be
driving seems erroneous and therefore the parking may not be
adequate. Staff stated the applicant could address this.
Commissioner Tyler questioned how the minimum lot size could be
1,500 square feet and the minimum living area including garages
is 1,650 square feet. Staff explained this was probably where
they were proposing a smaller attached unit, four-plexes.
Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a need to condition the
project to have a deceleration/acceleration lane to help with the
traffic. Staff stated a deceleration lane would make sense, but
acceleration lanes do not function well on Arterial streets.
Washington Street will eventually be three lanes to help with the
traffic.
G„\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-27-01.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
9. Chairman Abels asked staff to explain the access to the project
when traveling north on Washington Street. Staff stated that if
you were coming from the south, you would have to make a u-
turn at Washington Street and Highway 111. By adding the third
south -bound lane, it will allow more room to make the turn.
10. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Robert Sundstrom, Sundstrom Companies, the
general partner of the Point Happy LLC, gave a presentation on the
project. The emergency access would be for emergency vehicles
only. The access on the north is to allow a more direct access for
the house on the hill so it does not have to go through the security
gates and also to have a second point of access for the delivery
trucks. The lot size should be 1,650 square feet to match the unit
size.
11. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked what would happen to the
DuPont house. Mr. Sundstrom stated that currently it is proposed
to be retained by the owner of the property.
12. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public participation.
Ms. Amy Heglund, 46-285 Washington Street, stated her concern
was the traffic and questioned whether adding another lane to
Washington Street was enough to handle the added traffic.
Second, the environment; what will happen to the wildlife habitat?
13. Mr. Robert Daniels, 46-485 Cameo Palms, stated his concern is
the lighting. What areas would be lit? Also, if these structures
are going to be as tall as indicated they will block his view of the
mountains which will affect him aesthetically. This is an assisted
care facility which will have nurses, doctors, technicians,
deliveries, etc., and many more people than in a retirement
community which will greatly affect the traffic.
14. Mr. Haig Shannaiarian, 78-350 Crestview Terrace, stated he
concurred with Mr. Daniels' comments and will set the stage for
their community to be squeezed out by changing the density
classifications.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC11-27-o1.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
15. Mr. David Lagman, 46-885 Highland Palms, stated his concerns
were that seniors do drive, and the medical and bio-hazardous
waste that could be going down the street, and lastly the office
complexes will have speech therapy, physical therapy and doctors.
This will greatly increase their traffic.
16. Ms. Rebecca Shields, 46-886 Highland Palms, stated she has been
a La Quinta resident since 1982 and believes this project will
greatly increase the traffic due to all the support staff that will be
needed. Another concern is the wildlife that will be affected by
this project. Even with a deceleration/acceleration lane it will still
affect the traffic at this site.
17. Mr. David Orme, 78-510 Singing Palms, stated he objects to this
project because the mountain behind this project is unstable. In
addition, it is his understanding this area is a bird sanctuary and it
should be investigated before this project goes further. Also, the
traffic will be greater than what has been stated.
18. Mr. Robert Cox, 78-315 Crestview Terrace, stated he has lived in
La Quinta for 25 years and chose this location to have a quiet
neighborhood. The neighborhood was not designed for high
density. Also, if the project is to be six feet higher than they are,
how can they guarantee the water will drain to Washington
Street?
19. Mr. Alan Pollock, 78-435 Sandflower Place, thanked the
Commission for taking the time to consider their concerns. Some
of his concerns are the drainage, the security of the area, and
traffic. He would like to request that a gate be installed to
maintain their security.
20. Mr. Hovak Najarian, 78-395 Palm Garden Place, stated his
concerns are the elevation differences, the height of the wall, the
height of the buildings, noise, and the traffic.
21. Dr. Sebastian Campagna, 78-340 Singing Palms Drive, stated his
concern was three story commercial buildings will back up to his
property. Second, where is everyone going to park. This is a 310
room hospital. This should be a low density project that will not
destroy this area.
GAMDOCSTC Minutes\K11-27-01.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
22. Mr. J. David Howard, 46-910 Highland Palms, stated his concerns
had been expressed by the other speakers.
23. Mr. James Carpenter, 78-550 Singing Palms Drive, stated he finds
it appalCing that they would consider opening a commercial
business behind his home.
24. Mr. Greg Cockerill,.78-355 Crestview Terrace, stated his concern
was where the construction entrance will be. As he envisions it,
all the construction traffic will have to go down his street as it will
not be allowed to enter from Washington Street.
25. Ms. Margaret Najarian, 78-395 Palm Garden Place, stated her lot
is low and will be greatly affected by the wall that will be
constructed. They have been there for 25 years and watched the
development of the area. Please consider the quality of life of the
residents of La Quinta and not just the money.
26. Ms. (Caren Elem, 46-945 Highland Palms Drive, stated she is
concerned with the parking as the church parking is now flowing
over into their neighborhood. This project will also affect their
community and they will be overrun with cars.
27. Mr. James Amencha, 78-390 Cameo Dunes, stated his home will
back up to the villa garages. With the traffic as it is, it is almost
impossible to get out of the Plaza La Quinta Center. He would
invite the Commission to come to their community and see what
they are talking about.
28. There being no further public participation, Chairman Abels closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
Chairman Abels recessed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:03 p.m.
29. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to continue the public hearing to
January 8, 2001, with the following items to be addressed by
staff:
A. Review the view analysis from the project.
B. A new traffic study be completed.
C. Determining the location of the construction entrance.
9:.1%eionnrc%ar nea.,osroe%ari i-97-ni Wnd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
30. Staff informed the Commission that the EIR has a mitigation
measure that does not allow any lighting of the hillside area and
it requires low level lighting throughout the project. In addition to
the mitigation measures, the Zoning Code does not allow for any
glare or lighting to extend off the property boundaries. With
regard to rock fall, there was a rock fall analysis prepared and is
a part of the EIR. Staff will look into the bird sanctuary as it was
not addressed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife or Fish and
Game. In regard to the access, there will be a left turn access.
31. Commissioner Tyler thanked everyone for attending and providing
their comments. In regard to the noise and hours of operation for
the construction of the project, as expressed by the residents, he
wanted to assure everyone they are uniform for the entire City and
not unique to this project.
32. Commissioner Kirk concurred with Commissioner Tyler and pointed
out that the applicant has done a nice job with the architecture
and site planning. There may be some issues with viewshed,
traffic, and other components expressed by the community, but
this is a good project and he commends the applicant on his
proposal.
Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2001-717; a request of KSL Development
Corporation for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a
Merchant Builder Welcome Center in PGA West to be located at the
southeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Avenue 54 at the entrance of
PGA West.
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 any of these modular units were {part
of the ones vacated inside PGA West. Staff stated the applicant
would have to answer that. Commissioner Tyler stated that if this
was to be a temporary use, it should be given a time limit.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\P:Cl1-27-01.wpd 8
PH #C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2002 (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 11, 2001)
CASE NUMBER: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 30092, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED
REQUEST: CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417
AND SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 38.4 ACRES INTO 130
SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON LOTS
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MONROE STREET
PROPERTY
OWNER: CHARLES AND NORMA FAUSEL
ENGINEER: HACKER ENGINEERING, INCORPORATED
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417.
BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED.
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) AND RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE SERVICE AREA
SOUTH: ACROSS 58T" AVENUE, DATE PALM GROVES AND
ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE SERVICE AREA
EAST: ACROSS MONROE STREET, SCATTERED SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSES AND OTHER VACANT
Page 1 of 4
BACKGROUND:
PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
SERVICE AREA
WEST: IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT OFFICES AND
AFFILIATED ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
FACILITIES IN THE MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES
ZONE
Planning Commission Action
On December 11, 2001, the Commission continued the public hearing for this project
to January 8, 2002, at the request of the applicant.
Site History
The subject property is currently located outside the City limits at the northwest corner
of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. This site is pending annexation into the City and
has been used for farming activities in past years. On April 3, 2001, the City Council
approved pre -annexation designations of Low Density Residential (General Plan
Amendment 2001-074) and RL (Zone Change 2001-098) allowing up to four units per
acre for this site and properties to the north. Rural infrastructure improvements exist
(two traffic lanes) along the frontage of the site with high voltage electric transmission
lines on both sides of Avenue 58.
On July 3, 2001, the City Council certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approved a 97-lot residential subdivision for the property by adoption of Resolutions
2001-91 and 2001-92.
On September 11, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2001-016
approving the conceptual parkway landscape plan for the Tract.
PROJECT REQUEST:
This Map Amendment proposes 130 single family lots on private streets measuring 36'
wide (curb to curb) that allow two lanes of travel and on -street parking. Typical lot
sizes are 70' wide by 121.5' long (8,505 square feet) and larger depending on location
within the development (Attachment 1). Project access, via private street
connections, occur on Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. Access gating on Street Lot "J",
where it intersects with Monroe Street, is restricted to emergency use only, while
access on Avenue 58 is for residents and guests.
STPC30092#lbarton/54GREG Page 2 of 4
Parkway Lots "A" through "C" on the tract's south and east boundary are proposed
for landscaping, meandering sidewalks and a multi -use trail as required by the General
Plan Circulation Element and Subdivision Ordinance. Easements for utility
improvements are shown on the Map exhibit as well, including 10-foot wide
easements on each side of all private streets.
The internal street system design has been revised so that cul-de-sac streets are on
the west half of the development while interconnecting through streets serve
approximately 70 percent of the proposed lots. Other project changes are the
elimination of clubhouse facilities and the relocation of the retention basin to the
perimeter of the project (Lot 131). A CVWD well site (Lot 132) and temporary lift
station (Lot 49) are sited at two locations on Monroe Street.
Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November
28, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no
comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments
received will be handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency Review: A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public
agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the
Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been
included in the recommended Conditions of Approval.
MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve this request per Section 13.12.130 of the Subdivision Regulations
can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-417 according to the
findings set forth in the attached Resolution; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1), subject to
findings and conditions.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Tract Map Exhibit
STPC30092#lbarton/54GREG Page 3 of 4
Prepared by:
Cared T usdell, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Pla ning Manager
STPC30092#lbarton/54GREG Page 4 of 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417, REVISED
APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 1 1 to day of December, 2001, and 8t" day of January, 2002, hold duly
noticed Public Hearings for Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for Tentative Tract
Map 30092 (Amendment #1) located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and
Monroe Street, more particularly described as follows:
APN: 761-720-020
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 3rd day of July, 2001, adopt Resolution 2001-91 certifying Environmental
Assessment 2001-417 for TTM 30092, a 97-lot single family subdivision with private
streets in a RL Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-417)
and has determined that although the proposed residential development could have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect
in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the
assessment and included in the conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to recommend to the City Council
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly,
in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental
Assessment 2001-417.
P:\GREG\EA PCResoTTM30092#1.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for TTM 30092, Amendment #1
January 8, 2002
2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment does not have the potential to
achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have
been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not result in impacts which
are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned
or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in
the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not have environmental
effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or
indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect
human health, risk potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
417 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
P:\GREG\EA PCResoTTM30092#1.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for TTM 30092, Amendment #1
January 8, 2002
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment
2001-417 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the
Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community
Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-417 reflects the independent judgment
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 81' day of January, 2002, 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
P:\GREG\EA PCResoTTM30092#1.wpd
REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417
1. Project Title: TTM 30092 (Barton Properties)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: NW Corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe St.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Barton Properties,
11611 San Vicente Blvd., S-605,
Los Angeles, CA 90049
(310-826-4658)
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Original application involved development of 97 single family and common lots on
37 acres at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. Application has
been modified to include 130 residential lots of about 8,000 square feet each. The
application also includes lettered lots for streets, a well, and a retention basin.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Vacant (previously agriculture)
South: Across Ave. 58, date palm grove and residential
East: Across Monroe St., vacant and scattered residential
West: IID Corporate facility
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD
0 •
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL WPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
n
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature ate
CIj V1,11-In ,~� Ivy CITY OF LA QUINTA
AnteName
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 2
•
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
•
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers
that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if
the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"
answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site
as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be
cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the
end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 3
0
•
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantia0 light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the
California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
Potentially
Potentially Significant
Significant Unless
Impact Mitigated
X
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
VPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 4
0
•
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(Application materials)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Application materials)
/. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either
individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other
activities through direct remova8, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p.
5-2 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
X
Q
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MPD(DCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD
•
CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
•
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic
resources? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey
Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase 1 Report by
A.A.G. dated April 2001.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or
site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without
merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a
high probability that it contains information needed to answer
important scientific research questions, has a special and
particular quality such as being the oldest or best available
example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event
or person)? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey
Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase 1 Report by
A.A.G. dated April 2001.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
("Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, CRM Tech,
10/19/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological
Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and
Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.)
GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR,
Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and Sladden Geotechnical Report
dated 2-9-2001)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
30 ff. and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Sladden Geotechnical
Report dated 2-9-2001)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
1i
Q
X
X
WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD
E
•
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, page
4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and
Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-32)
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside
County Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-1 1)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'PDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD
0
•
II. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff. and
Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
59 ff. and Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM
30092)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -
or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff. and Hacker
Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff. and Hacker
Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13 )
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project
Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(General Plan Land Use Element)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IPDCICS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD
•
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29)
NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or ceneration of, noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
(General Plan EIR, p. 4-1 57 ff. and Noise Impact Report
prepared by P.A. Penardi and Assoc. dated 4-4-01)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?(General
Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? (Application Materials)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive levels? (General Plan map)
POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Application Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
MEN
91
M
f3
Kq
X
X
X
X
X
PDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD
•
III. PUBLIC SERVICES
L]
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
V. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Application Materials)
/. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (Application Materials)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application
Materials)
m
m
X
X
X
X
X
X
IPDCCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 10
1�
•
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application
Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Application Materials)
;VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, page 4-24)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-
20)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project determined that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a IFndfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 11
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
VIII. EARLIER Analysis.
n�
Earlier analysis 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 analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside were used in reviewing the potential
impacts of the proposed project. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #i98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317;
Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. City EA 2001-408 covers this site and 240 acres
to the north.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992; SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook; General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992; Paleontological Lakebed
Delineation Map, City of La Quinta; City of La Quinta Municipal Code;
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October
18, 2000; "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech,
October 19, 2000; "Phase 1 Archaeological/Historic Resources Assessment for TTM
30092", prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, April 2001; "Noise Report
#01 106 for TTM 30092," prepared by P.A. Penardi and Assoc., April 4, 2001;
"Geotechnical Investigation for TTM 30092," prepared by Sladden Eng., Feb. 9,
2001;"Preliminary Drainage Calc. - TTM 30092," prepared by Hacker Eng., April 13,
2001.
VPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 12
Revised Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-417
for Tentative Tract Map 30092
Introduction
'This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address changes made to
'Tentative Tract Map 30092. The original application was reviewed under EA 2001-
417, an environmental assessment to supplement EA 2001-408 prepared for General
Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 (City Council Resolution
2001-34). Since the original approval and environmental review, the applicant has
increased the number of residential lots from 97 to 130.
III. c) The proposed parcel is not currently under Williamson Act contract.
Development of the site will result in the loss of land available for agriculture.
Residential subdivisions are being developed to the north of the site and the
project area is an isolated parcel. Lands to the south and east continue to be
farmed. The loss of this site for agriculture is not expected to be significant
based on the conclusion of this assessment and EA 2001-408.
III. a), c) & d)
Air quality in the Coachella Valley and the City is primarily affected by vehicular
emissions. The development of this project could generate up to 1,300 average
daily trips'. These trips could generate the following emissions. The Table
below also includes the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for each potential
pollutant.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
co ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 67.15 2.58 13.77 -- 0.29 0.29
Daily
Threshold• 550 75 100 150
Based on 1,300 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by
California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. ` Operational thresholds provided by
SCAOMD for assistance in determin;ng the significance of a project.
"Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Volume I" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Single
Family detached housing (210) used.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonRevAdd.WPD 1
The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10
microns or smaller). The non -attainment status results in potentially significant impacts
associated with new development, particularly during the construction of new
projects. In order to control iaM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements
on development to control dust. In addition to these standards, SCAQMD suggests
mitigation for PM 10, which are integrated into the following mitigation measures:
1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and
approval of a PM 10 Management Plan.
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site, unless otherwise allowed
by the City Engineer.
6. Any piece of land to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three
feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
7. Watering of any portion of the site or other soil stabilization method shall
be employed on an ongoing basis after the initiation of any grading
activity on the site. Any portion of the site that is actively being graded
shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground
surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix, grass seed or chemical
stabilizers.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second sta,
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BarionRevAdd.WPD 2
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from the proposed project will not be significant.
IV. a) Biological resource analysis has not been performed because the site has been
actively used for farm activities and therefore is not likely to be a valuable
habitat for native species. The land is not in an area of concern for known
sensitive species and is outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -
toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. The changes associated with the
application will not change the potential impacts to biological resources.
Impacts from development are not expected to be significant.
V. a) & b)
Cultural resource surveys were conducted for the subject property'. The survey
found that no significant resources occur on the site.
V. c) The site has been previously assessed for paleontologic resources'. The area
was within the historic lakebed of ancient Lake Cahuilla, but no vertebrate
remains have been located. The mollusks found are abundant in this area, and
do not represent a significant resource. As such, the on -site investigation and
report found that the impacts on paleontologic resources are less than
significant, and that no further analysis of the site is necessary.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The site is not located in any Earthquake Fault zones as designated by the State
and is mapped in the Ground Shaking Zone IV. To ensure structures can
withstand damage from earthquakes, compliance with the Geotechnical
Investigation Report by Sladden Engineering dated February 9, 2001, and any
other site specific scil analysis required by the City Engineer prior to issuance
of grading permits shall be required. This requirement will ensure that impacts
from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. a) iii)
This site may be subject to liquefaction due to groundwater being found within
25 to 30 feet requiring "remedial grading including overexcavation and
recompaction." (Sladden Report). The modification of the application does not
9
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, October, 2000;
Phase l Archaeological/Historical Survey, prepared by James Brock, MA, RPA dated April 2001.
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, prepared by CRM Tech, October 2000.
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track
;'98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses cover
200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ Bart onRevAdd.WPD 3
affect this potential impact, and requires equivalent mitigation as the previous
application. To develop the site, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented:
1. Grading activities and structure development shall comply with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by
Sladden Engineering for TTM 30092 including over -excavation, and other
methods known to reduce the potential for liquefaction impacts on
residential structures.
VIII. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which
extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin.
Development of the site will replace the use of canal water for crop irrigation
and may represent a positive impact insofar as water usage may be reduced
when agricultural irrigation no longer occurs on the site. The proposed
amendment to the project will increase water usage over that previously
analyzed.
Stormwater generated by development will be retained on -site which will
encourage percolation and groundwater recharge. The proposed alteration to the
project does not change the City's requirements for on -site retention.
Additionally, City Ordinances require water conserving plumbing fixtures and
landscaping. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
VIII. c)-e)
Site development of buildings and parking areas will create impermeable
surfaces creating drainage pattern changes. The project site is located in a C
Flood Zone. The project is required to meet the City's standards for retention
of the 100-year storm on -site. The revised drainage plan, prepared by Hacker
Engineering, has been reviewed by the City Engineer for compliance with
Section 13.24.1 20 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Tract conditions
are recommended to ensure compliance assuring the flood control system is
less than significant.
XI. a) The development of the area will result in increased noise levels, but these are
not expected to be significant, given that the ambient noise level is, and will
continue to be low. Development on any portion of the site will include
landscaping, berms and walls which will further attenuate sound in the area as
required by Noise Impact Report prepared by P.A. Penardi and Associates dated
April 4, 2001. Amendment of the application will not change the potential
impacts associated with noise. The impacts from noise are therefore not
expected to be significant.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\EarionRevAdd.WPD 4
XIll. a)
The proposed development will have a direct impact on public services and will
be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City
contract. Site development will generate property tax which will offset the
costs of added police and fire services.
{V. a)
The project area will continue to pay the mandated school fees as development
occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the impacts to
schools.
The collection of property tax, and the generation of sales tax from these
residents' disposable income, will generate revenues to the City to offset the
added costs associated with the provision of municipal services. Builders within
the project area will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program,
which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. The amendment of the
application will not significantly change the impacts to public services. Increases
in population resulting from the increased number of lots will be offset by
increased revenues in property and sales tax. Site development is not expected
to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
The Village of the Palms project determined traffic impacts for development
would be less than significant. Under EA 2001-408 (City Council Resolution
No. 2001-34) it was determined that a traffic study would not be required,
provided the sites were developed to comply with the LDR General Plan
designation and Impact Mitigation Fees were paid. The amendment of the
application will add only 330 trips per day to the regional road system. The
application, as amended, still falls within the Low Density Residential land use
category. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the
potential impacts to the circulation system to a less than significant level.
XVI. a)-f)
The buildout of the site will require service from utility providers. The overall
impacts on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these
suppliers will charge the residents for their services, and provide improvements
to these services as reeded. In addition, connection fees will be required at
construction of any project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
:Environmental Assessnients prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track n98-39;
TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1.
G:IWPDOCS1Env AsseslEartonRevAdd.WPD 5
c�
w
^'
co
o
w
a
w
o
SCD
ro
A
,
y
CD
w
CD
O
O
O
b
o
n
cooco
H
y
cD
til
>
✓
M
'd
~
d o
c
�
ago
•�
7d
co
e
d
riQ
CYQCD
coo
b
d
CD
M
co
M
rA
08
co
tz�
z
9
El
30
o
+
oCD
CD
r�
�
z
UQ ,fib
CD
b
ro
02.
b
CD
cu
o'
'.
M O
�"n O
^ m
0
^
n
0
CD CD
.
n
W
w
n
W�y
�G
�yy
rA Z
y w
CD
0
CD
G
G
nci
n
coz
co
°
°'
°'
O
°Q
�•
a
w
w
CL
ao
0 �
n
a, �
CD o
o
�.
aQ
rA a
0
(ON
aro
A
a
�
�b
d�
z
C
H
Cr3
5 5 b4:
o
�
a
cs. i
QQ
w
y
rn
qQ
z
eo w
d�
b
a
U
o
�
CD
F.
4
CD
nd . �
~
zo
�o
<
y�
CD
�.0
Ow
zr
c
a
O00
zr
°r4
CD
co
x
z
CD�cr r�yyV
n. 5. ri.
QQ y
"
oH
ran
O O O
0Q
m O
. ,
CA coo c
y
in. CD
H
...
.7y-.
0-4
H
CD CA
O
a
z
CD
aQ CDC�
(IQ
y
oho r
Lp
►tj ��.,
y- CD CD
CD
y
CAp
A ti
CD
CD 'U O
CA
P
OQ cp
(IQ oQ
C
a
x0
x0
�r
�b
dz
dz
a
a
y
y
T. D
C
=-
ov'
>
C
CA
[
C dOQ
��yi
a o'
CA
o
�H
CD
z
�y
(D
C
°z
GQ
O
�o
3 Cl)
CD<
o
O td
CD
_
c9
o
z
n
m
CD
i•i
aT2.w
sv � -�
3
�n
Mo
xr
da
z
0
a
H
Cl7
n' CD
��!
CD CD
?r
CD
CD a
� G�
a
�O
C-
CD
do
w
d
CD
O
zz
cn
H
,b
x r
C�7
d
mQ
CD
C
'0
C
�o rcn
CD a
�=
o
0,
a
l I
da
z
�
�
c
d
�
�
o
no
a
o
O
PO
�O
pro
b
o'
r'' r-
0
v,
y
z
o
�
w
b
n
�
y
H
7d
M
a
d
a
C17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A REVISED
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 130 SINGLE FAMILY AND
OTHER STREET, PUBLIC UTILITY AND COMMON LOTS ON
APPROXIMATELY 38.4 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MONROE
STREET
CASE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California
did, on the 1 1 to day of December, 2001, and 8t" day of January, 2002, hold duly
noticed Public Hearings to consider a request by Barton Properties for Charles and
Norma Fausel for amendment to 130 single family and other miscellaneous
common/utility lots on approximately 38.4 acres located at the northwest corner of
Avenue 58 and Monroe Street, more particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel No.: 761-720-020
Southwest 1 /4 of Section 22, T6S, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on
the 3rd day of July, 2001, approve Tentative Tract Map 30092, a single family
development of 97-lots and other miscellaneous common lots (i.e., streets, retention
basin, landscaping, etc.) by adoption of Resolution 2001-92, on a 5-0 vote; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-417)
and has determined that although the proposed residential development could have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect
in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the
assessment and included in the conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify a recommendation
to the City Council for approval of said Tentative Tract Map Amendment:
AAResoPC T30092 #1 Barton 58th.wpd - 54Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
TTM 30092 (Amendment #1), Barton Properties
January 8, 2002
Page 2
1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment is consistent with the La Quinta
General Plan, in that the subdivision will result in the creation of 8,500+ sq. ft.
residential lots to be developed in accordance with the existing Pre -Annexation
Zoning (Low Density Residential) and General Plan (Low Density Residential)
designations as established. Project density is approximately 3.6 units per acre
within the allowed maximum density of four dwelling units per acre. Tract
access for residents is limited to 58th Avenue, a Primary Arterial thoroughfare.
2. The design and improvements for the Tentative Tract Map Amendment are
consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, in that all proposed single family
lots meet and exceed minimum required dimensions and sizes requirements and
perimeter Arterial streets will be constructed. The design of private streets
servicing the residential lots are consistent with standards as contained in the
General Plan Circulation Element (Chapter 3.0) and Subdivision Ordinance (Title
13).
3. The design of the Map, and its proposed improvements, are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidable injure fish
or wildlife, or their habitat, in that the site is vacant and has been previously
disturbed by farming activity, to the degree that the site itself does not support
any wildlife species.
4. The design of the proposed subdivision map and related improvements are not
likely to cause serious public health problems, in that responsible agencies have
reviewed the project for these issues with no significant concerns identified.
Necessary infrastructure improvements for this project are readily accessible.
The health, safety and welfare of current and future residents can be assured
based on the recommended conditions, which serve to implement mitigation
measures for the project, including emergency only access on Monroe Street.
To contain on -site stormwater, a retention basin has been proposed at the
southeast corner of the project. Site grading is consistent with adjacent parcels
and any on -site work will require dust control measures pursuant to Chapter
6.16 of the Municipal Code.
5. The design of, and type of improvements for, the Map will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of,
property within the subdivision, as the proposed subdivision has been reviewed
A:\ResoPC T30092 #1 Barton 58th.wpd - 54Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
TTM 30092 (Amendment #1), Barton Properties
January 8, 2002
Page 3
for these issues with no concerns identified. The Tract's design includes
provisions for lot access and utility and other public easements as determined
necessary during review of the proposal. Landscape lots adjacent to perimeter
arterial streets will provide aesthetic and traffic noise buffers in compliance with
City requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
said Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment
2001-417 assessed the environmental concerns of this Map; and
3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Tentative Tract
Map 30092 (Amendment #1), 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 8t" day of January, 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
A:\ResoPC T30092 #1 Barton 58th.wpd - 54Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
TTM 30092 (Amendment #1), Barton Properties
January 8, 2002
Page 4
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
A:\ResoPC T30092 #1 Barton 58th.wpd - 54Greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092 (AMENDMENT #1), BARTON PROPERTIES
JANUARY 8, 2002
GENERAL
1 . Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1) shall comply with the
requirements and standards of § §66410-66499.58 of the California
Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Title 13 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions.
2. This Map approval shall expire and become null and void on July 3, 2003,
unless an extension of time is granted according to the requirements of Section
13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of
TTM 30092 (Amendment #1) and certification of EA 2001-417. The City of
La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of
any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain
permits and/or clearances from the following agencies and departments:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 2
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit. Projects disturbing five or more acres, or smaller
projects which are part of a larger project disturbing five or more acres require
a project -specific NPDES permit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the
CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent (NOI) prior to
issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure
that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) is available for
inspection at the project site.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements
and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary
for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred
rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to
the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and
reconstruction of essential improvements.
6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and
utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer.
7. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of
way.
2) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of
way.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1► Main Entry: As required for final configuration of the private gated
entry as approved by the City Engineer.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #l, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 3
2) Residential: 37-foot width. Width may be reduced to 33 feet
with parking restricted to one side and 29 feet if on -street parking
is prohibited provided there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors and the applicant makes provisions for
ongoing enforcement of the restrictions.
C. CULS DE SAC - Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800
(symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 39.5-foot radius, or larger.
8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with
Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
10. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of
way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps
dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of
way within 60 days of written request by the City.
11. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with
and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to
five feet with the express concurrence of IID.
12. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as
follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is
approved):
A. Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - 20-feet
B. Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-feet
The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #l;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #l, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 4
facilities (e.g., sidewalks, multi -use trails) are placed on privately -owned
setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
13. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access
to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and
common areas.
14. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and
properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access
points shown on the approved tentative map.
15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as
appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining
wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur.
16. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way
or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned
by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access
easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property
owners.
17. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any
portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by
the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same
portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City
Engineer.
FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S)
18. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad
files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage
media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad
menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
map.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #l;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 5
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice
their respective professions in the State of California.
19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be
submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise
Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall
have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building
Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer.
Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike
paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally
include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the
City Engineer.
20. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant
may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
21. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to
the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they
may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of
construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall
update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
plans.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 6
GRADING
22. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish written
acknowledgment from CWQCB of receipt of applicants Notice of Intent (NOI).
23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary
geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a
qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations
of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering
geologist.
A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development)
that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health
and Safety Code.
24. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape
areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
25. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting
properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development.
Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three
feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street
frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet.
The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements
and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking
process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will
consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties
and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
26. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant
shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in
accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in
a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance
with the provisions of the permit.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 7
27. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and
water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments.
28. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each
pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the
difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be
organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
29. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this
map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may
be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements
subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct
improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the
improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these
methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by
the City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other
development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those
improvements.
30. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish
an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy
obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map
or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured
agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with
Chapter 13, LQMC.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing
structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
31. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of
improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 8
shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or
ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V.
cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be
agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the
telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone
service to lots within the development.
32. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative
approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common
improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall
be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each
phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or
occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases
unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer.
33. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement
agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or
final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development
of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
DRAINAGE
34. Applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as
required by the State NPDES General Construction Permit.
35. Applicant's SWPPP shall be approved prior to any on or off site grading being
done in relation to this project.
36. Applicant's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall include provisions for
all of the following BMPs:
A. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 9
B. Temporary Sediment Control.
C. Wind Erosion Control.
D. Tracking Control.
E. Non -Storm Water Management.
F. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
37. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved prior to
any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project.
38. All project BMPs shall be maintained throughout the course of construction, and
until all improvements have been accepted by the City.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and
the following:
39. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm
(the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the
centerline of adjacent public streets.
40. 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.
41. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated,
unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route.
42. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on
site or passed through to the overflow outlet.
43. 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.
44. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be
five feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #l, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 10
45. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance
water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by
the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain
surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq.
ft.
46. 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.
47. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the
Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City
from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage
discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City -
or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or
expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be
executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction
or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators,
assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map
excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public
use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney.
If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make
provisions in the CC&R's for meeting these potential obligations.
48. The tract shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from
any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility
authority as a requirement for development of this property.
UTILITIES
49. 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
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #l;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approvals - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 11
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
50. 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.
51. 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
52. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements
shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - Construct 43-foot half of 86-foot
improvement (measured curb face to curb face) plus 6-foot
meandering sidewalk. Applicant shall construct a landscaped half
median, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer.
2) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - Construct 43-foot half of 86-
foot improvement (measured curb face to curb face) plus 6-foot
meandering sidewalk. Applicant shall construct a landscaped half
median, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer.
3) Developer shall enter into a secured agreement for the deferred
installation of a traffic signal at the main entrance off Avenue 58
at such time that signal warrants are met. Developer shall pay its
fair share based on an "after the fact" traffic study. Developer
may assign secured agreement to the HOA. Signalized
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 12
intersection costs to be divided based on percentages of use to the
participating developments.
B. PRIVATE STREETS - Residential: 36-foot travel width. Width may be
reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side and 28 feet with
on -street parking prohibited if there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors and the applicant provides for perpetual
enforcement of the restrictions by the homeowners association.
C. CULS DE SAC - Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A
(offset) with 38-foot curb radius.
D. MULTI -USE TRAIL - The applicant shall construct a multi -use trail along
the Avenue 58 frontage within the required 32-foot wide setback. The
location and design of the trail shall be approved by the City. A split rail
fence shall be constructed to separate the multi -use trail from the
pedestrian sidewalk and perimeter wall in accordance with Section
9.140.060 (Item E, 3a) of the Zoning Ordinance. The multi -use trail, trail
signs, and the split rail fence shall be completed prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy for the first residence. Bonding for the fence
to be installed shall be posted prior to final map approval.
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.
53. 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.
54. 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).
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 13
55. 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.
56. Knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with Riverside County
Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
57. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which
convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and
residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the
lip at the flowline shall be vertical 0 /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.
58. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design
procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall
be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential
Collector
Secondary Arterial
Primary Arterial
Major Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
4.0"/5.00"
4.0"/6.00"
4.5"/6.00"
5.5 "/6.50"
59. 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.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #l;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2092-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 14
60. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings
only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access
to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic
control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets
are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall
complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of
homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
61. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - No turning restriction.
B. Emergency Access on Monroe Street - No public access allowed; left
turns are restricted.
62. Applicant shall provide for future gated entrances to the development at all
points of ingress and egress.
LANDSCAPING
63. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas and
medians shall be prepared by a landscape architect and be prepared based on
the water conservation measures in Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community
Development Department. The plans are not approved for construction until
they have been approved and signed by the Coachella Valley Water District and
the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
64. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
and common lots.
65. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 15
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.
66. 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.
67. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all
required landscaping in a healthy and viable condition as required by Section
9.60.240 (E3) of the Zoning Ordinance.
PUBLIC SERVICES
68. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline
Transit and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
69. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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-
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 16
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
73. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of
all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks
(except for multi -use trails). The applicant shall maintain required public
improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate
public agency.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. The developer shall pay school mitigation fees to the Coachella Valley Unified
School District based on their requirements. Fees shall be paid prior to building
permit issuance by the City.
77. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the
City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of
building permits.
78. Prior to final map approval, parkland fees (Quimby Act) shall be paid as required
by Section 13.48 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
79. Within ten days of the review by the Planning Commission, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Community Development Department a
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 17
check made out to the County of Riverside in the amount of $64 to permit the
filing and posting of EA 2001-417 (Revised) after the City Council's review.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
80. Approved standard fire hydrants, located at each street intersection and spaced
not more than 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165
feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour
duration at 20 psi.
81. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with
fire hydrants.
82. Gates entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the travel
lanes. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at
least 35'-0" setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop
without obstructing traffic on the road. Where one way road with a single
traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 40-foot turning radius shall be
used.
83. Gates, if any, shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Gate pins
shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated
by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry
system.
84. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot.
85. 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.
86. The minimum dimension for access roads is 20 feet clear and unobstructed
width and a minimum clearance of 13'-6" in height.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 #1;Greg54
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
TTM 30092, Amendment #l, Barton Prop.
January 8, 2002
Page 18
MISCELLANEOUS
87. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file
documents for plan checking purposes.
88. All mitigation measures included in Environmental Assessment 2001-417
(Revised) are hereby included in this approval.
89. Separate pedestrian gates shall be provided at each site access location.
90. Prior to submitted the Final Map for plan check consideration, the following
corrections and/or information shall be provided:
A. Lots 131 (retention basin) and 132 (well site) shall be designated as
lettered lots.
B. Two copies of the draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and
R's). The City Attorney shall approve the document prior to approval of
the final map by the City Council.
C. A minimum of three street names shall be submitted for each private
street shown on the Map exhibit. A list of the names in ranking order
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for
approval.
D. Bureau of Reclamation easements that traverse the project site shall be
disclosed.
E. No permanent improvements may be constructed within the 50-foot
easement area of the Avenue 58 agricultural drain or the 10-foot
easement area of lateral 123.45-0.75 without the written consent of the
Coachella Valley Water District.
Cond PC Tr. 30092 # l ;Greg54
ATTACHMENTS
REVISE ® ,�--�.
IN THE CITY OF to QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATT: OF CAU `ORNIA
TENTATIVE TRACT MAID bi"O. 30092
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC710(A_ 22, T.,F-3., R.7F, S.B.B.M.
A.P.N. 761 720-019 , Nov'
'� Lo k
TMES
rnn M
in
orr � I owrPn a
w
a! 7MS MNT
sr CROWN uONCN)
4GRMX
�— �t
czar. Ac.
My e
sc
VMS
MONE
w11 r 4 r wM
rd re re' fd I or,,.,w
&S all*
.8
COVPh1CrID SUBCaaDE
on am
aoct�
E
m
TYPICAL STWET SECTXM
TLOT DRAINAGE C
PH #D
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2002, CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 11,
2001
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
ENGINEER: WARNER ENGINEERING
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND
AVENUE 50
REQUEST: AMENDMENT OF THE TEXT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
AND DESIGN GUIDELINES AND AMENDMENT OF THE
SITE PLAN DESIGN ADJACENT TO AVENUE 50 FOR A
100,500 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL:
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034 WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 18, 1999,
IN CONJUNCTION WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-060, ZONE CHANGE 98-
089, SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034, PARCEL MAP 29052, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
29053. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST AND NO NEW
INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION
OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE 21166.
ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES: NORTH: RL / VACANT LAND (APPROVED FOR
RESIDENTIAL TENTATIVE TRACT 29053)
s:\stan\sp 98-034 am#1 pc rpt.wpd
SOUTH: TC (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) / RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION UNDER CONSTRUCTION
EAST: COMMERCIAL / VACANT LAND IN THE CITY
OF INDIO
WEST: RL / VACANT LAND (APPROVED FOR
RESIDENTIAL TRACT 29053)
BACKGROUND:
Previous Review:
This request was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 11,
2001 (Attachment 1). During the review, several issues were discussed pertaining
to the design of the project, those issues being use of the 20 foot setback along
Jefferson Street as part of their retention basin and new driveway accesses to
Avenue 50. The applicant stated he could show a landscape design for the retention
basin area that would provide screening of the parking lot surface using walls and
landscaping. The applicant agreed to the most westerly driveway on Avenue 50,
behind revised Pad "A" and "B" being an "emergency only" right turn exit.
The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan with section views showing
how they can provide screening of the parking lot. The specific plan text has not
been revised to reflect an emergency only exit on Avenue 50 with an on -site
turnaround for vehicles.
Project Background:
The original Specific Plan approved by the City Council on May 18, 1999, provided
principals and guidelines for a shopping center of approximately 111,000 square foot
of floor area, consisting of a combined 71,350 square foot market and drug store,
6,000 square feet of in -line stores, and five pad buildings with 33,600 square feet
and 530 parking spaces located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and
Avenue 50 (Attachment 2).
Parcel Map 29052, approved at the same time, divided the 12.5 net acre commercial
site into seven parcels from 18,438 square feet to 339,802 square feet for sales,
leasing, or financing purposes, with a 33 acre remainder parcel to the north and west
for residential Tentative Tract 29053. Tentative Tract 29053 was approved at the
same time for 103 single family lots. The seven commercial parcels coincided with
the buildings proposed with the original specific plan.
Original Project Amendment Description:
The proposed amendment consists of design changes to the site plan, drainage
facilities and text changes. The text changes include updating the text based on
s:\stan\sp 98-034 am#1 pc rpt.wpd
completed work, etc., and discussion of the proposed site and drainage changes
(Attachment 3).
As noted, the originally approved size of the center was approximately 111,000
square feet. Minor changes as a result of subsequent plan development reduced the
square footage to 104,781 square feet. With this amendment, the square footage
of the floor area will be further reduced to 100,460 square feet. Albertsons/Sav-on,
the major tenant will be reduced from 60,080 to 57,560 square feet in size. The
original six retail buildings will range from 2,200 to 8,500 square feet (previously
6,000 to 11,000 square feet) with a total of 42,900 square feet (previously 44,701
square feet). Two of these buildings are proposed to be restaurants with drive-thru
pick-up, and a third a gas station, possibly with a car wash. The total number of
proposed parking spaces will be 474, down from the previous 519 spaces.
The project has been designed to have the shopping center retention basins adjacent
to the Jefferson Street frontage. The original approved plan provided the retention
basins in back of the required 20 foot landscape setback. Under this proposal, the
majority of the 20 foot wide setback behind the meandering sidewalk will become
part of the slope area of the retention basins. Because of this, no berming along
Jefferson Street is provided. Zoning Code Section 9.100.040 only allows incidental
storm water which falls on the setback to be retained in the setback and not retention
basins for the entire site.
A site plan design change is proposed in the southwest corner of the project adjacent
to Avenue 50. Previously, there were two separate buildings, accessed by and west
of the main Avenue 50 driveway. Parking spaces surrounded the two buildings. The
revision proposes to place the two buildings (Pad "A" and "B") in a "L" shape, near
the west and north property lines.
Pad "A" building is proposed to have a 32 foot setback from the north property line,
whereas Zoning Code Section 9.90.040 requires a 50 feet from the property line,
with 10 feet of it landscaped, because the property to the north is zoned residential.
The storm water retention basin for the adjacent residential tract is immediately
abutting the north property line and is approximately 60 feet wide in that area.
Therefore, the closest residential lot is approximately 96 feet from the Pad "A"
building.
Parking will be in front of the revised buildings and along the west property line. The
applicant is proposing two new driveways with the revised plan. One right -turn in
and right -turn out drive way is shown in front of the two building pads, approximately
mid way between main driveway and west property line. A new second exit only
driveway is proposed behind or west of the pad "A" building. The applicant at the
previous meeting agreed to providing this as a gated emergency exit, but has not
shown it on the plans. This driveway is connected to a drive aisle around the rear of
both building pads.
s:\stan\sp 98-034 am#1 pc rpt.wpd
With the revised square footage of the project, 474 total parking spaces are required
per current parking requirements. The plans indicate that 474 spaces will be
provided.
Revised Landscaping for Retention Basin:
The landscaping plan shows a six foot high block wall in front of the two fast food
pads along Jefferson Street, on the west side of the retention basin. Along the
outside of the wall trees and large shrubs are shown to soften the wall. Between the
driveway at the south end of the restaurants and Avenue 50, the plan indicates a
variety of shrubs and trees to provide screening.
Public Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on November
30, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project
boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received. Any comments received
will be handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency Review: The request was sent out for comment with any pertinent
comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Three of the four findings necessary to recommend approval of the specific plan
amendment can be made, as noted in the attached Resolution. Those findings being
that the amendment is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with zoning on
adjacent properties, and is suitable and appropriate for the property.
The finding that the specific plan amendment will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the specific plan
cannot be made in that the request to use the General Plan required 20 foot
landscape setbacks along Jefferson Street for retention basins is prohibited by the
Zoning Code Section 9.100.040137. Staff does not support this request because the
Zoning Code was amended in 1998, specifically to preclude this due to negative
visual effects. The use of the required 20 foot setback for retention detracts from the
streetscape views from the street and eliminates berming because of the depression
needed for the basin. Berming with planting is needed to provide attractive screening
of the parking lot surfaces. Therefore, Staff recommends that it not be permitted as
noted in Condition #48.
Furthermore, this amendment proposes two new driveway accesses on Avenue 50.
The westerly most driveway behind the two revised buildings should be used for
emergency use only. Although the applicant has verbally agreed to this provision, the
specific has not been revised to reflect it. This will reduce traffic hazards on Avenue
s:\stan\sp 98-034 am#1 pc rpt.wpd
50 from closely spaced accesses and weaving of traffic from lane to lane which
creates confusion. Condition #38F recommends the driveway be used for an
emergency exit only.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council, approval of Amendment #1 for Specific Plan 98-034, subject to
conditions.
Attachments:
1. Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 2001
2. Location Map
3. Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 text (for Planning Commission only)
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Christine di lorio, Pla ing Manager
s:\stan\sp 98-034 am#1 pc rpt.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPALS AND
GUIDELINES FOR A 100,500 SQUARE FOOT
SHOPPING CENTER
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034, AMENDMENT #1
LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
8th day of January, 2002, and the 11th day of December, 2001, hold a duly noticed
public hearings to consider the request of LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for
approval of an amendment to the Specific Plan design and development standards and
design guidelines for a 100,500 square foot shopping center, located at the
northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 50' Avenue, more particularly described as:
Portions of Section 32, TSS, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for Specific Plan 98-034 was certified by the City Council on
May 18, 1999, in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 98-060, Zone Change
98-089, Specific Plan 98-034, Parcel Map 29052, and Tentative Tract Map 29053.
No changed circumstances or conditions exist and no new information has been
submitted which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review
pursuant to Public Resources Code 21 166; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the
recommendation for approval of the Specific Plan Amendment:
1. The Specific Plan, as amended, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated for community
commercial uses, is under the floor area ratio maximum of .30, and will meet
the daily needs of a multi -neighborhood area.
2. The amended Specific Plan, subject to conditions as recommended by Staff,
will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
P:\STAN\sp 98-034 amend #1 pc res .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
January 8, 2002
and general welfare in that development allowed under the Specific Plan is
compatible with existing uses and development standards contained in the
Specific Plan will ensure high quality development.
3. The amended Specific Plan will provide land use compatibility with zoning on
adjacent properties in that the project principles and guidelines ensure that the
proposed adjacent residential uses will not be negatively impacted and will
service those uses.
4. The Specific Plan property is suitable and appropriate in that it easily
assessable to surrounding neighborhoods, and is adjacent to two arterial
streets.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the Findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -
described amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution,
subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 8`h day of January, 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\STAN\sp 98-034 amend #1 pc res .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
GENERAL
= ; - i 147M::
1. Upon the City Council's conditional approval of this Specific Plan, the City Clerk shall
prepare and record with the Riverside County Recorder, a memorandum noting that
the conditions of approval for the development of this property exist and are available
for review at the City Hall.
2. The developer 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. The City shall
have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
3. Prior to the issuance of -a any grading, construction, or building permit by the City,
the applicant shall obtain the necessary 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 wty all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from these jtrrisdietions the above listed agencies. ff When the requirements include
approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of saitl such approvals
when submitting those improvement plans for prior to obtaining City approval. of the
'IASTA sp 98-034 am#1 pc coa jan S.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page 1 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq., La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC");
Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Quality Resources Control
Board's ("SWQRCB9 Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm i6fater Politition Protection Plan ilg
available for inspeetion at the project sitt-
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that
disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres
of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more
than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm
Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at
the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020, LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this
project.
F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained throughout the course of
construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City.
P:\ST.AM-,p 98-034 arn#1 pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page 2 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
5. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the fee
prograrn in effeet at the time of issuance of building permits.- Permits issued under
this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and
Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building
permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the
proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate
or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance,
construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
7. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance
with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as
required by the City Engineer. Unless it can be documented that the existing right-of-
way complies with the following requirements, right-of-way dedications required for
this development shall include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) from 60-foot to 72-foot half width to
accommodate the present Jefferson Street improvements, including right
and left turn lanes at its intersection with Avenue 50.
2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - 50-foot half of the 100-foot right-of-way.
3) Additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus
turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans.
The applicant shall provide an additional 9-foot of right-of-way on Avenue
50 to accommodate the deceleration lane into the 30-foot wide parking lot
entry into Albertsons. Such right-of-way shall be concentric with the
deceleration curb alignment.
8. Right-of-way geometry for standard knuckles and property line corner cut -backs at
curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801, and #805,
respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
'•\STAMsp 98-034 amg I pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page 3 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
9. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-
ways shown on the approved tentative parcel map are necessary prior to approval of
the Parcel Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary
right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
10. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 20-toot from the R/W-P/L.
B. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design
is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Parcel
Map.
11- The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas on the Parcel Map.
12. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and properties
from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting those access
points shown on the Parcel Map.
13. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
14. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-of-
way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties
owned by others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of-way or access
easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from the affected
property owners.
STAN\sp 98-034 am#/ 1 pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Pagc 4 of 17
Planning Commission Reso9ution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
15. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion
of the subject property between the date of approval of the tentative parcel map and
the date of recording of any Parcel Map, unless such easement is approved by the
City Engineer.
•
_
_
_ _
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
16. 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." All plans except precise grading plans shall have
signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature
blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not
approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths,
gates and entryways, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include
irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan and a
"Site Utility" plan are required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and
the City Engineer.
':\STAM-P 98-034 amdl pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page 5 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor
elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements.
"Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but
not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage
systems. The "Site Utility" plan shall have signature blocks for the Building Official
and the City Engineer.
17. The City tray maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements
of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the applicant may €
purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City.
18. When final plans are approved by the City, Tthe applicant shall furnish a complete set
of the accurate AutoCAD files of all , approved off -site and residentiat
street and drainage improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City
Engineer. The files shall be saved in a utilize standard AutoCAD format mentl
so they may be fully retrievableed into through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built eonstructed conditions.
+f Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format,
or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer try
will accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
19. Prior to the conditional approval of this Specific Plan, or the issuance of any permit(s),
tT-he applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements andtaf satisfy its
obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision
Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the , secured agreement to construction
of such improvements and-/-c" the satisfyaction of its obligations for same, or shall
agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. prier to approval
VI ally IIII01 IIIa I./, ,,Up, — vv...ruu..vv, y.........y r,..,,..... �. . .............a
permit. For seetired isecurity provided,
and the release thereof, s
conform with Chapter 13, LE)ME3.
PASTAMsp 98-034 am#1 pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page G of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
20. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include removal of any
existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed
improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monuments.
21. if When improvements and -obligations are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to
any permits being issued by the City, the applicant shall submit detailed construction
cost estimates for all proposed on and off -site improvements, including an estimate
for the final survey monumentation, i , nt design and preparation the
applicant shall provide cost estimates for checking and approval by the City Engineer.
Such a -Estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule of tinit costs
adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs estimates
shall rneet the approval of be approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Parcel Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also
submit one copy each of an 8-1/2" x 11" reduction of each page of the Parcel Map,
along with a copy of an 8-1/2" x 11" Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved
by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost
estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies
shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the
applicant's detailed cost estimates.
Security is will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. eab+e
improvements.
++owevei; Ddevelopment-wide improvements shall not be agendized for final
acceptance trrit by the City Council until the City receives confirmation from the
telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service
to all lots within the development.
22. When +f improvements are phased through an with multiple firial maps or o
administrative approvals (e.g., o Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements
and common improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls,
'•\ST,1N\sp 98-034 am# I pc coa jan R.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page 7 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
& landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the
occupancy of any permanent buildings in the first phase of the
development, or as unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through a SIA, and satisfi prior to the completion of hernes
er occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter t-hre phase, and stibsequent
phases unless a eanstruetion phasing plan is or as otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
In ff the event the applicant fails to construct improvements for the development, or
fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the
or as specified in an approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt
issuance of btji'dimg all permits, and/or final btiildimg• inspections, er-etherwi, ,
withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, unto! the applicant
makes satisfactery progress em the or obligatioms or has made Other
or call upon the surety to complete the
improvements.
GRADING
23. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
24. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on any final map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with California Health & Safety Code
§ 17953.
\STAN\sp 98-034 am# 1 pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page 8 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control
Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
25. 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.
26. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation between the
adjoining properties. at ebtitting propenies and between sepaiate tracts and lots
within this developpment.
--ss
27. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03
unless otherwise required in these conditions of approval:
A. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, 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 up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000
sq. ft.
B. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water
(through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or
adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a
requirement for development of this property.
P:\STAM-p 98-034 am41 pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page 9 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
C. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
- .
-
- -
_
UTILITIES
28. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone
stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
29. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and
all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
30. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation
of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench
restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Plan in accordance with the City's TDM Ordinance,
Chapter 9.180, LQMC. The applicant shall be responsible for improvements found
necessary to mitigate the traffic impacts of this development.
P:\STAMsp 98-034 am## 1 pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page 10 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
32. The applicant shall provide an additional 9-foot of right-of-way on Jefferson Street to
accomodate the deceleration lane into the parking lot entry directly east of Parcel 6.
Such right-of-way shall be concentric with the deceleration curb alignment.
33. The applicant shall revise the commercial entry drive throats to provide a minimum
90-foot uninterrupted length, or shall provide a combination of a dedicated right turn
deceleration lane and the drive throat that will equal a total of 90-feet. for the
of the --n. . a! portion of the developmemt. Additional right-of-way shall be
dedicated as required in the "PROPERTY RIGHTS" section of these conditions.
34. 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.
35. Street right of way geornetry for Standard knuckles turns and corner cut -backs shall
conform vafth to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively,
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
36. 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. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to
final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
37. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure
for f20-year life} pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be
as follows: (or approved equivalents for alternate materials).
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" 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"
\STtM%p 98-034 am#1 pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3. 2002 Page 11 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
A. PARKING LOTS
1) The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150.
2) The angle point of the 26-foot drive aisle located at the northwest corner
of Parcel 1, shall have an inside turning radius satisfactory to the Fire
Marshall, and/or sufficient to accommodate a standard dual axel 13.5-foot
wheel base fire truck.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction
plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City
Engineer.
38. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Primary Entry (Jefferson Steet, 320-foot S. of N. P/Q: Left/Right turn in, Right
turn out.
B. Secondary Entry (Jefferson Steet, 530-foot S. of N. P/L): Right turn in, Right
turn out.
C. Primary Entry (Avenue 50, 610-foot W. of C/L Intersection with Jefferson
Street): Left/Right turn in, Right turn out.
D. Secondary Entry (Avenue 50, 400-foot W. of C/L Intersection with Jefferson
Street): Right turn in, Right turn out.
E. Secondary Entry into Parcel 2 Parking area shall be eliminated. (Avenue 50, 810-
foot W. of C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street).
F. Secondary Entry (Avenue 50, 930-foot W. of C/L Intersection with Jefferson
Street): Shall be reserved for Emergency Vehicle Right turn in, Right turn out,
and shall have positive access control satifactory to the Fire Marshal and the
City Engineer.
G. The access shown to the north, for the future residential tract shall remain.
P:\STAJMsp 98-034 am# 1 pc coa jan R.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Pagc 12 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
39. 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.
40. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
41. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard
Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
42. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure
they safely integrate with existing improvements.
CONSTRUCTION
43. 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.
44. 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 in residential tracts are
initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the
pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract
or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
P:\STAMsp 98-034 am41 pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3. 2002 Page 13 of 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
WIN 1919,60
45. if the project is phased, undeveloped pads she!! be turfed or landscaped and irrigated
with an approved grotindeover, for dust contiol and to enhance appearance -of
project.
45. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
46. 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.
47. 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 long public streets.
48. Only incidental storm water will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback
areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be
shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
PUBLIC SERVICES
49. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit
and approved by the City Engineer.
STXMsp 98-034 am+i 1 pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page 14 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
QUALITY ASSURANCE
50. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
51. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified eivft engineers, geotechnical engineers,
surveyors, and such of other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the
expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide
adequate sufficient construction supervision. to be able to ftirnish and sign accurate
reeerd dravvings.
52. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be
required by the City, as evidence that construction materials and methods employed
comply with the plans, aftd specifications and other applicable regulations. After
tributary -area improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized
wWhere retention basins have been are constructed installed, testing shall include a
sand filter percolation tests, as approved by the City Engineer.
53. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City
Engineer. 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 AutoCAD or raster -
image files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -built construct
conditions.
MAINTENANCE
54. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all
private on -site required improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and
sidewalks. tinless and tintil expressly released fiorn said responsibility by the City.
Thos shall include formation of a horneowner's association or other arrangern
acceptable to the 6ity for maintenance of retention basins, cornmen areas
:1STILM-p 98-034 am# 1 pe roa jan R.wpd Printed January 3. 2002 Page 15 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
FEES AND DEPOSITS
55. 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.
56. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any earth moving activities, applicant shall
pay a fringe -toed lizard mitigation fee of $600.00 per acre to the City of La Quinta.
-
__
.....�
Ike
--
- --
Oc' 10 - ..
9;Z
i i
=
FIRE MARSHAL
57. Fire hydrants in accordance with CVWD Standard W-33 shall be located at each
street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no
portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow
shall be 1000 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot reflectors shall be
mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with the fire hydrants.
58. Applicant/developer will provide written certification from the appropriate water
company that the required fire hydrant(s) are either existing or that financial
arrangements have been made to provide them.
59. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant/developer will furnish one
blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval.
Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location, and spacing, and the system
will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed/approved by a registered
civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify
that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed
by the Riverside County Fire Department."
60. 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.
':\,STlAMsp 98-034 amp 1 pe coa jan 8.tvpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page 16 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
Lundin Development Company
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
January 8, 2001
61. The drive aisle paving at the rear of Pad "A" and "B" shall be designed to handle a
live load of 65,000 pounds over 2-axles.
SIGNS
62. The sign program in the specific plan is not considered approved. A separate sign
program document shall be prepared, based upon the specific plan approval, with
adequate detail provided to ensure compliance with applicable code requirements and
design compatibility with the center. The document shall be submitted to and
approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of the first
building permit for the center.
ENVIRONMENTAL
63. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit or any earth moving
activities, whichever comes first, the property owner/developer shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Community Development Department demonstrating
compliance with those mitigation measures of SP 98-034 and EA 98-375.
MISCELLANEOUS
64. The approved Specific Plan text on file in the Community Development Department,
shall be revised to incorporate in the appropriate chapter and section the all
conditions and mitigation measures, with final texts (4) submitted to the Community
Development Department within 30 days of final approval by the City Council, or
prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first.
65. A vehicle turnaround shall be provided north of the required emergency access
located at the west end of the project on Avenue 50, to the satisfaction of the City.
P:\STAM;p 98-034 am#] pc coa jan 8.wpd Printed January 3, 2002 Page 17 of 17
ATTACHMENT
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
12. Commissioner Butler asked if the clusters could be rotated. Mr.
Walters explained the second story was not a true story. It is
more of an architectural feature. Discussion followed as to the
construction and location of the two story units. Mr. Walters
stated they had no objection.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked if the development on Kirk Street would
back up to this project. He has a concern about setting a
precedent that the Zoning Code%ooverns over.
14. Commissioner Butler stated this is normally an issue because there
are adjacent properties and in this instance there are no adjacent
units. Is this setting a precedent. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated the only affect is that once the first
unit is built, no matter which project is first, the property owner
who builds a two story will allow the adjoining property owner to
build a two story. Discussion followed regarding the affect of a
two story unit on an adjoining property owner.
15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-148, approving Site Development Permit 2001-
719, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
C. Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1; a request of Warner Engineering
for Lundin Development Company for an amendment to the text
development standards and design guidelines and an amendment to the
site plan design adjacent to Avenue 50 for a 100,500 square foot
shopping center located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and
Avenue 50.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins asked if the primary concern of staff was
that no berming would be provided on the streetscape. Staff
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
stated that is true. Commissioner Robbins asked the depth of the
retention basins. Staff stated it is approximately five or six feet
deep.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if there were any standards in terms of
the number of curb cuts for access on commercial projects like
this or is it a decision made by staff. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated the General Plan requires it to be a minimum, which is a
judgement call of staff. If the City Council and/or Planning
Commission believes that what is being requested is too many,
staff has reviewed it and determined it will work and it is not an
unsafe situation. Staff has recommended eliminating the public
access on the fourth access point requested by the applicant. The
only minimum stated in the General Plan is how close they can be
to a signalized intersection. Other than that staff indicates they
should keep the driveways to a minimum. Commissioner Kirk
stated one of the applicant's rationale for the increased number of
accesses is the concentration of traffic on the previous access
points. Staff stated this was a statement of the applicant.
4. Commissioner Butler asked if the fourth access would also be an
access for the smaller pads. Would this close off truck traffic to
service the smaller pads. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated
those stores would be serviced from the front instead of the rear.
5. Commissioner Tyler questioned the number of driveways when
you consider these as well as the adjacent tracts. Staff stated it
is an issue before the Commission for their determination.
Discussion followed regarding the access points. Commissioner
Tyler questioned the gate at the north property line that would be
gated to the tract. Staff stated a condition had been added not
allowing the gate.
6. Commissioner Butler asked staff where the retention basins would
go if not allowed in the setback. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated they would either lose parking spaces or work with the
adjoining property owner to create the basin.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked if the sign program had been approved.
Staff stated the applicant is conditioned to bring a final sign
program back to the Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
Commissioner Tyler asked about the need for future expansion for
right turns; is this still required? Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated this has already been acquired.
8. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Mike Smith, Warner Engineering, representing
the applicant, explained their request.
9. Commissioner Tyler asked about the roadways in the rear of the
buildings and why he thought the Fire Department would want to
use it. Mr. Smith stated they had no objection to making it an
emergency exit or right turn out.
10. Commissioner Butler questioned whether or not the landscape
architect would be able to buffer the parking lot without berms.
Mr. Smith stated he was proposing to use short walls and plant
materials. Commissioner Butler stated the driveways could be
obstructed by the landscaping plan. Commissioner Butler asked
what the elevation was of the parking lot. Mr. Smith stated it was
hard to read.
11. Commissioner Kirk asked about the concrete pipe. Mr. Smith
stated this was a proposed solution if they could not use the
retention basin in the landscape setback. Commissioner Kirk
asked if the applicant knew about the deceleration upon the initial
approval. Mr. Smith stated yes they did and it was given to the
City. Commissioner Kirk asked if the percolation rate had
changed. Mr. Smith stated it is less than what is contained in the
soils report. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the City's
standard has always been 2-inches per hour maximum.
Commissioner Kirk questioned why another access point was
needed. Mr. Smith stated to accommodate the buildings in the
"L" shaped area.
12. Mr. Greg Bever, Lundin Development, explained the purpose in
regard to adding the accesses. Commissioner Kirk asked why the
access to the east would not accommodate the shops instead of
adding the additional access. Mr. Bever stated it would give
better access to the pads.
13. Commissioner Robbins noted there is no deceleration lane for the
main entrance off Avenue 50. There is a deceleration lane on the
two smaller accesses and this seems backwards. Senior Engineer
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
Steve Speer stated the Municipal Code requires 90 feet of throat
depth for an access to a parking lot. This particular site is
constrained along its frontage making the site shallow front to
back in several locations. As a result of not having the 90 feet,
staff was allowing to use a deceleration lane. Staff noted they are
not moving the right-of-way line which should be done as the City
does not want the curb back of the right-of-way line. Staff
considers this as an alternative and does believe it is being
overused in this instance. It is not needed on the main entrance
because the throat going into the parking lot is 90 feet.
14. Commissioner Tyler asked if the parking lot on the west end was
employee parking. Mr. Bever stated it was. With regards to using
the retention basin, it is a large economic repercussion for them.
They do comply along Avenue 50 with the 20-foot landscaping
setback. As far as a visual buffer for those traveling on Jefferson
Street there is 60-feet of dense landscaping which will allow them
the depth to provide visual screening.
15. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding
this project. There being no further discussion, the public
participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for
Commission discussion.
16. Commissioner Robbins stated that conceptually he has no problem
with the retention basin encroaching into the landscape setback.
He is concerned with the northerly part of Jefferson street where
the retention basin backs up to the two fast food pads, as they are
not usually maintained. He would be more comfortable if they had
a landscape plan the Commission could review. On the other hand
he does not want to create a high water usage landscape plan.
17. Commissioner Kirk stated he also has a concern with the retention
basin, but believes it could be resolved. On the access issue,
there are too many curb cuts. If an emergency access is needed,
then he cold support it as an exit only. Regarding the minor
setback issue, he supports the applicant's request.
18. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs with the lack of detail on
the landscape plan. If it were in more detail, he could probably
agree with the retention basin request. In regard to the access, he
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2001
would agree with closing off the one on the western end and
making it an emergency access only. This would still allow three
accesses on Avenue 50 and three on Jefferson Street.
19. Commissioner Tyler stated the Specific Plan states on Page 12
that the trees will be mature in 15-20 years. He would like to see
a more detailed landscaping plan before approving it. He does
believe there is a need for all the access points as requested.
Also, he would like to see the access in the rear of the pads
eliminated.
20. Mr. Smith requested this project be continued to allow them time
to bring a landscape plan back to the Commission. He noted the
entry to the north to the tract will not be gated.
21. Commissioner Kirk suggested the applicant be given direction as
to what to bring back. He needs to address the access points and
prepare a landscape plan. Discussion followed regarding access
points.
22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to continued Specific Plan 98-034 ,
Amendment #1, to January 8, 2002, as requested by the
applicant. Unanimously approved.
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:51 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
8:57 p.m.
E. Environmental Assessment 2001-433, General Plan Amendment 2001-
08E a request of the City for certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for an Environmental Assessment
and consideration of an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation
Element Table CIR-2 on Major Arterials to amend the minimum
intersection spacing of 2,600 feet for commercial frontage.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01.wpd 9
PH #E
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2002
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-437, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 2001-081, ZONE CHANGE 2001-104, SPECIFIC
PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1, AND TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 30357
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-437; GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE 14 ACRES AT
THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF JEFFERSON AND AVENUE 52
FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MODIFYING
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
490 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, 60 FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP
UNITS, AN 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE AND A 14 ACRE
NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
TO SUBDIVIDE PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT AREA INTO 178
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, LOTS FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION, CASITAS DEVELOPMENT, GOLF COURSE,
MAINTENANCE AND CLUBHOUSE FACILITY LOTS, AND OTHER
LETTERED LOTS FOR STREETS AND OTHER FACILITIES
LOCATION: THE EAST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET, BETWEEN AVENUE 50
AND AVENUE 52
APPLICANT: TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA 2001-437) WAS
PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED APPLICATIONS IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: CURRENT: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE AND
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\TollBros.WPD
BACKGROUND:
Site Background
The proposed project site is located between Avenue 50 and Avenue 52, on the east
side of Jefferson Street. The land is currently vacant. A Specific Plan was approved
for the site in 1990, but not constructed upon. Since a Specific Plan approval does not
lapse unless amended, the applicant proposes to amend the Plan to allow for the
development of the community they now envision for the site.
Pro-ject Request
In addition to the Environmental Assessment, the following applications have been
filed:
1. A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the northeast corner of
Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. The land is currently designated Low Density
Residential. The applicant proposes to change the designation to Neighborhood
Commercial, to allow the development of a shopping center.
2. A Specific Plan Amendment to modify design standards and guidelines for the
construction of all components of the project area, including up to 490 single
family units on 148 acres, 60 "casitas" (fractional ownership) units on 5 acres,
a 206 acre golf course and associated clubhouse, a 2 acre golf maintenance
facility, a 14 acre shopping center and two well sites on 4 acres. The total
project area is 379 acres.
3. A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the land for 178 of the 490 residential lots,
future areas to be subdivided into residential lots, the casitas lot, the golf course
and maintenance facility lots, and a number of lettered lots which will be
developed for streets and open space/landscaping areas.
Project Description
The original Specific Plan (1990-016) for The Grove project was for an area of
approximately 305 acres. Since that time, no development has occurred, and the
applicant has secured an additional 73 acres, in the northwestern portion of the
property. The applicant proposes the construction of single family residential units
around an 18 hole golf course. The project will also include a clubhouse, to be located
in the center of the property, and 60 adjacent "casitas" units which could allow up to
11 fractional ownerships per unit. The proposed tentative tract map only subdivides
the land into 178 residential lots. The balance of the land to be used for residential lots
will be subdivided at a later date.
The residential and golf portions of the project will take primary access from Jefferson
Street, just south of the northern property line. Additional access points will occur on
both Avenue 50 and Avenue 52. This access point will also be the primary access for
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\To11Bros.WPD
the golf maintenance facility. Access to the shopping center site, located at the
northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, will be from both Avenue 52 and
Jefferson Street, and will be kept separate from the residential and golf components.
No Site Development Permits have been requested at this time. Such permits will be
necessary in the future for prototype housing, the golf clubhouse and maintenance
facility, and the shopping center.
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Analysis
The proposal includes a request to change the General Plan and Zoning designations
on 14 acres at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 from Low
Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. The applicant believes that this site
is an appropriate location for a future shopping center.
The General Plan and its Land Use Map include a number of policies relating to the
development of a balanced community. This balance is created when an appropriate
number of housing units are served by an adequate number of businesses, jobs and
public facilities. In general, neighborhood shopping centers serve an area of about 1.5
to 2 miles' radius from their location. This area of the City is partially developed, and
is rapidly expanding. The residential units approved for the project currently under
consideration, when added to those included in the approved Country Club of the
Desert project, the recently annexed Village at the Palms, PGA West and other
projects to the south will require commercial services. The Planning Commission
reviewed a proposed shopping center to be located immediately south of this project
at its meeting of December 11, 2001, and recommended approval by the City Council.
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow for another
shopping center at this intersection. This is typical of development patterns in the City
and throughout the Valley, insofar as major roadways are appropriate locations for
such commercial facilities. The development in the area is also likely to support more
than one shopping center with supermarket, drug store and similar services in this area
in the future. Finally, the proposed General Plan Land Use Map, not yet adopted by the
City but reviewed at several public meetings by both the Planning Commission and the
City Council, proposes that the land at this corner (the northeast corner) be designated
for neighborhood commercial development.
Based on this analysis, and the growth patterns in the City, the designation of 14
acres of neighborhood commercial at this location appears to be appropriate, and
represent a logical extension of the development patterns in the City.
Public Notice
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on December 26, 2001.
All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public
hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
i 1
G:\WPDOCS\PC SO Rpt\To11Bros.WPD
Public Agency Review
All written comments received are on file with the Community Development
Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the
Conditions of Approval for this case.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map can be made, as noted in the attached
resolutions with the exception of:
A. Specific Plan
1. Development Standards
The Specific Plan includes a number of development standards and allowances which
require modification. The following discussion addresses these issues chronologically
in the document.
Landscape buffer between residential and commercial components
The site plan and development standards show a landscape buffer of 25 feet between
the commercial shopping center and the residential units on the southernmost portion
of the plan (first reference occurs on page 2.20, item 1.e.). The City's Zoning
Ordinance requires that such a buffer be 50 feet, in order to provide sufficient
separation between these land uses. In order to ensure that the residents of the
southernmost lots are not disturbed by the noise and activity to be generated by the
commercial shopping center, a 50 foot buffer is advised. A condition of approval has
been added to require this amendment (Specific Plan Condition #4).
Parking Standards
Page 2.21, item 3. includes a provision which would allow for staff approval of
residential parking standards under "unique design and site parameters." No further
definition of what these parameters might be is provided. Currently, changes in parking
standards require amendment of a Specific Plan and submittal to the Planning
Commission and City Council for approval. Since no definition is provided in the Plan,
a condition of approval has been added which requires that the sentence be struck.
It is recommended that the City's parking standards be adhered to unless modified by
the Planning Commission and City Council (Specific Plan Condition #5).
Project Signaae
The Specific Plan does not provide sufficient detail to approve a master signage
program. No indication is provided under the signage discussion (page 2.23) regarding
future approvals for signage permits. A condition of approval has been added which
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\To11Bros.WPD
requires submittal of a master signage program and individual sign permits. The
condition further states that the project shall be required to conform to signage
standards in the Development Code, and that the Specific Plan be amended to reflect
these changes (Specific Plan Condition #6).
Lot Frontage
Page 3.7 includes a Table which provides development standards for the single family
residential units. The "Off -golf Lot Frontage" is shown at 50 feet in width. It is
recommended that the City's standard of 60 feet be included here, insofar as a 50
foot lot in an area where the minimum lot size is 7200 square feet is not a desirable
configuration. Furthermore, the Tentative Tract Map submitted concurrent with the
Specific Plan application shows minimum lot frontages no less than 60 feet in width,
so the lower standard does not appear necessary. A condition of approval has been
added to address this issue (Specific Plan Condition #8).
Commercial Development Standards
Page 3.10 of the Specific Plan includes standards for the commercial shopping center
site. The Table includes a requirement that the "Minimum set back to golf
course/residential property line" be 25 feet. This is inconsistent with the City's
requirement for buffering between residential and commercial land uses, as discussed
above. The standard should be changed to 50 feet (Specific Plan Condition #4).
This Table also includes an asterisk which would allow an increase of up to 8,000
square feet in the maximum building size. This appears to be too large of a potential
increase, and is inconsistent with most Specific Plans in the City, which generally
allow up to 10% variations in building standards. A condition of approval has been
added which requires that the 10% standard be applied here Specific Plan Condition
#9).
Casitas Land Uses
Page 3.11 of the Specific Plan lists uses permitted within the 5 acre "casitas" portion
of the Plan. This section (item A.) includes hotels as a permitted use, and does not
define "fractional ownership residential uses." Hotels are not allowed in the low
density residential designation, and represent a considerably different type of land use
than that envisioned for this site, as required per the Zoning Code development
standards for Resort Residential Section 9.60.320. A condition of approval has been
added which requires the deletion of hotels as uses (Conditions #10).
Fractional ownership is provided for in the City's Zoning Ordinance, under section
9.60.320. A condition of approval has been added which requires the addition of this
reference (Condition #11).
Landscape Plan
No landscape plan is provided as part of the submittal. Two conditions of approval
have been added to address this issue. The first requires that a perimeter landscape
plan be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any grading permit on any part
G:\WPDOCS\PC SO Rpt\To11Bros.WPD
of this site, and that all perimeter landscaping be installed prior to occupancy of any
unit on the property. The second requires review and approval of individual
landscaping plans for the casitas site, the golf clubhouse and maintenance facility, and
the shopping center in conjunction with Site Development Permit review (Specific Plan
Conditions #13 & 14).
B. Tentative Tract Map
The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the Specific Plan, as conditioned. The City
Engineer has asked that a number of conditions of approval be added to the Map, in
order to ensure development to City standards. The Map is proposed to be further
subdivided in the future, as additional lots are required for development. Subsequent
submittals will be required to accomplish this.
CONCLUSION:
The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment, and Tentative
Tract Map, as conditioned, represent an appropriate use of the parcel on which they
are proposed. The Specific Plan Amendment, as conditioned, is compatible with
surrounding development in the immediate area, and in conformance with City
requirements. Findings for a recommendation for approval, as noted in the attached
Resolutions, can be made.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , recommending to the City
Council adoption of Environmental Assessment 2001-437.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-081.
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- recommending to the City
Council approval of Zone Change 2001-104.
4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Specific Plan Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment #1,
subject to the findings and conditions.
5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 30357, subject to the findings and
conditions.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\ToIIBros.WPD
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Specific Plan Document
3. Tentative Tract Map 30357
Prepared by:
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
Submitted by:
I
G--
Christine di lorio, Plannin Manager
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\ToIIBros.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-437 PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-081, ZONE
CHANGE 2001-104, SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016,
AMENDMENT #1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-437
APPLICANT: TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 8th day of January 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-437 for General Plan Amendment 2001-081, Zone
Change 2001-104, Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment #1, and Tentative Tract Map
30357, located on the east side of Jefferson Street, between Avenue 50 and Avenue
52:
APN 772-250-002 & 003, 772-250-007 through 012,
772-270-001 through 004, 772-270-006
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-437)
and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-081,
Zone Change 2001-104, Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment #1, and Tentative Tract
Map 30357 could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would
not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were
made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-081, Zone Change 2001-104,
Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment #1, and Tentative Tract Map 30357 will
not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community,
either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were
identified by Environmental Assessment 2001-437.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosEA437.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Environmental Assessment 2001-437 - Toll Brothers, Inc.
Adopted: January 8, 2002
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential
or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
437 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of
the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TollBrosEA437.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Environmental Assessment 2001-437 - Toll Brothers, Inc.
Adopted: January 8, 2002
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2001-437 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-437 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 8th day of January 2002, 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
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TollBrosEA437.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
Environmental Assessment 2001-437
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-081, Zone Change 2001-
104, Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment #1, and
Tentative Tract Map 30357
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: East side of Jefferson Street, between Avenue 50 and
Avenue 52
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Toll Brothers, Inc.
8901 E. Mountain View Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
6. General Plan Designation:
Current: Low Density Residential
Proposed: Low Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial
7. Zoning: Current: Low Density Residential
Proposed: Low Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change 14 acres from Low Density
Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. Specific Plan to amend development
standards for the construction of low density residential units, casitas, golf course
and a neighborhood shopping center. Tentative Tract Map to create residential and
golf course lots, as well as a number of lettered lots.
9. Surrounding Land 'Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Golf course, low density residential
South: Vacant desert lands, low density residential
West: Jefferson Street, PGA West
East: Country Club of the Desert, All -American Canal
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
not 'ng ;further is req�u' d..
2
a0.
Signature Dat
Christine di Iorio
Printed Name
City of La Quinta
For
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page
or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
[I. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
Potentiall
y
Significan
t
Impact
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Unless Significant No
Mitigated Impact Impact
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gl
X
3:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Tol1BrosCk1st.WPD 4
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Project Description) X
V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 5-2 ff., biological resource letter, LSA Associates, August 2001)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
(Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Letter dated August
22, 2001, LSA Associates)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (Letter dated August 22, 2001, LSA Associates)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed Delineation Map)
R.
IN
91
VA
M
X
;AWPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD
/I.
VII.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (Letter dated August 22, 2001, LSA Associates)
GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2,
page 6-7)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan MEA, page 6-2 ff)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application
Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/1
is\WF'DOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD 6
VIII.
IX.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 6-11)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff., and "Hydrology Specific Plan
90-016 Tentative Tract 30357," prepared by MDS Consulting, October
2001)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page
4-30 ff., and "Hydrology Specific Plan 90-016 Tentative Tract 30357,"
prepared by MDS Consulting, October 2001)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff., and "Hydrology Specific Plan 90-016 Tentative
Tract 30357," prepared by MDS Consulting, October 2001)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project
Description)
F.9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
iAWI'DOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD 7
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5)
C. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
KI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-
4, page 6-17, and "Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA
Associates, October 2001)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4,
page 6-17, and "Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA Associates,
October 2001)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, page 6-17, and "Noise Impact
Analysis," prepared by LSA Associates, October 2001)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental
Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials)
X
X
09
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3AWPD0CS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD 8
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) X
(III. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
KIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-126 ff., and "Draft Traffic Study," prepared by LSA
Associates, October 2001)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff., and
"Draft Traffic Study," prepared by LSA Associates, October 2001)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff., and "Draft Traffic Study,"
prepared by LSA Associates, October 2001)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff., and "Draft Traffic Study," prepared
by LSA Associates, October 2001)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD 9
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation X
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials)
(VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: !Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 )
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-28)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
X
X
X
X
X
FN
Ri
X
Vi
)AWPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD 10
CVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis 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 analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analysis were used in this review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
OURCES:
?aster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
CAQMD CEQA Handbook.
general Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
.ity of La Quinta Municipal Code
Draft Traffic Study," prepared by LSA Associates, October 2001
Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA Associates, October 2001
'ultural Resources letter dated August 22, 2001, LSA Associates
iiological Resources letter dated August 22, 2001, LSA Associates
Hydrology Specific Plan 90-016 Tentative Tract 30357," prepared by MDS Consulting, October 15, 2001
is\WPDOMEnv Asses\To11BrosCk1st.WPD 11
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-437
III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation
of motor vehicles. The traffic study estimates that a total of 12,941 new
trips will be generated by the proposed project'. Based on this trip
generation, the project at buildout will generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 334.2 12.96 68.5 -- 1.43 1.43
4 6
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 12,941 trips/day and average trip length of 5 miles, using
EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes
catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD
for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an
EIR.
As demonstrated in the Table above, the proposed project will not exceed any
threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. The
impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution are not expected to be
significant.
III. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the
potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem in the
area. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and
requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to
submit a dust management plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity
at the site. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be
mitigated by the mitigation measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
"Draft Traffic Study," prepared by LSA Associates, October 18, 2001.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosAddend.WPD
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
7. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed, or chemical
stabilizer.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Perimeter landscaping on Avenues 50 and 52
and Jefferson Street shall be completed with the first phase of
development.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from buildout will not be significant.
IV. b) A biological resource site survey was conducted for the proposed project site2.
A mesquite hummock is located on the subject property. This feature has been
identified by the Department of Fish & Game as an important community in the
Coachella Valley. In order to mitigate the potential impacts to this natural
community, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
2 Biological Resources letter dated August 13, 2001, LSA Associates.
r
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosAddenc.WPD 2
1. Prior to construction or site preparation activities, the project developer
shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDFG and
an appropriate non-profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and
manage land for the purpose of protecting special status plants and
wildlife. This MOU shall provide the organization chosen the financial
resources necessary to purchase and manage 1 acre of mesquite
hummock habitat in the Willow Hole area.
V. b) A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted for the subject property3.
The site survey included identification of previously recorded sites, and
additional finds. The Phase I recommended testing. As a result, the following
mitigation measure is necessary:
1. The Phase II Cultural Resource Analysis shall be completed to City of La
Quinta standards, submitted and approved prior to review by the City
Council.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the
City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code
requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation
of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of
grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from
ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
Portions of the subject property are subject to soil erosion due to wind. The City
will implement requirements for a PM10 management plan, and additional
mitigation measures have been included in the Air Quality discussion above.
These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
Vill. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which
extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin.
The development of the project site will require domestic water, and can also
irrigate the proposed golf course utilizing canal water, since the All American
Canal is located adjacent to the project site. This usage will reduce the potential
impacts to water resources on the project site. The project proponent will be
required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing
3
Cultural Resources Letter dated August 22, 2001, LSA Associates.
l
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosAddend.WPD 3
fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts
associated with groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the
requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These
standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. c►-d)
The City requires that all construction projects retain the 100 year 24 hour
storm on -site. A hydrology study has been prepared for the project site which
analysis several drainage areas, and assigns retention amounts'. The study
identifies the measures necessary to control water in the event of a storm. The
project's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior
to the issuance of grading permits. The preparation of final grading plans will
be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure conformance with the drainage
study and City standards. These requirements will ensure that the impacts
associated with drainage at the site are reduced to a less than significant level.
XI. a► A noise study was prepared for the proposed project'. The study found that the
project's sensitive receptors (the residential dwelling units) will be impacted by
traffic noise, noise from the well sites, and noise from the commercial site. In
order to mitigate these impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1. A six foot high perimeter wall shall be installed for residential properties,
at a minimum:
a. Within 238 feet of the centerline of Jefferson Street south of
Avenue 50.
b. Within 152 feet of the centerline of Avenue 50 between Jefferson
and Madison Streets.
2. A six foot high wall shall be constructed around both well sites at the
project.
3. A six foot high wall shall be constructed on the northwest corner of the
project site adjacent to the commercial lands at Jefferson and Avenue
50.
4. A six foot high wall shall be constructed on the southwest corner of the
project site adjacent to the commercial lands at Jefferson Street and
Avenue 52.
4 "Hydrology Specific Plan 90-016 Tentative Tract 30357," prepared by MDS Consulting, October 15, 2001.
5 "Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA Associates, October 19, 2001.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosAddend.WPD 4
XI. c) The noise study also found that noise levels will be affected by construction
activities on the site. In order to mitigate these impacts, the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented:
1. All construction equipment shall be fitted with properly operating
mufflers and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed in such a manner
as to emit noise away from sensitive receptors.
3. Equipment staging areas shall be located as far away from sensitive
receptors as possible.
4. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
These mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts associated with
noise at the subject property to a less than significant level.
XIII. a)
The proposed development will have a direct impact on public services and will
be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City
contract. Site development will generate property tax and sales taxes which will
offset the costs of added police and fire services.
XV. a)
The project area will be required to pay the mandated school fees as
development occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the
impacts to schools.
The collection of property tax, and the generation of sales tax will generate
revenues to the City to offset the added costs associated with the provision of
municipal services. The project will be required to participate in the City's
Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. Site
development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services
or facilities.
A traffic study was prepared for the proposed projects. The study found that
the traffic generated from the project site, both residential and commercial, will
not reduce levels of service to a less than acceptable level, assuming
surrounding roadways are improved to City standards. No mitigation measures
are therefore needed to ensure that impacts associated with traffic generation
are reduced to a less than significant level.
6 "Draft Traffic Analysis," prepared by LSA Associates, October 18, 2001.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\To11BrosAddend.WPD 5
O
�
;
N
�
�
N
�
C
W
z
o
�
�
w
o
0
d
�7
o
�
�
o
N
�
H
O
N
v�
C:)
z
0
a0
N 'to o
o
C
ti
z
O
�a
C) (71,
Cd
Hz
UCA
U
W
C4
� V
M
cnto
HO
00
Cori C>
r �®
z
z 3®
p
z
Z
U oa
�o
wa
d
d
�
a xw
A
U
W
d HA
W
F
Q
G
Um
Qw
�U
W
ox
UU
'L3
N
V
U
F
A
.�
U
�
�
o
u.
O
O
O
U
U
U
U
U
� .�'� U
� ,�v,•, bA
O b�A
a
a
a.a
a
a0
a �b
o
U
U
U
GQ
m
U O
0
�
O
•RS
N
U
C�
U
b
I
a
A
c
JG�c
Uoco
Uca
Q W
Q w
Q w
ODU
UU
UU
Q
Q
�
w
-�s
w
°
0
U
G7
�
o
C7
U
G7
O
o
•�
O
O
O
O
Z
U
�
Z
.fl
3
Z
�
�
�
F
o
F
F■
c
U
U
(y
.0
U
U
to
U
YO
p
a U
A
Q
Q
Q
Q
z7
Q
zz
�j
z z
a
a
a
a
a
UQ
UQ
CA
Im
0
w
o
O
3
a
o3
��
o�
a�
4.tnw
o•°
°
,cd
ce
°
.c
a
w
00
"
>kn ''
3 3
N
�
�
O
a
Q
:IS
o
o
�
o
bD
w
>
v
0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE FROM LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
FOR 14 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 52
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-081
APPLICANT: TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 8th day of January 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to review a
General Plan Amendment to change 14 acres of land designated Low Density
Residential to Neighborhood Commercial at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street
and Avenue 52; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending
approval of said General Plan Amendment:
1. Internal General Plan Consistency. The proposed amendment to the Land Use
Map would change 14 acres of land designated Low Density Residential to
Neighborhood Commercial. This represents a logical extension of the land use
pattern in the City, and is supported by General Plan goals and policies
regarding providing a full range of services and opportunities for City residents.
2. Public Welfare. The proposed amendment will not negatively impact public
safety, insofar as the land use change is a logical extension of the land use
pattern in the City.
3. General Plan Compatibility. The proposed General Plan amendment will be
compatible with the General Plan, insofar as Neighborhood Commercial is an
existing designation in the City and this change represents a furtherance of
General Plan goals.
4. Property Suitability. The property is generally flat, located at the corner of two
major roadways, and suitable for commercial development.
5. Change in Circumstances. The continued development of the City requires the
continued modification of the Land Use Map, and this amendment continues to
support that development.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\TollBrosGPA.WPD
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
General Plan Amendment 2001-081 - Toil Brothers, Inc.
Adopted: January 8, 2002
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Environmental Assessment
(EA 2001-437) assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan
Amendment; and,
3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan
Amendment 2001-081 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as
contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 8th day of January 2002, 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
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\TollBrosGPA.WPD '
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
General Plan Amendment 2001-081 - Toll Brothers, Inc.
Adopted: January 8, 2002
AVENUE 52
G/OS - GOLF/OPEN SPACE
LDR - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
NC - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
PROPOSED
F-
W
W
z
0
CD
0
a
g
EXHIBIT "A"
EXISTING
R;
w
IY
F-
W
z
0
cA
0
Q
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ASSIGNING NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO 14
ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET
CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2001-104
APPLICANT: TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 8th day of January, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Toll
Brothers, Inc. for review of a Zone Change to change the zoning designation on 14
acres at the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, more particularly
described as:
APN 772-250-002 & 003, 772-250-007 through 012,
772-270-001 through 004, 772-270-006
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending
approval of said Zone Change:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta
General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and surrounding
development and land use designations, ensuring land use compatibility.
2. The Zone Change will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding
development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements.
3. The Zone Change is compatible with the City's zoning ordinance in that it
supports the development of a range of services in an integrated community.
4. The Zone Change supports the orderly development of the City.
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;
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\TollBrosZC.WPD
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_ __
Zone Change 2001-104 - Toll Brothers, Inc.
Adopted: January 8, 2002
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment
2001-437 assessed the environmental concerns of the Zone Change; and,
3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of CZ 2001-104 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 8th day of January, 2002, 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
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\TollBrosZC.WPD
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Zone Change 2001-104 - Toll Brothers, Inc.
Adopted: January 8, 2002
AVENUE 52
GC - GOLF COURSE
RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
CN - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
PROPOSED
W
z
0
Ca
0
a
EXHIBIT "A"
EXISTING
w
w
cc
z
0
0
a
G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\To1ll3rosZC.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
ESTABLISH RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON THE EAST
SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET, BETWEEN AVENUE 50 AND
AVENUE 52
CASE NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 90-016, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 8" day of January 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment #1, to allow the development of residential and
neighborhood commercial land uses on the east side of Jefferson Street, between
Avenue 50 and Avenue 52; and
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan has complied with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended
(Resolution 83-63), in that an Environmental Assessment (EA 2001-437) was prepared
for Specific Plan 1990-016, Amendment #1 and found that although the proposed
project will have environmental impacts, all impacts can be mitigated to a less than
significant level; 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 Specific Plan 90-016, Amendment #1:
1. That the proposed Specific Plan 90-016, Amendment #1 is consistent with the
goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the proposed project
provides for a variety of land uses in an integrated community.
2. This Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare in that land uses have been thoughtfully planned and
buffered to avoid land use incompatibilities.
3. That Specific Plan 90-016, Amendment #1 is compatible with the existing and
anticipated area development in that tit creates an integrated community.
4. That the project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to
ensure public health and safety.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\TollBrosSP.WPD
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Specific Plan 90-016, Amendment #1 - Toll Brothers, Inc.
Adopted: January 8, 2002
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 require compliance with the Conditions of Approval for the
proposed Specific Plan;
3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Environmental Assessment
(EA 2001-437) assessed the environmental concerns of this Specific Plan; and,
4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 90-016,
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 Council, held on this 8th day of January, 2002, 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
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\TollBrosSP.WPD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. The project proponent shall submit amended documents, including all changes
required by these conditions of approval within 30 days of City Council approval
of the Specific Plan and/or prior to issuance of the grading permit whichever
occurs first.
2. Any residential lot occurring within 300 feet of existing equestrian or
agricultural land uses at the time of subdivision of that lot, shall be deed
restricted to require notification by the seller to the purchaser of the lot that the
lot is located within 300 feet of an existing equestrian or agricultural land use.
3. Table 2 on page 2.9, Table 4 on page 2.11 and Table 5 on page 2.12 shall be
modified to show a density of 3.6 units per acre for all residential components
of the Specific Plan.
4. All references to the landscape buffer at the northern boundary of the
commercial shopping center site shall be changed to 50 feet.
5. The last sentence of item 3. on page 2.21 shall be deleted.
6. No signage is approved as part of this approval. The project proponent shall
submit a master signage program prior to installation of any signage at the site.
Page 2.23 of the Specific Plan shall be amended to include these requirements.
7. The reference to hillside trails on page 3.3, item B. shall be deleted.
8. The Table on page 3.7 shall be modified to show an off -golf lot frontage of 60
feet.
9. The asterisk on page 3.10, "Commercial Building Development Standards"
Table shall read "Maximum footprint may vary 10%.
10. The words "residential hotel" shall be deleted from item A. on page 3.11.
11. The words "subject to the regulations contained in Section 9.60.320 of the La
Quinta Development Code" shall be added to item A., page 3.1 1, immediately
following the words "fractional ownership residential uses."
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
12. Item C., page 3.15 shall be amended to reflect 6 foot walls in all residential
areas, and 8 foot walls for commercial areas.
13. The landscaping plan shall include all frontages on City streets, shall be
submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading permit on
any portion of the site, and shall be installed as part of the first phase of
construction on the project site.
14. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review and approval for the casitas
site, the golf clubhouse and maintenance facility, and the shopping center in
conjunction with Site Development Permits for these components of the project.
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CONDITIONS
15. The developer shall be required to install suitable facilities per district and
Bureau of Reclamation standards to prohibit access to the Coachella Canal right
of way.
16. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the district prior to any
construction within the right of way of the Coachella Canal.
17. The developer shall provide land for additional facilities, which may include
wells, reservoirs, and booster pumping stations. These sites shall be shown on
the tract map as lots to be deeded to the district for such purpose.
18. The project site shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 55 and 82 of the
district for sanitation service.
19. The developer shall receive clearances from the Bureau of Reclamation for any
portion of lateral 120.8 which occur within the proposed project site prior to
recordation of the Final Tract Map.
20. Water from the Coachella Canal shall be used for irrigation of golf course and
greenbelts within the project area.
GENERAL
21. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
2 '7
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan,
or any Tract Map processed thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in
selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
22. Any Tract Map related to, and processed concurrently with this Specific Plan,
shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § §
66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the
La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site
at, http://la-quinta.org.
23 Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the
City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the
following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• Sunline Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
24. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq., and 13.24.170,
LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources
Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ .
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of
land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that
encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be
required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for
inspection at the project site at all times through and including
acceptance of all improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020, LQMC):
1. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2. Temporary Sediment Control.
3. Wind Erosion Control.
4. Tracking Control.
5. Non -Storm Water Management.
6. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved
by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in
relation to this project.
F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained throughout the course of
construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City.
25. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at
the time of issuance of building permit(s).
26. The applicant shall permit the access to be retained to the existing golf cart
tunnel crossing under Jefferson Street.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
27. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
28. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the related Tract Map, all public street
right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
29. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) (Lot "A") - 50-foot half of the 100-
foot right-of-way.
2. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) (Lot "B") - 60-foot half of the
120-foot right-of-way.
3. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) (Lot "C") - 55-foot half of the 1 10-
foot right-of-way.
30. The applicant shall retain for private use on the related Tract Map, all private
street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal
Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
31. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include Lot "D" through and including Lot "Q":
A. PRIVATE STREETS
1, Lot "D" - (Divided Collector) 53-foot right-of-way.
2. Lots "E" through "Q" (Residential Streets) shall have a 39-foot
right-of-way where double loaded, and may have a 35-foot right-
of-way where single loaded.
B. CUL DE SACS
1. Private Cul-de-sacs: Use Riverside County Standard 800 for
symmetrical Cul De Sacs and Standard 800A for offset Cul De
Sacs, with both having a 37-foot radius to the flowline of the 6"
wedge curb.
32. Right-of-way geometry for standard knuckles and property line corner cut -backs
at curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801, and
#805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
4 'i
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
33. 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.
34. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street
right-of-ways shown on the approved tentative tract map are necessary prior
to approval of the related Tract Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the
applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written
request by the City.
35. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the related Tract Map, a ten -foot
wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private
streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express
written approval of IID.
36. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-
of-ways as follows:
A. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
B. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
C. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall
design is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited
to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on
the Tract Map.
37. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins,
mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Tract Map.
38. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and
properties from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting
those access points shown on the related Tract Map.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- _
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
39. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will
occur.
40. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing
right-of-way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any
properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of-way
or access easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from
the affected property owners.
41. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the related
tentative tract map and the date of recording of any related Tract Map, unless
such easement is approved by the City Engineer.
TRACT MAPS
42. Prior to the City's approval of any related Tract Map, the applicant shall furnish
accurate AutoCAD files of such Tract Map that was approved by the City's map
checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be
in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic
AutoCAD program.
Where the related Tract Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or
produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City
Engineer will accept a raster -image file of such Tract Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed
to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
43. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the
provisions of Section 13.24.040, LQMC.
44. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review
and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified
below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the scale specified, unless
V
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Note, the applicant may
be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to
improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and
separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering
sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and
landscape setback area.
B. Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
C. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
D. On -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
E. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal
F. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show
all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall
& Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-
foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
45. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the
applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction
notes from the City.
46. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete,
approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City
Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may
be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order
to reflect the as -built conditions.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD
format, or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City
Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
47. Prior to the conditional approval of any related Tract Map, or the issuance of
any permit(s), the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and
satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed
Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of
such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall
agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
48. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between
the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the
completion of any improvements related to this Specific Plan's tentative tract
map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28, LQMC.
49. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of
any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the
proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey
monumentation.
When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and
common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins,
perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through
a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the
development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either
be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the
occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the
development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely
manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to
halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals
related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete
the improvements.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
50. Depending on the timing of the development of the tentative tract map related
to this Specific Plan, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time,
the applicant may be required to: (1) construct certain off -site improvements,
(2) construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of
its costs by others, (3) reimburse others for those improvements previously
constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tract map, (4) secure
the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others, or (5) to agree
to any combination of these means, as the City may require.
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of any related
Tract Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for
the costs of such improvements.
51. When improvements are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any
conditional approval of the related Tract Map by the City Council, the applicant
shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and
off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey
monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such
estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution,
or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the related Tract Map by the City Council, the applicant
shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of
the related Tract Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the
applicant's detailed cost estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
Development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance by
the City Council until after the City receives confirmation from the telephone
authority that the applicant has met all the requirements for telephone service
to all lots within the development._,`
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
GRADING
52. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
53. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
54. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer, and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the related Tract Map that a soils report has been
prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
55. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped
land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such
other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control
Plan.
56. 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.
57. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot
from the building pads in adjacent developments.
58. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
,f a
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than
three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where
the differential shall not exceed five feet.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may
consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance
difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
59. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the
site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations
shown on the approved tentative tract map, the applicant shall submit the
proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance
finding review.
60. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or
surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved
grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if
any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad
soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if
submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
61. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC.
62. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
report prepared specifically for Mountain View Country Club. Nuisance water
shall be disposed of in an approved manner.
63. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water
(through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or
adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as
a requirement for development of this property.
UTILITIES
64. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
65. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves,
and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic
purposes.
66. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development,
and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility dines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles
are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
67. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to the overlying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply
with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City
Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
68. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Developments), LQMC for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
69. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will
convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and
residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is
approved, the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1 /8" batter and a
minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to
standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
70. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial; 100' R/W option):
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 13 , '�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
Widen the south side of the street along all frontage adjacent to
the related tract boundary. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct
existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert
it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban
arterial design standard. Street widening improvements shall
include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to,
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for
street lights. Other significant new improvements required for
installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include:
(a) 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
(b) 12-foot wide landscaped median from the west boundary
line to the east boundary of the tract.
The pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction, and landscape median
improvements, are eligible for reimbursement from the City's
Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies
established for that program.
2. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial; 120' R/W)
Applicant shall construct median openings and turn pockets to
accommodate the turning movements authorized by these
conditions of approval.
3. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W option):
Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to
the related tract boundary. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct
existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert
it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban
arterial design standard. Street widening improvements shall
include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to,
curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for
street lights. Other significant new improvements required for
installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include:
(a) 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
(b) 18-foot wide landscaped median from the west boundary
line to the west boundary of the All American Canal.
The pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction, and landscape median
improvements, are eligible for reimbursement from the City's
Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies
established for that program.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1. Lot "D" - Construct full improvements within a 53-foot right-of-
way, which shall be divided into two 20-foot traveled ways with
a raised 10-foot center landscaped median.
2. Lots "E" through "Q" - Construct full 36-foot wide travel width
improvements within a 39-foot right-of-way where the residential
streets are double loaded. And construct full 32-foot wide travel
width improvements within a 35-foot right-of-way where the
residential streets are single loaded.
C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS
1. Private Cul-de-sacs shall be constructed to Riverside County
Standard 800 for symmetrical Cul-de-sacs and Standard 800A for
offset Cul-de-sacs, and both shall be constructed with a 37-foot
curb radius, measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line.
52. All gated entries shall provide for a two -car minium stacking capacity for
inbound traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -entry
accepted vehicles.)
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit
at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not
gain entry into the development can safely make a "U" Turn back out onto
Jefferson Street, Avenue 50 and Avenue 52, from those proposed gated
entries.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one
lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
53. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength
and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum
structural sections shall be as follows:
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
54. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. Jefferson Street (Primary Entry): Full turn in, Full turn out.
B. Avenue 50 (Secondary Entry): Full turn in, Full turn out.
C. Avenue 52 (Secondary Entry): Left & Right turn in, Right turn out.
55. 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.
56. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved
by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
57. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County
Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer.
58. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to
ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements.
CONSTRUCTION
59. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
time of construction) for base, asphaltic concrete and Portland cement concrete.
The submittal shall include the test results for all specimens used in the mix
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 16
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall
include the most recent (less than six months old at the time of construction)
aggregate gradation test results confirming that the design gradations can be
achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction
operations until mix designs have been approved.
60. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the
buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -
maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control
devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in
residential tracts are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the
applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten
percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever
comes first.
LANDSCAPING
61. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
62. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
63. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant
shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
64. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with
no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public
streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
65. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline
Transit and approved by the City Engineer.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
SPECIFIC PLAN 1990-016, AMENDMENT #1
JANUARY 8, 2002
QUALITY ASSURANCE
66. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
67. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such
other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with
which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate
construction supervision.
68. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements,
sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program,
but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction
materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and
other applicable regulations.
69. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by
the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or
"As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant
shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City,
revised to reflect the as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
70. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
71. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access
drives, and sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
72. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosSPCOA.wpd 18
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 30357 TO DIVIDE 364.73 ACRES INTO RESIDENTIAL
LOTS, GOLF COURSE LOTS, AND A NUMBER OF
LETTERED LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
APPLICANT: TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 8th day of January, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Toll
Brothers, Inc., in order to subdivide 364.73 acres into residential lots, golf course lots
and a number of lettered lots, generally located on the east side of Jefferson Street,
between Avenue 50 and Avenue 52, more particularly described as:
APN 772-250-002 & 003, 772-250-007 through 012,
772-270-001 through 004, 772-270-006
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending
approval of said Tentative Tract Map 30357:
Finding Number 1 - Consistency with General Plan:
A. The property is designated Low Density Residential. The Land Use Element of
the General Plan encourages differing residential developments throughout the
City. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La
Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) insofar as low density
residential development fits the character of the City's residential community.
Finding Number 2 - Consistency with City Zoning Ordinance:
A. The proposed development is consistent with the land uses specified in the
Zoning Ordinance, as conditioned.
Finding Number 3 - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act:
A. Tentative Tract Map 30357 is subject to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act per Public Resources Code Section 65457(a). A
Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2001-437) has been prepared.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\To11BrosTT30357.WPD
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Tentative Tract Map 30125 - Toll Brothers, Inc.
Adopted: January 8, 2002.
Finding Number 4 - Site Design:
A. The proposed design of the subdivision conforms with the development
standards found in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance by creating single
family lots and golf course lots.
B. The site is physically suitable for the proposed land division, as the area is
generally flat and without physical constraints, and the Tentative Tract Map is
consistent with the low density residential character of the community.
Finding Number 5 - Site Improvements:
A. Infrastructure improvements such as gas, electric, sewer and water will service
the site in underground facilities as required. No adverse impacts have been
identified based on letters of response from affected public agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment
2001-437 assessed the environmental concerns of this Tentative Tract Map;
and,
4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map
30357 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 Planning Commission held on this 8th day of January, 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\To11BrosTT30357.WPD
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Tentative Tract Map 30125 - Toll Brothers, Inc.
Adopted: January 8, 2002.
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative
tract map, or any Tract Map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in
selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This tentative tract map, and any Tract Map thereunder, shall comply with the
requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58
(the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code
("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site
at, http://la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the
City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the
following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• Sunline Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq., and 13.24.170,
LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources
Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ .
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of
land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than
five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that
encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be
required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for
inspection at the project site at all times through and including
acceptance of all improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020, LQMC):
i. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
ii. Temporary Sediment Control.
iii. Wind Erosion Control.
iv. Tracking Control.
V. Non -Storm Water Management.
vi. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved
by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in
relation to this project.
F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained throughout the course of
construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City.
5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at
the time of issuance of building permit(s).
6. The applicant shall permit the access to be retained to the existing golf cart
tunnel crossing under Jefferson Street.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
PROPERTY RIGHTS
7. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements.
8. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Tract Map all public street right-
of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
9. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1 . Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) (Lot "A") - 50-foot half of the 100-
foot right-of-way.
2. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) (Lot "B") - 60-foot half of the
120-foot right-of-way.
3. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) (Lot "C") - 55-foot half of the 1 10-
foot right-of-way.
10. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Tract Map all private street
right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
11. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include Lot "D" through and including Lot "Q":
A. PRIVATE STREETS
1. Lot "D" - (Divided Collector) 53-foot right-of-way.
2. Lots "E" through "Q" (Residential Streets) shall have a 39-foot
right-of-way where double loaded, and may have a 35-foot right-
of-way where single loaded.
Njj T
r � 7
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
B. CUL DE SACS
1. Private Cul-de-sacs: Use Riverside County Standard 800 for
symmetrical Cul De Sacs and Standard 800A for offset Cul De
Sacs, with both having a 37-foot radius to the flowline of the 6"
wedge curb.
12. Right-of-way geometry for standard knuckles and property line corner cut -backs
at curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801, and
#805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
13. 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.
14. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street
right-of-ways shown on the approved tentative tract map are necessary prior
to approval of the Tract Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall
grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the
City.
15. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Tract Map a ten -foot wide public
utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets.
Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written
approval of IID.
16. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-
of-ways as follows:
A. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
B. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
C. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall
design is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited
to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on
the Tract Map.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\TollBros TCOA.wpd 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- _
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
17. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins,
mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Tract Map.
18. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and
properties from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting
those access points shown on the Tract Map.
19. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will
occur.
20. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing
right-of-way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any
properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of-way
or access easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from
the affected property owners.
21. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the tentative
tract map and the date of recording of any Tract Map, unless such easement
is approved by the City Engineer.
TRACT MAPS
22. Prior to the City's approval of a Tract Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Tract Map that was approved by the City's map checker
on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a
standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD
program.
Where a Tract Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a
file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept
a raster -image file of such Tract Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed
to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
W
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
23. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the
provisions of Section 13.24.040, LQMC.
24. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review
and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified
below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the scale specified, unless
otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Note, the applicant may
be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to
improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic
control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show
the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the
combined parkway and landscape setback area.
B. Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
C. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
D. On -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
E. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal
F. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show
all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall
& Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-
foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
26. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the
applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction
notes from the City.
27. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete,
approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City
Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may
be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- __
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order
to reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD
format, or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City
Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
28. Prior to the conditional approval of any Tract Map, or the issuance of any
permit(s), the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and
satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed
Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of
such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall
agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
29. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between
the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the
completion of any improvements related to this tentative tract map, shall
comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28, LQMC.
30. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of
any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the
proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey
monumentation.
When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and
common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins,
perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through
a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the
development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either
be completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the
occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the
development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to
halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals
related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete
the improvements.
31. Depending on the timing of the development of this tentative tract map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required
to: (1) construct certain off -site improvements, (2) construct additional off -site
improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others, (3)
reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are
considered to be an obligation of this tract map, (4) secure the costs for future
improvements that are to be made by others, or (5) to agree to any combination
of these means, as the City may require.
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Tract
Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the
costs of such improvements.
32. When improvements are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any
conditional approval of the Tract Map by the City Council, the applicant shall
submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site
improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for
checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to
the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Tract Map by the City Council, the applicant shall
also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the
Tract Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the
applicant's detailed cost estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso1utions\To11BrosTTC0A.wpd 8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
Development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance by
the City Council until the City receives confirmation from the telephone
authority that the applicant has met all the requirements for telephone service
to all lots within the development.
GRADING
33. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
34. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
35. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer, and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Tract Map that a soils report has been prepared
in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
36. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped
land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such
other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control
Plan.
37. 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.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
38. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot
from the building pads in adjacent developments.
39. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than
three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where
the differential shall not exceed five feet.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may
consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance
difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
40. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the
site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations
shown on the approved tentative tract map, the applicant shall submit the
proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance
finding review.
41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or
surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved
grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if
any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad
soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if
submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
42. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC.
43. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
report prepared specifically for Mountain View Country Club. Nuisance water
shall be disposed of in an approved manner.
6 a
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
44. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water
(through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or
adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as
a requirement for development of this property.
UTILITIES
45. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
46. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves,
and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic
purposes.
47. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development,
and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility sines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles
are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
48. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply
with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City
Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Developments), LQMC for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
50. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will
convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and
residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd l l
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
approved, the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1 /8" batter and a
minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to
standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
51. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial; 100' R/W option):
Widen the south side of the street along all frontage adjacent to
the tract boundary. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing
roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from
a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial
design standard. Street widening improvements shall include all
appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter,
traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights.
Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or
adjacent, to the subject right of way include:
(a) 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
(b) 12-foot wide landscaped median from the west boundary
line to the east boundary of the tract.
The pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction, and landscape median
improvements, are eligible for reimbursement from the City's
Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies
established for that program.
2) Jefferson Street (Major Arterial; 120' R/W)
Applicant shall construct median openings and turn pockets to
accommodate the turning movements authorized by these
conditions of approval.
3) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W option):
Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to
the tract boundary. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing
roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial
design standard. Street widening improvements shall include all
appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter,
traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights.
Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or
adjacent, to the subject right of way include:
(a) 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
(b) 18-foot wide landscaped median from the west boundary
line to the west boundary of the All American Canal.
The pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction, and landscape median
improvements, are eligible for reimbursement from the City's
Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies
established for that program.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
i. Lot "D" - Construct full improvements within a 53-foot right-of-
way, which shall be divided into two 20-foot traveled ways with
a 10-foot center landscaped median.
ii. Lots "E" through "Q" - Construct full 36-foot wide travel width
improvements within a 39-foot right-of-way where the residential
streets are double loaded. And construct full 32-foot wide travel
width improvements within a 35-foot right-of-way where the
residential streets are single loaded.
C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS
1) Private Cul-de-sacs shall be constructed to Riverside County
Standard 800 for symmetrical Cul-de-sacs and Standard 800A for
offset Cul-de-sacs, and both shall be constructed with a 37-foot
curb radius, measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line.
52. All gated entries shall provide for a two -car minium stacking capacity for
inbound traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -entry
accepted vehicles.)
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit
at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
gain entry into the development can safely make a "U" Turn back out onto
Jefferson Street, Avenue 50 and Avenue 52, from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one
lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors.
53. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength
and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum
structural sections shall be as follows:
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5 "/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
54. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. Jefferson Street (Primary Entry): Full turn in, Full turn out.
B. Avenue 50 (Secondary Entry): Full turn in, Full turn out.
C. Avenue 52 (Secondary Entry): Left & Right turn in, Right turn out.
55. 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.
56. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved
by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
57. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County
Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- _
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30353
JANUARY 8, 2002
58. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to
ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements.
CONSTRUCTION
59. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
time of construction) for base, asphaltic concrete and Portland cement concrete.
The submittal shall include the test results for all specimens used in the mix
design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall
include the most recent (less than six months old at the time of construction)
aggregate gradation test results confirming that the design gradations can be
achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction
operations until mix designs have been approved.
60. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the
buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -
maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control
devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in
residential tracts are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the
applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten
percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever
comes first.
LANDSCAPING
61. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
62. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
63. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant
shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
64. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with
no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public
streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
65. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline
Transit and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
66. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
67. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such
other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with
which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate
construction supervision.
68. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements,
sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program,
but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction
materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and
other applicable regulations.
69. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by
the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or
"As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant
shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City,
revised to reflect the as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
70. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
7
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 16
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TOLL BROTHERS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30357
JANUARY 8, 2002
71. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access
drives, and sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
72. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ToIlBrosTTCOA.wpd 17
PH #F
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2002
CASE NO.: CODE COMPLIANCE CASE 3859
REQUEST: APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE NOTICE REGARDING A
HALOGEN LIGHT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY
LINE, ON THE HILL IN FRONT OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
LOCATION: 46-201 WASHINGTON STREET (POINT HAPPY RANCH)
APPLICANT: CHRISTOPHER D. KIERNAN
BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2001 a Notice of Public Nuisance was served on the property owner
at 46-201 Washington Street as being in violation for a halogen light on the south side
of the property line, on the hill in front of a residential structure, subject to Municipal
Code Section 9.100.150. On December 10, 2001, staff received a letter from
Christopher Kiernan appealing on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Earl R. Keirnan. A public
hearing date was set and noticed. Prior to this date a letter was received from
Christopher D. Kiernan on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Kiernan agreeing to replace the
halogen light with an approved light fixture within three weeks of this date.
Based on this letter, staff is withdrawing the application from review and no action is
required of the Commission at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
No action required.
Respectfully submitted,
i ERR HERMAN
ommunity Development Director
G:\WPDOCS\PC StfRpt\Kieman.wpd
PH #G
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2002
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-431, ADDENDUM TO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 232 (SCH #
9164450613), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-080, ZONE
CHANGE 2001-103
REQUEST: 1. CERTIFY AN ADDENDUM TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 232 (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 9164450613)
2. CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
THE AREA BOUNDED BY AVENUE 58, MONROE STREET,
AVENUE 60, AND MADISON STREET, OUTSIDE OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218,
AMENDMENT 1.
3. CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
A). FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (MR), MEDIUM HIGH
RESIDENTIAL (MHR), AND GOLF COURSE (GC),
COMMUNITY FACILITIES (CF) AND COMMERCIAL
(C) AS SHOWN IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 218, AMENDMENT 1 TO LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (LDR), MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (MDR) MAJOR COMMUNITY,
FACILITIES (MC), NEIGHBORHOOD (NC)AND
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
B) FROM AGRICULTURE (AG - ONE DWELLING UNIT
PER ACRE) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY AVENUE 58,
MONROE STREET, AVENUE 60, AND MADISON
STREET, OUTSIDE OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218, AMENDMENT 1.
4. CHANGE THE ZONING:
A). FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY DESIGNATION SPECIFIC
PLAN AS SHOWN IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 218, AMENDMENT 1 TO LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (LDR), MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (MDR), GOLF COURSE (GC), MAJOR
COMMUNITY FACILITIES (MC), NEIGHBORHOOD
(NC) AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC).
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\TDDesert.WPD
B). FROM AGRICULTURE (AG) TO LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND GOLF COURSE (GC)
BOUNDED BY AVENUE 58, MONROE STREET,
AVENUE 60, AND MADISON STREET. OUTSIDE OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218,
AMENDMENT 1.
LOCATION: BOUNDED BY AVENUE 58, MONROE STREET, AVENUE 60 AND
MADISON STREET AND ALSO A PORTION OF THE -AREA EAST
OF MONROE, BETWEEN AVENUE 59 AND AVENUE 61.
APPLICANT: T D DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
1. AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
232 (SCH # 9164450613) WAS PREPARED FOR THAT
PORTION OF THE ANNEXATION AREA WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF SPECIFIC PLAN 218, AMENDMENT #1,
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970,
AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS RECOMMENDED CERTIFICATION OF
THE ADDENDUM.
2. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA 2001-431) WAS
PREPARED FOR THAT PORTION OF THE ANNEXATION
AREA OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF SPECIFIC PLAN
218, AMENDMENT #1, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS RECOMMENDED
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: CURRENT (COUNTY): SPECIFIC PLAN 218, AGRICULTURE
PROPOSED: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE,
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL
BACKGROUND:
City staff requests a continuance to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 22,
2002, in order to provide notice to surrounding property owners so as to include
additional land within the preannexation area.
G:\WPDOCS\PC SO Rpt\TDDesert.WPD
RECOMMENDATION:
Move to continue Environmental Assessment 2001-431, Addendum to Environmental
Impact Report No. 232, General Plan Amendment 2001-080, and Zone Change 2001-
103 to January 22, 2002.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\TDDesert.WPD
PH #H
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2002
CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-722
REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 3,600 SQUARE FOOT
EQUIPMENT STORAGE BUILDING AND CONVERT A
MOBILE HOME RESIDENCE INTO AN OFFICE
LOCATION: 80-420 AVENUE 52, LA QUINTA, CA
APPLICANT: WAYNE PRICE, PRICE'S NURSERY AND SUPPLY. INC.
REPRESENTATIVE: CHUCK MCBRIDE, DESIGN BUILD
PROPERTY OWNER: WAYNE PRICE
ZONING: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RLV)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VLDR)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
SOUTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
EAST:
VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RLV)
WEST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
P-7-114cfelalI MUT,L_i •
The 5.89 acre triangular shaped site contains agricultural use : a tree and fruit crop
farm with a vacant mobile home.
N.. .1 M- Re -rows M .l
The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a 3,600 square
foot equipment storage building and convert the existing mobile home to a wholesale
office (Attachment 1). The project proposal is considered an accessory structure to
the principal use which is agriculture.
The proposed rectangular shaped 22' high birch white metal building will be
constructed on a concrete pad. The equipment storage facility is proposed to have
a flat metal roof with a canopy overhang and three vehicle entry roll up doors (14' x
141 and one man door on the east side and one vehicle entry door on the west side.
Also proposed are concrete pads for a fueling area (10' x 15') and a wash area (25'
x 40').
Access to the proposed mobile home/office and equipment storage building is taken
from Avenue 52 from an existing driveway. The proposed new gravel driveway forks
to the right upon entering the site to provide business access to the equipment
storage building and eight space gravel parking lot. The proposed new gravel
driveway forks to the left providing access to the proposed office. Equipment that
is to be to be cleaned, fueled and/or stored will take access from Avenue 52 to an
exiting road along the north edge of the site. Landscaping consists of the existing
citrus tress orchard and the proposed project isolated from view and screened by the
surrounding citrus tree orchard.
The Community Development Department has determined that this project is exempt
per Section 15311 and 15301 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The applicant's request was sent to sent City Departments and affected public
agencies on December 5, 2001, requesting comments to be returned by December
19, 2000 . All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval.
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on December 27,
2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the
public hearing notice.
The findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the
Zoning Ordinance, to approve this request can be made provided the recommended
conditions of approval are imposed.
1114111ill",l.1- 119 • ►_
1 . Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , approving Site Development
Permit 2001-722 to allow development plans for a 3,600 square foot
equipment storage building and convert a mobile home residence into an office
subject to conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Location Exhibit
2. Site Plan and Elevations
Prepared by:
r
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio
Planning Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA GRANTING APPROVAL
OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 3,600 SQUARE FOOT
EQUIPMENT STORAGE BUILDING AND CONVERT A
MOBILE HOME RESIDENCE INTO AN OFFICE
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-722
APPLICANT: PRICE'S NURSERY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the, 81h day of January, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to review
building elevations and site plan for a 3,600 square foot equipment storage building
on 5.89 acres generally located at 80-420 Avenue 52, La Quinta, California more
particularly described as:
APN: 772 270 008
WHEREAS, said Community Development Department has determined
that Site Development Permit is exempt per Section 15311 and 15301 of the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
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
approval of said Site Development Permit 2001-722.
1. The proposed storage building and office is consistent with the City's General
Plan in that the property is currently an agricultural use and the proposal is an
accessory structure. The Land Use Element (2-6.4.3) of the 1992 General Plan
encourages the preservation of agriculture for as long as possible. The project
is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan
Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met.
2. The proposal is consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that crop farming is
a permitted use in the Very Low Density Residential zone and the proposal is
an accessory use to the principal agricultural use.
3. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with agricultural uses in
the in the area in that it is isolated and screened by the surrounding citrus
trees, and accommodates site generated traffic provided conditions are met.
4. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding
development in that it is a similar scale, massing and building height of other
agricultural development in the area and the building materials will be durable
and low maintenance
AAPC RESO. SDP 2001-722.wpd
5. The landscape of the proposed project consists of the surrounding citrus trees
and is compatible with the building and surrounding development in that it
maintains the visual quality of the area and provides an adequate visual buffer.
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
Commission in this case;
2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2001-722 for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 81h day of January, 2002, 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
A XPC RESO. SDP 2001-722.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-722
JANUARY 8, 2002
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 Site Development Permit. The
City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the
necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from
the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the
improvement plans for City approval.
3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit, Chapter 8.70 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls),
La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the
State Water Quality Resources Control Board's ("SWQRCB") Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
A. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or
off -site grading being done in relation to this Site Development Permit.
B. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at
the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements
by the City.
AAPC COA SDP 2001-722.wpd
C. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practice ("BMPs"), 8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC:
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
D. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this
project.
E. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order
throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been
accepted by the City.
4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer, those
easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction and/or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable
offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services, and
for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
6. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance
with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as
required by the City Engineer.
7. Prior to obtaining any permit, the applicant shall dedicate the following right-of-way:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) - 55-foot from the centerline of Avenue 52,
for a total 1 10-foot ultimate developed right-of-way.
8. Right-of-way geometry for property line corner cut -backs at curb returns shall conform
to Riverside County Standard Drawing #805, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
AAPC COA SDP 2001-722.wpd
9. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas shown on the Site Development Permit.
10. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and properties
from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting those access
points shown on the Site Development Permit.
11. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, ingress/egress, or other encroachments will occur.
12. Before the applicant may be permitted to vacate, or abandonment, any existing right-
of-way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties
owned by others, the applicant shall submit a proposed alternate right-of-way or
access easement to those properties, or shall submit notarized letters of consent from
all affected property owners; the final approval of which rests with the City.
13. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion
of the subject property between the date of approval of this Site Development Permit
and the date of final acceptance of the on and off -site improvements for this Site
Development Permit, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer.
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.
14. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall
be prepared. The plans shall utilize the scale specified, unless otherwise authorized
by the City Engineer in writing. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other
improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other
agencies and utility purveyors.
A. On -Site Site Development Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing
plan preparation.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor
A:\PC COA SDP 2001-722.wpd
elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements; and show the existing
street improvements out to at least the center lines of Jefferson Street & Avenue 52.
15. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and/or architects, as appropriate. (For reference, see Section 13.24.040,
LQMC).
16. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of
construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the applicant may purchase
such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City.
17. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete,
approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The
files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable
through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or
a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
GRADING
18. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive
Dust Control), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount
sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan
provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit.
19. 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.
AAPC COA SDP 2001-722.wpd
MMATC
20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and
the following:
A. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and shall be disposed of by draining
such nuisance water into the tree and fruit crop areas.
UTILITIES
21. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility
lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not
limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands,
to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
22. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and
all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
23. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation
of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench
restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval
by the City Engineer.
24. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Primary Entry (Avenue 52): Right turn in, Right turn out.
M-111013_ • '
25. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards)
& 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC.
26. 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
A:\PC COA SDP 2001-722.wpd
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.
27. 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 long public streets.
28. Only incidental storm water will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback
areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be
shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
29. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
30. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such cr other
appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to
prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction
supervision.
31. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be
required by the City, as evidence that construction materials and methods employed
comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. After tributary -
area improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized where
retention basins have been constructed, testing shall include sand filter percolation
tests, as approved by the City Engineer.
32. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City
Engineer. 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 AutoCAD or raster -
image files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -built conditions.
33. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all
private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks.
34. The applicant shall maintain the required public improvements until expressly released
from this responsibility by the appropriate agency.
AAPC COA SDP 2001-722.wpd
35. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees and/or deposits for plan checking,
construction inspection and permits. The fee amounts shall be those in effect at the
time of application for such plan checking, construction inspection and permits.
—i ■'
36. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 gpm for a 2-
hour duration at 20-psi residual pressure.
37. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super fire hydrant (6"x 4"x 21 /2"x 2
1 /2") located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the buildings
as measured along approved vehicular travel ways.
38. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from the centerline to the side
that the fire hydrants is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
39. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational
prior ro the start of construction.
40. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA -, pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC
in rating.
41. Access roads shall no less than 20 feet wide clear and unobstructed, a vertical
clearance of not less than 136" and unobstructed.
42. There must be from an approved roadway to within 150' of any portion of the
buildings, along outside travel -ways.
43. The roadway shall be designed as an all weather road capable of carrying a live load
of 65,000 lbs. Over two axels.
44. Addressing shall be installed at the street entrance, along with directional signs inside.
45. Install a KNOX key lockbox, model 4400, 3200, or 1300. Key lock is to be installed,
to right side of the front door, six feet from top of box to finished grade. Special
forms are available from the Fire Department for the ordering of KNOX equipment, this
form must be authorized and signed by the Fire Department for the correctly coded
system to be purchased.
AAPC COA SDP 2001-722.wpd
ATTACHMENT #1
AVENUE 52
PH #1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2002
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-436, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 2001-083, ZONE CHANGE 2001-105 AND
SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055
REQUEST: 1). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE FROM
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDL) TO MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (MDR) AND TOURIST COMMERCIAL (TC).
2). REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR TOURIST COMMERCIAL USES INCLUDING
HOTELS, AND RETAIL -RELATED USES, AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING TOWNHOUSES AND SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES.
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES
AVENUE
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 20041-436 WAS PREPARED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED.
BACKGROUND:
City staff requests a continuance to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 22,
2002, in order to finalize the Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Move to continue Environmental Assessment 2000-436, General Plan Amendment
2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055 to January 22, 2002.
Prepared and Submitted by:
/ _� too
f:\w
y He an, Community Development Director
PDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\PCStf.Rpt.LQCSP00-047.wpd I