2002 10 22 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
OCTOBER 22, 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 2002-101
Beginning Minute Motion 2002-018
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for
public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on October 8, 2002.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Item .................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-548,
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2002-071, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
30586
Applicant ..........
Winchester Development/Quarry Ranch LLC
Location ............
West of Jefferson Street, south of Quarry Lane
Request ........1.
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact;
2.
Consideration of a Specific Plan to allow
development on hillside property;
3.
Consideration of a request for a conditional use
permit required for all development in the Hillside
Conservation Overlay District; and,
4.
Consideration of a subdivision of 4.08 acres into two
residential lots.
Action ...............
Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002-, Resolution
2002- and Resolution 2002-
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on the City Council meeting of October 15, 2002
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting
to be held on November 12, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 8, 2002
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and
Chairman Richard Butler. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Tyler/Kirk to excuse Commissioner Abels. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff present: City Attorney Kathy Jenson, City Engineer Tim Jonasson,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to reorganize
the Agenda to take Item D before Item C. Unanimously approved.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
B. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
September 24, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 3, Item #4,
be corrected to read, "...bright, but with the current...."; Page 5, Item #6
to state, "Mr. Mahoney stated 46 units at 670 square feet."; Page 9,
Item #8, to say, "American Awning was subsequently informed..."
Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 5, Item #6 be corrected to read,
"Commissioner Kirk questioned if the density complies with the current
Zoning Code." There being no further corrections, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to approve the minutes as
corrected. Unanimously approved.
C. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-8-02.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Amendment #1: a request of Cameo Homes and Landaq, Inc. for
certification of a Revised Environmental Assessment, an Amendment to
the Specific Plan design guidelines for a mixed land use development on
33 + acres including detachment of 12.72 acres for a future public
school, and review of architectural and landscaping plans for a 200-unit
apartment complex and two commercial pads in multiple story buildings
on 12 acres located on the east side of Eisenhower Drive, north of Calle
Tampico and west of Avenida Bermudas.
1. Chairman Butler 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 Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had addressed the major
concerns raised by the Commission at the previous meeting. Staff
stated they have addressed most and have reasons for not
addressing the others. They did not address the pedestrian access
to the east.
3. Commissioner Robbins stated the document is still not clear as to
what is going to take place and asked whether or not the school
site is part of the Specific Plan. Staff stated it is not.
Commissioner Robbins stated that nowhere in the text of the
Specific Plan does it state the school site is being deleted other
than on the site plan exhibits. Second, if the existing commercial
building that is there was built under the Specific Plan, how can
they now not be a part of the Specific Plan. Staff stated the
applicant can amend the Specific Plan and if they chose to request
to delete it, it is their option. Commissioner Robbins argued that
if special considerations were granted under the Specific Plan, they
would now not exist as it is no longer a part of the Specific Plan.
Staff noted any changes to the site would have to comply with the
current zoning regulations if the building is deleted.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked the City Attorney if an existing Specific
Plan deletes a portion from the Specific Plan and they request to
make a change, what regulations would govern. City Attorney
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-8-02.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
Kathy Jenson stated it would be governed by the existing zoning
regulations for that area. Their rights would be vested as it is
constructed. Also, there are conditions of approval that were used
to construct the site. If an area is deleted from a specific plan
they are no longer under those conditions of approval but are
subject to VUP conditions. In regard to the school site, the City
has no jurisdiction any part of the construction of the facility.
5. Chairman Butler asked how the parking lot and distribution center
should be handled. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the
Commission is free to add to their recommendation whether it
should be included or deleted from the Specific Plan. In regard to
the developed site, it is within the Commission's ability to amend
the Specific Plan as they believe necessary.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if there had been any changes to any of
the resolutions. Staff noted the conditions of approval had been
amended to address any changes in the Revised Specific Plan.
7. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing KSL Land Holdings
and Cameo Homes, stated that in regard to the structure of the
Specific Plan, Section 2 pertains to the 33 acres of the plan as it
was before Amendment #1. Should the Commission believe there
is a need to add the already built area back into the specific plan,
they would add it back in. Based on the discussion at the last
meeting, they removed it. The distribution center was added back
in.
8. Commissioner Tyler questioned the "see -saw" on the playground
equipment and stated he thought it should be deleted as they have
been determined to be unsafe.
9. Mr. Victor Mahoney, representing Cameo Homes, gave a
description of the project changes. First, the pedestrian access
would require them to build a six foot wall on both sides and it
would have to be lighted and guaranteed to be a safe access
which is impossible to do. Second, with regard to the fence on
the north, he would like to suggest a removal of the existing chain
link fence at the bottom of the slope and construction of a new
wrought iron picket fence on the property line. They would enter
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-8-02.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
into a maintenance agreement to clean up the slope to have a
consistent landscape scene. The new fence would be constructed
of decorative wrought iron. Lastly, the amenities; they have added
a soccer practice area, sand volleyball court, a circular tract, and
a tot lot. The play equipment would be approved by their
insurance carrier.
10. Commissioner Kirk questioned why there were no design
guidelines included for Planning Area 3. Without the design
guidelines included in the Specific Plan, KSL could propose a
structure that is not compatible with this property or the KSL
property to the south. Mr. Haag stated the Village Guidelines and
Village Use Permit process defines the theme for any design for
the Village. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not the
Village Design Guidelines were that precise. In his opinion some
guidelines are needed to be ensure this site is compatible with
these other sites. In regard to the tot lot, the location is of
concern to him. Mr. Mahoney showed the location and stated the
reason for this location is that the noise would not be of any issue
to anyone in the complex. It is also in close proximity to the open
space/recreational area. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant
about the previously shown decorative paving in the commercial
area. Mr. Mahoney stated they envisioned a stamped pavement.
Commissioner Kirk asked if there were any other creative solutions
for the pedestrian access on the eastern side. Mr. Mahoney
stated that with the liability issue, there was no other solution.
11. Chairman Butler asked if the project to the north of the Ralph's
Shopping Center had only one access. Staff stated yes.
12. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant to identify the area of the
future distribution center. Mr. Haag explained the site plan.
13. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment.
Mrs. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada stated she sees no
improvement to the project that address her concerns of density,
amenities, and open space between the structures. It does have
some good points such as the affordable units. Her concerns still
are the traffic and why variances are being allowed. How do the
residents of the apartments get to the Village without a left turn
out of the apartments?
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-8-02.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
14. There being no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter
up for Commission discussion.
15. Chairman Butler asked about the chain link fence with the barbed
wire. Commissioner Robbins stated it is his understanding that
this is KSL's existing fence and CVWD may have an access
agreement.
16. Commissioner Kirk stated they are removing the existing chain link
fence and installing tubular steel fencing. Staff stated that is what
they propose.
17. Commissioner Robbins stated for the most part he is satisfied with
the layout of the complex. He believes the location of the tot lot
is not appropriate. In regard to the Specific Plan document, it still
needs to be clear and specific. It needs to include why the school
site is no longer a part and it seems inappropriate to delete a part
of the project that is completed and delete it from the Specific
Plan.
18. Commissioner Kirk applauded the applicant on addressing the
issues raised by the Commission. He concurred with the points
raised by Kay Wolff. The City does need projects like this and it
is always a problem to find the "right" location. He does think this
is a good location for a multi -family housing complex next to a
school site. He would still like to see more open spaces between
the building structures. With respect to the Specific Plan, he
agrees with Commissioner Robbins' comments. Projects should
work together within a specific plan. He strongly believes there
needs to be an access between this project and the Village. We
can provide an easement across KSL's property to the east and it
can be conditioned to do so. He suggested an easement along the
eastern boundary of the school site might work. City Attorney
Kathy Jenson stated the eminent domain process had already
started and it would be too late to add this to the action, and
while they do not have ownership, the Agency is not in a position
to impose an easement without causing a problem. To create an
access at this point, that may not be consistent with the school
site plan, is too late. Commissioner Kirk then suggested they
pursue an easement across KSL's property. He also agrees that
the existing KSL structure should be kept in the Specific Plan and
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-8-02.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
design themes for the distribution center should also be added and
he would condition the project to do so. He would also want the
applicant to consider relocating the tot lot to a safer location. He
would suggest that a new Specific Plan application be submitted
for all the properties and their uses.
19. Commissioner Tyler agrees with keeping the KSL project within
the Specific Plan. Need to condition the project to review the
distribution center at some point. The tot lot location needs to be
reconsidered. He thanked the applicant for their attention to the
Commissions's concerns, but still believes this site needs to be
accessible to the Village. He agrees with the wrought iron fence
as proposed by the applicant. He also agrees there needs to be a
left turn out, but there is no way to safely allow it.
20. Chairman Butler asked how far up a person would have to go
north on Eisenhower Drive before you can make a u-turn. City
Engineer Tim Jonasson stated there is a plan for future medians on
Eisenhower Drive, but the tenants of the project would have to go
to Avenue 50 to turn around. Chairman Butler agreed that the
KSL commercial building be added back into the Specific Plan and
the remainder of the site be brought back to the Planning
Commission for review and approval, and the tot lot location needs
to be addressed. Overall, he does approve of the project.
21. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-093 recommending certification of a Revised
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for
Environmental Assessment 2002-41 1, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Robbins/Kirk to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-094 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, subject to the
findings and conditions as amended:
a. Add a condition requiring the design theme for the Planning
Area III distribution center be added to the Specific Plan.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-8-02.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
b. Add a condition requiring a statement as to the deletion of
the school site from the Specific Plan.
C. Add a condition requiring the existing KSL site and parking
lot be added back into the Specific Plan.
d. Add a condition requiring a pedestrian easement to the
Village area that does not have walls on both sides.
e. Add a condition that the Revised Specific Plan document be
submitted to supercede any prior Specific Plan that shows
exactly what is happening on each parcel.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-095 recommending
approval of Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment # 1, subject
to the findings and conditions as amended:
a. Add a conditions requiring the tot lot location be relocated.
b. Enhanced paving incorporated back into the project.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 8:24 p.m. and reconvened at 8:29 p.m.
C. Village Use Permit 2002-014; a request of Lori Abdelnour (Allstate
Insurance) for consideration of a conversion of a two story residence to
office use for the property located at the northeast corner of Avenida
Bermudas and Calle Amigo (51-650 Avenida Bermudas).
1. Chairman Butler 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. Commissioner Kirk withdrew due to a potential conflict due to the
location of his residence, and withdrew from the dias.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-8-02.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
3. Chairman Butler stated this was a great location for this business
and the modifications will add to the site. He asked if there was
any problem with the onsite parking. Staff stated several
businesses in the area had requested a reduction in the parking
and their requests were granted. Additional parking could be
added to the Village at a future date.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked why the Village Use Permit (VUP) was
not obtained prior to the construction of the work. Staff stated
the applicant completed the work prior to the VUP. Commissioner
Tyler asked if the paved area to the north was a driveway or
accessway, also is the applicant intending to utilize the entire
building. What happens when a different business moves in and
utilizes more parking spaces. Staff noted the applicant would have
to answer as to the use of the building. In regard to the parking,
the Village was designed to encourage businesses and the parking
will be accommodated by central parking areas.
5. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Lori Abdelnour stated she was available to
answer any questions. It was her intention to utilize the entire
building herself.
6. There being no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter
up for Commission discussion.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-096 recommending approval of Village Use
Permit 2002-014, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler,
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Abels and Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission.
C. Tentative Tract Map 29878, 1st Time Extension; a request of KSL Hotel
Land, L.P. for consideration of a one year extension of time for a 60-lot
single family subdivision with private streets on 22.21 acres located at
the southeast corner of Avenue 54 and PGA Boulevard.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-8-02.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chris Bergh,
representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any
questions.
3. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public
comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion
of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission
discussion.
4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-099, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 29878 First Time Extension,
subject to the findings and conditions as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
D. Environmental Assessment 2002-457 and Tentative Tract Map 30834;
a request of Madison Estates, LLC, for consideration of a request to
subdivide approximately 29.29 acres into 76 single family and other
common lots with private streets located on the north side of Avenue 58,
west of Madison Street and south and east of Hermitage.
1. Chairman Butler 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 Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked about the note on the map that
retention basins would be on individual lots. City Engineer Tim
Jonasson stated this note would be deleted and Lots D1 and D2
would be the retention basins. Commissioner Tyler asked if the
secondary access was an emergency access. Staff stated that
was correct. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the
conditions added by the Architecture and Landscaping Review
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-8-02.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
Commission (ALRC) recommendation as they were not reflected
in the minutes of the meeting. Staff noted they were
recommended in the staff report and the ALRC approved staff's
recommendations. Commissioner Tyler questioned whose
responsibility it was to build the wall and questioned Item XVll.d.
of the Environmental Checklist and Condition #87 of the tract
map.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Tom
Beaty, partner in Madison Estates, LLC, stated that regarding the
letter from KSL requesting they participate in the cost of the wall
on the west side, this was a condition placed on their maintenance
facility. They do not object to participation, but not at 50% and
they need to have discussions with KSL regarding the landscaping
and debris due to the landscaping and the driveway relocation.
These items need to be addressed and they would agree with a
10% participation. In regard to Condition #87, he would like
clarification as well, or deletion of the condition.
4. Chairman Butler asked what the area was on the plan noted for
outside dining; is this a restaurant. Mr. Beaty stated it is an
outdoor park for the residents.
5. Commissioner Butler complimented the applicant on the site plan.
He asked about the question raised by the ALRC regarding
individual access for each lot to the open space area. Mr. Beaty
stated they did not want anything to clutter up the area and
created specific access points for the residents to enter.
Commissioner Tyler asked if individual lots would be prohibited
from constructing individual block walls. Mr. Beaty stated this
would be controlled under the CC&R's. They are reviewing
alternatives for fences around swimming pools.
6. There being no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter
up for Commission discussion.
7. Commissioner Robbins stated the vicinity map should be revised
to reflect the current/correct streets.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-8-02.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-097 recommending certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2002-457, subject to the findings as amended.
A. Item XVll.d in the Checklist corrected to show Less than
Significant impact.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-098, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 30834, subject to the findings
and conditions as amended:
a. Condition #21: delete last two paragraphs.
b. Condition #87: deleted
C. Condition #100: changed to 10% participation
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
E. Tentative Tract Map 29963 Revised; a request of Dr. Bruce Baumann for
consideration of a request to relocate the access street serving a four -lot
single family subdivision on approximately 9.29 acres located at the
northernmost terminus of Coral Mountain Court and west of Madison
Street.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dave Turner,
Coachella Valley Engineers, stated he was available for any
questions.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-8-02.wpd 11
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
3. Commissioner Tyler noted the map should be corrected to show
the School District as CVUSD.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked why the deletion of Condition #65. City
Engineer Tom Jonasson stated it was a clerical error and should be
retained.
5. There being no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter
up for Commission discussion.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification of Condition #32. City
Engineer Tim Jonasson stated it should read adjacent "private"
streets. Commissioner Tyler stated Condition #58 should be
deleted. Staff agreed.
7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-100, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 29963 Revised, subject to the
findings and conditions as amended:
a. Condition #32: amended to be private streets.
b. Condition #43: delete paragraph A.
C. Condition 65: Modified to state any appropriate
development fees could be deleted.
d. The tract map shall be changed to show the project is
within the Coachella Valley Unified School District.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Appeal of Communitv Development Director Decision - RC 2002-708 a
request of Mr. Jerry Ellenz for consideration of an appeal of a decision
denying an access way of less than 15 feet in width along a house as
required by La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.150.080.A.8.d. for the
property located at 52-230 Avenida Montezuma.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-8-02.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
1. Chairman Butler 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 Butler asked what the logic was for requiring the 15
feet. Staff stated it is a Code requirement and interpretation that
the access to the garage is an accessway.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked why the Code required 15 feet. Staff
stated that for a one way access this is considered an appropriate
width.
4. Chairman Butler asked if the Commission decided a lesser width
was acceptable would it be setting a precedent for other situations
in the City. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated she did not
understand how this could be approved if this is considered an
accessway. It would require a specific plan or a variance and
there would need to be something unique regarding this property
to approve it.
5. Commissioner Tyler stated a determination needs to be made to
decide if this is an accessway.
6. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Jerry Ellenz, applicant, gave an explanation of
his request.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant to explain "turfstone".
Mr. Ellenz stated it combines grass and concrete in the driveway.
Commissioner Tyler stated the protrusions of the fireplace could
add to the reduction in width and the plan should be modified to
move this back out of the nine feet.
8. There being no further discussion, Chairman Butler closed the
public participation and opened discussion for Commission
discussion.
9. Commissioner Tyler noted there is no definition of an "accessway"
in the Code, but there is a definition of driveway. This is a
driveway and not an accessway and he would propose supporting
the appeal with the restriction that the applicant retain a nine foot
free clearance width.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-8-02.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 2002-017,
granting the appeal for a driveway with a nine foot width
clearance. Motion unanimously approved with Commissioner
Abels absent.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the October 1, 2002 City Council
meeting.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Robbins/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held October 22, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:34 p.m. on October 8, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-8-02.wpd 14
PH #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2002
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-548
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-071
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30586
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;
2) APPROVE A SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT ON HILLSIDE PROPERTY;
3) APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS
REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE
HILLSIDE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT;
AND;
4) SUBDIVIDE 4.08 ACRES INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL
LOTS
APPLICANT: WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTY OWNERS: QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
LOCATION: WEST OF JEFFERSON, SOUTH OF QUARRY LANE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-548 WAS
PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 2002-071, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
30586 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF
1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
BE CERTIFIED
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR), UP TO 4 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE
ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) AND HILLSIDE
CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
SOUTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
EAST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
WEST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
The 4.08 acre site is vacant and located west of Jefferson Street, south of Quarry
Lane within Tentative Tract 30651 (Attachment 1). The General Plan and Zoning
Code designates the property Low Density Residential. Also portions of the property
are above the "toe of slope" and in the Hillside Conservation Overlay District.
A Specific Plan is required to allow development in the hillside property; the applicant
is proposing to grade hillside property with slopes above 20 per cent. Specific Plan
2002-061 provides a land use and circulation discussion, design guidelines, and
special studies including grading, hydrology, geology and view shed (Attachment 2).
The applicant proposes to grade Parcels 1 and 2 (Tentative Parcel Map 30586) to
accommodate construction of two single family homes. Both lots contain slopes with
more than 20% slope with Parcel 1 containing over 40% of its surface area in slopes
over 20%, and Parcel 2 comprising 70% of its surface area in slopes excess of 20%.
All development within the Hillside Conservation District requires approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
IiiiiIWIM11111..� •
Proposed is the subdivision of remainder Lot "I" to create two lots within the recently
approved Tentative Tract 30651, The Quarry Ranch (Attachment 3). Both lots will
take access from Tom Fazio Lane South, an existing private street within the Quarry.
Parcel 1 is 86,230 square feet with the building envelope area proposed to be
approximately 36,200 square feet; and Parcel 2 is 90,598 square feet with the
building envelope area proposed a to be approximately 34,500 square feet. Pad
elevations are proposed to be 76' for Parcel "1 " and 77' for Parcel "2". Tom Fazio
Lane South, the portion directly in front of Parcels 1 and 2 varies in elevation from
56 feet to 73 feet. The preliminary grading plan shows a total of 21,865 cubic yards
of hillside are proposed to be cut with 8,828 cubic yards of fill, netting 13,036 cubic
yards of cut.
The view shed study provided shows a sight line from north to south across the
Quarry golf course, and a sight line from Cahuilla Park Road to southwest across the
proposed Quarry Ranch project (Tentative Tract 30586). The view shed study
demonstrates that the roof lines of future dwelling units on Parcels 1 and 2 do not
rise above the ridge line of the hillside.
A homeowners' association will be formed for Tentative Tract 30651 and these
parcels will be included in that association to maintain retention basins, common
landscaped areas, private roads, perimeter landscaping.
1041T401•
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 12 ,2002. All
property owners within 500 feet of the entire development were mailed a copy of the
public notice.
Public Agency Review
The project was sent out for comments to City Departments and affected public
agencies on October 4, 2002. Agency comments received have been made a part
of the Conditions of Approval.
In addition, the applicant has met with the California Department of Fish and Game
and voluntarily accepted certain Conditions of Approval relating to biological
resources. Similar additional conditions were accepted by the applicant during City
Council review of Tentative Tract Map 30651, The Quarry Ranch.
Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared
Environmental Assessment 2002-458 for the project. Staff recommends certification
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact.
-1' • Ili �� •'. � i
The applicant's request to create to new residential lots and allow development on
hillside property is consistent with the General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance
provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are met. Findings necessary to
approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions.
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_ recommending to the City
Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2002-458; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_ recommending to the City
Council approval of Specific Plan 2002-061 subject to the attached conditions;
and,
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_ recommending to the City
Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 2002-071 subject to the attached
conditions; and,
4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002 recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 30586, subject to the attached
conditions.
Attachments:
1 . Location Map
2. Specific Plan 2002-061
3. Tentative Parcel Map 30586
Prepared by;
Fred Raker, AICP
Principal Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(EA 2002-458) PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061,
PARCEL MAP 30586 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2002-071
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-458
APPLICANT: WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
22nd day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider request
of Winchester Development to allow two residential lots to development on 4.06
acres located within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District by means of a Specific
Plan (SP 2002-061), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2002-071) and a Parcel Map (TPM
), collectively "the Project", generally located west of Jefferson Street alignment,
south of Quarry Lane, more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF A.P.N. 766-050-008
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared for the Project;
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et. seq., ("CEQA Guidelines"); and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on October 22, 2002 did
consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notice of its intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on
October 12, 2002 to landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site and to all public
entities entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice also included a notice of the
public hearing before the City Council on November 19,2002 ; and
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun on
October 12, 2002, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County
Clerk in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
AAPC RESO EA 2002-458.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Environmental Assessment 2002-458
Winchester Development
Adopted October 22, 2002
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received no comment
letters; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, as
follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted
as the Findings of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 2 The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA
Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has
independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the
environmental effects of the Project, and that, based upon the Initial Study, the
comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there
is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there may be significant
adverse environmental effects as a result of the Project. The mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the
Project and these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where
clearly no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project.
SECTION 3: The Project 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 2002-458.
SECTION 4: The 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.
SECTION 5: There is no evidence before the City that the Project will
have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends.
SECTION 6: The 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.
A:\PC RESO EA 2002-458.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Environmental Assessment 2002-458
Winchester Development
Adopted October 22, 2002
SECTION 7: The 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 Project.
SECTION 8: The Project will not have the 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.
SECTION 9: The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon.
SECTION 10: The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 11: The location of the documents which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission decision is based is the La
Quinta City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman,
Community Development Director.
SECTION 12: A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code
§ 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project
implementation.
SECTION 13: Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term
is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2.
SECTION 14: The Planning Commission has on the basis of substantial
evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code
of Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby
recommended for certification.
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.
AAPC RESO EA 2002-458.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Environmental Assessment 2002-458
Winchester Development
Adopted October 22, 2002
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment
2002-458 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the
Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community
Development Department and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22"d day of October, 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
A:\PC RESO EA 2002-458.wpd il
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Specific Plan 2002-061, Conditional Use Permit 2002-071,
and Tentative Parcel Map 30586, a portion of Quarry Ranch
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: South side of Tom Fazio Lane South, approximately 1,500
feet east of Jefferson Street
APN: 766-050-008
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Winchester Development
1 Quarry Lane
La Quinta, CA 92253
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.)
The Specific Plan is proposed to establish development standards and guidelines
for the development of two lots within the Quarry Ranch property. The total
land area proposed is 4 acres. The Specific Plan is proposed to allow
development in an area controlled by the City's hillside conservation regulations.
The Specific Plan will allow development in an area of more than 20 percent
slope.
The Conditional Use Permit is required by the hillside conservation regulations
for any project proposed above the toe of slope.
The Parcel map will divide 18.51 acres into two residential parcels and a
remainder parcel to be used for golf course development. Parcel 1 will be 1.98
acres in size and Parcel 2 will be 2.08 acres in size.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACklst-458.wpd
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Existing single family residential and golf course (The Quarry)
South: Vacant desert lands, Low Density Residential
West: Existing single family residential (The Quarry), Low Density Residential
East: Vacant desert lands, Low Density Residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACklst-458.wpd
2
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
1-1
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared. nn
LJ
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.
Lol
0
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. 11
ignature Date —
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.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.
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\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd
4
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 3.6)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Site topography, Slope Study,Figure 5-4)
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)
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? (General
Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner)
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 nonagricultural use? (No ag. land in proximity to
project site)
II. 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, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Project Description)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
1�
X
09
X
/:/
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd
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? ("General Biological Assessment Quarry
Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002, Final Conditions of Approval,
Tentative Tract 30651)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ("General Biological
Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002, Final Conditions
of Approval, Tentative Tract 30651)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc.,
June 2002, Final Conditions of Approval, Tentative Tract 30651)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? ("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc.,
June 2002, Final Conditions of Approval, Tentative Tract 30651)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ("General
Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002)
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?("General Biological
Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002, Final Conditions
of Approval, Tentative Tract 30651)
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? ("Phase I Cultural
Resources Assessment..." Keith Co., June 2002)
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)?("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..." Keith Co., June
2002)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..." Keith
Co., June 2002)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd
71. 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? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ("Geotechnical Investigation..."
Sladden Engineering, July 2002)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.4)
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? ("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July
2002)
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? ("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July
2002)
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? ("Geotechnical
Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July 2002)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
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? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
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? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R9
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd
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? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
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)
III. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Hydrology... and Drainage
Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002)
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 p. III-87 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? (Hydrology... and Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and
Assoc., July 2002)
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? (Hydrology... and
Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(Hydrology... and Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July
2002)
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 Exhibit
6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p.
74 ff.)
X
0
91
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd
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 p. 71 ff.)
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 p. 71 ff.)
U. 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 p. 95)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Residential project -- no
ground borne vibration)
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. III-144 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? (General Plan
land use map)
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 land use map)
III. 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, p. 9 ff., application materials)
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)
KIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
R.
X
X
R.
X
X
KI
11
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd 9
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
(IV. RECREATION:
(V.
KVI.
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. III-29 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. III-29 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? (No air traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (Tentative Tract Map 30651)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Tentative Tract Map
30651)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Tentative Tract Map 30651)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Tentative Tract Map 30651)
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
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, p. 58 ff.)
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, p.
58 ff.)
K/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
tN
i
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd
10
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, p. 58 ff.)
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, p. 58 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
[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?
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?
KVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
X
FIq
X
V
91
/1
X
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 Assessment 2002-452 was used in this analysis.
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.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd 11
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..., prepared by the Keith Companies, June, 2002.
Geotechnical Investigation..., Prepared by Sladden Engineering, July 2002
Hydrology, Hydraulics and Drainage Concept Study..., Prepared by Tettemer and Associates, July 2002
Personal communication, Patti Schwartz, engineer, Coachella Valley Water District, July and August,
2002
Specific Plan text, Specific Plan 2002-061
Section 9.140.040, HC, hillside conservation regulations of the La Quinta Municipal Code
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd 12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-458
I. a) & c)
The proposed project is not located within a General Plan Image Corridor.
The two lots proposed for development would be graded at an elevation of
approximately 77 feet, and will be surrounded by open space and recreation
areas. The location of two residences will not constitute a significant impact
on the Coral Reef mountains at this location.
I. b) The project site consists of a rock outcropping, which would be graded, and
potentially significantly impacted. The City's hillside conservation regulations,
however, will be implemented with the proposed Specific Plan and
Conditional Use Permit. The hillside conservation regulations were designed
to restrict development in hillside areas with more than 20% slope. Both lots
contain this type of slope, with Parcel 2 including 70% of its surface in
slopes in excess of 20%, while Parcel 1 has 33% of its area in slopes of
more than 20%. In order to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed
project, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. The provisions of the hillside conservation regulations shall be applied
to the parcels contained in Tentative Parcel Map 30586.
I. d) The project will generate a minimal amount of light since only two units can
ultimately be built on the two parcels. The City's dark sky ordinance will be
applied to all lighting plans submitted for the proposed homes. These
requirements do not allow lighting to spill over to other properties. The
potential impacts associated with light and glare for two homes are not
expected to be significant.
II. a)-c)
The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to
Williamson Act contracts.
III. a) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The
Tentative Parcel Map will result in the construction of 2 homes, which will
generate up to 19 average daily trips'. Based on this trip generation, the
proposed project will generate the following pollutants.
1"Trip Generation, Sixth Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, based on single family detached home category.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
Running Exhaust Emissions
Table III -7
Calculations of Fugitive Dust Potential
Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust
Disturbed at Buildout* (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day)
4 26.4 107.184
Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,
April 1993.
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 0.59 0.02 0.12 -- 0.00 0.00
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 19 trips/day and average trip length of 6 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light
autos at 75°F, year 2005. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD
for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for
an EIR.
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. b) The proposed project will not result in any stationary source air quality
violations, since buildout will generate only 2 homes.
III. c) & d)
The construction of the proposed project will have the potential to generate
dust, which could impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley
is a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or
smaller).
The proposed parcel map would result in the disturbance of 4.06 acres of land,
and the cutting of 21,864.79 cubic yards of dirt from the site. This has the
potential to generate the following amount of fugitive dust.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
Table III -7
Calculations of Fugitive Dust Potential
Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust
Disturbed at Buildout" (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day)
4 26.4 107.184
Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,
April 1993.
The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of PM 10.
These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed
project. The contractors of all homes on the site will be required to submit a
PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In
addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the
measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
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. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Slope stabilizing landscaping shall be installed
immediately upon completion of grading of said slopes.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the implementation
of the Coachella Valley PM 10 Management Plan 2002, the impacts to air quality
from buildout will not be significant.
III. e) The construction of 2 homes will not generate any objectionable odors.
IV) a)-f)
A biological resource analysis was prepared for the proposed project as part of
the review of Tentative Tract Map 306512. The assessment found that although
the project occurs in the potential habitat area for several species of concern,
the habitat on the project site has been degraded by off -road vehicle use and
illegal dumping, and these species are not expected to occur on the site.
During the City Council review of the previous Tentative Tract Map 30651, the
applicant for the proposed project accepted additional conditions of approval
relating to biological resources, which are to mitigate the potential impacts to
biological resources on the site. These conditions are listed below.
1. The existing streambed located 300' west of lot 25 will not be altered in
any way without prior consent of the Department of Fish and Game, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the City of La Quinta.
2. The applicant will provide to the City of La Quinta or its designee, 3 acres
(3:1 Ratio) of mitigation property in Martinez Canyon or an alternate
agreed upon location or $1,500 for property acquisition related to
potential streambed alteration. The applicant will also provide 120 acres
(2:1 Ratio) of mitigation property in Martinez Canyon or an alternate
agreed upon location or a maximum of $60,000 related to possible loss
of potential bighorn habitat. Payment shall be made in the form of a
security bond as approved by California Department of Fish and Game
and be made prior to grading.
3. Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides
and fertilizers used during the construction and operation of the Project
Site will not be harmful to wildlife.
4. A construction plan shall be prepared and demonstrate, to the extent
practicable, construction activities that emit excessive noise will be
avoided adjacent to the hillside. In addition, during grading and
construction activities any blasting or pile -driving near the hillside will not
occur during the period from Jan. 1 through June 301h
2"General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," prepared by VHBC, Inc., July 24, 2002.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
5. The landscape plan shall include only plants that are non -toxic to wildlife.
All exotic plants such as tamarisk and fountain grass are prohibited.
Existing trees may remain.
6. If Bighorn Sheep enter onto the Project Site, an 8-foot fence (or the
functional equivalent) between the development and the hillside, if any,
shall be constructed. The gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or
less. If determined necessary, the developer shall construct temporary
fencing while permanent fencing is constructed. The fence shall not
contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. If the developer
transfer or disposes of any of the property adjacent to the hillside, the
developer shall reserve an easement sufficient for the construction of
fencing if needed in the future.
7. Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the project area, and shall
be kept away from the hillside areas through appropriate signage and
fencing, where applicable.
8. Access into the hillside area from the site will be discouraged through the
use of signs or barricades, if necessary, unless the access is provided as
part of a trail system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG.
9. The final design of the project shall insure that road and driveways are
designed to minimize headlight shine from vehicles onto the hillside.
10. In all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non -glare glass shall be used in new
construction. Exterior building lights shall not shine on the hillside.
Exterior lighting shall be kept at the safest possible minimum intensity
and aimed away from the hillside.
11. The developer shall obtain a stream bed alteration agreement with the
Department of Fish and Game prior to grading if required under the
California Fish and Game Code.
Since the proposed project falls under the boundaries of the previous approval,
the conditions of approval listed above shall also apply to Tentative Parcel Map
30586, and will serve as mitigation for this project. Impacts to biological
resources are not expected to be significant.
V. a)-d)
A Phase I cultural resources survey was completed for the proposed project as
part of the review of Tentative Tract Map 306513. The survey found no historic
structure on the site, but did identify a historic trash dump. The survey also
3 "A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the Quarry Ranch Development," prepared by the Keith Companies, June 12,
2002.
PAFRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
identified a prehistoric site, in the form of sherd scatter. The Phase I study made
recommendations for mitigation measures which were confirmed by the Historic
Preservation Commission, as follows:
1. An archaeologist shall be present on and off site during all grubbing and
earth moving activities. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to
the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a
written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first
building on the site.
2. A Phase II testing program for the historic and prehistoric sites identified
on the project shall be completed and submitted to the City for review
and approval prior to recordation of the final map.
VI. a) i), ii) & iv►
A geotechnical analysis was completed for the project site as part of the review
of Tentative Tract Map 306514. The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking
zone. The site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone. The property,
as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in
the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet
the City's and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform
Building Code requirements for seismic zones. These requirement will ensure
that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b) The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area, and will therefore not be
subject to significant soil erosion from wind. The site is subject to flooding
erosion, however. The project proponent will be required to secure approval
from the Coachella Valley Water District for all flood control plans on the site.
These plans will be required to include control of soil erosion. Please also see
hydrology discussion below.
VI.c)-e)
The geotechnical analysis found that the soils on the site are not expansive, and
that they will support the development proposed by the project proponent. The
geotechnical analysis found that the soils on the site are loose and that caving
occurred during borings. The soils on the site will not support foundation
designs unless the following mitigation measure is implemented:
1. All building areas shall be watered and recompacted as described in the
geotechnical analysis, resulting in 90% relative compaction to a depth of
at least 2 feet below the existing grade or 3 feet below pad grade,
whichever is deeper.
4"Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Short Course Development The Quarry...," prepared by Sladden
Engineering, July 31, 2002.
PAFRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
VII. a)-h)
The construction of 2 homes on the project site will not expose residents or
neighbors to hazards or hazardous materials. The site is not located within an
airport land use plan. The site is not located within a wildland fire area. All
emergency responses will be implemented in accordance with the City's
Emergency Response Plan, in cooperation with the County of Riverside.
VIII. a), c),d) & e)
The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site
flows tributary to the Bureau of Reclamation Dike No. 2. Siltation and debris
were also identified as issues in this area, due to its proximity to the Coral Reef
Mountains. The proposed project will tie into the proposed improvements for
Tentative Tract Map 30651, which include an earthen ditch with flood wall at.
the southwest corner of the adjacent tract, another along the southern boundary
of the site, and a trapezoidal channel within the Jefferson Street right of way.
CVWD required the preparation of a hydraulics, hydrology and drainage study
for Tentative Tract Map 306515, to address flood control issues throughout the
site. CVWD is still reviewing the materials at this writing, but has indicated that
the proposed improvements, with some modifications, will reduce the impacts
associated with drainage and flood control on the site to less than significant
levels. In order to assure that this is the case, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented:
1. The project proponent shall secure approval of all flood control
improvements from the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any earth
moving activity at the site.
VIII. b)
Buildout of the site will result in the construction of 2 homes which will utilize
groundwater for domestic and landscaping. The Coachella Valley Water District
provides domestic water to the subject property. The 2 homes will be required
to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and
on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts to
groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the requirements of the City's
water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
IX. a) & c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will be integrated into an existing
country club development. The project is consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning designations for the project site. The project will neither divide an
existing community, nor conflict with a habitat or natural community
conservation plan.
5^Hydrology, Hydraulics and Drainage Concept Study for Quarry Ranch....," prepared by Tettemer and
Associates, July 2002.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
IX. b) The proposed project is proposed for an area governed by the City's hillside
conservation regulations. These regulations explicitly limit the potential for
development within the City's hillsides. The regulations are designed to
specifically protect the valuable asset the City has identified in its hillsides. The
project proponent has completed the required Specific Plan and Conditional Use
Permit required under the regulations. As such, the potential impacts have been
mitigated, with the exception of the preparation of a Site Development Permit.
This standard will be imposed at the time that actual development is proposed
for parcels 1 and 2. This final standard will be the final mitigation of potential
impacts.
1. The proposed project shall conform to the hillside conservation
regulations pertaining to the preparation of Site Development Permits for
the two residential units.
With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impacts to the City's
regulations relating to impacts on an environmental effect will be mitigated to
a less than significant level.
X.a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
XI.a) The project site is not located in an area of the City subject to high traffic noise
levels. The location of 2 homes on the site will not generate significant noise
levels. The impacts associated with noise are not expected to be significant.
XI.c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment
and activities. Existing homes occur to the north and west of the site. Homes
are considered sensitive receptors to noise, and the construction at the site
could have a negative impact. In order to reduce these potential impacts, the
following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any
occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers
and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors)
shall be located as far away from existing homes as possible.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
PAFRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
XII. a)-c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will result in the construction of only
2 residential units. No impacts to population and housing are expected.
XIII. a)
Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services.
The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department,
under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax
which will help offset the costs of added police and fire services.
The 2 homes within the parcel map boundary will be required to pay the state -
mandated school fees to mitigate potential impacts to schools.
To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the parcel map will be
required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program.
Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal
services or facilities.
XIV. a) & b)
The construction of 2 homes will not impact recreational services, insofar as the
homes will be located within a country club with recreational amenities. The
generation of property tax, and the General Plan policies in place to ensure that
standards for parkland acquisition are followed by the City as development
occurs, will mitigate potential impacts to these facilities to a less than
significant level.
XV. a) & b)
The buildout of the proposed project will result in 19 average daily trips. The
proposed project falls well within the land use analysed in the General Plan EIR
traffic study, which found that surrounding roadways in the project area will
operate at acceptable levels at General Plan buildout. The impacts associated
with traffic are not expected to be significant.
XV. c)-g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the map does not create
any hazardous design features. The homes will be required to provide parking
according to City standards. The map provides for emergency access points.
Alternative transportation in the form of trails will be implemented throughout
the area based on General Plan policies and programs.
XVI. a)-f)
Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer and individual
homeowners will be required to pay connection and service fees for each of the
utilities, which are designed to incorporate future needs and facilities. These
fees will eliminate the potential impacts associated with utilities at the site.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
0
0
E
k
0
o.
0
0
w
00 0
0
o b
a � N
w"
W O
ON V
pw A
c a
cn
�a d aw d
z
O c
O C�Vcz
U
cz
U �
�0
ovCy
0
o
00
N Cl N Q
Na 00
O
U 00
N
C4)
o °z
z x
d d
A V W
i
I
Aa
A
a
d
9
Q
d
A
A
U�
U�
�W
�W
aUXx
aUxx
UU
UV
0
0
�'
L1
ti
o
Cl
a
�
b v
o a
a
Ln
a
C)
U c0�
u
Cd
Y
a+
00o
0o
a0o
b
b
o
o
v 0
0
En
H
C
F"
W
o
V)
CA
0
cl
N
0
0
U
U
v
U
U
°
0 to
o
0
oho
oo
o
0
o
o
00
� o
��
U
Q
Q
Q
U
,�
bo
•�
to
bo
U
to
to
cad
cts
s
W
W
b
'l7
'd
U Q
U
U
U
m
U D
now
kri
N
z
0
0
z
0
t
o
o
0P
rn
�+
cr
�rE5
0
a
-d 0
V1
V1
O
ci
O
u
N
oo
3 cy
O
`�
N
x
scn
a
"
Co
cl
F
0
x
a
b (A
OcnO
W
O bo
U P:
x
CC
yCd
m
0.
a -
Q.
C-P)
A
O
A
A
Uzzi
U�
U�
zz�
OV
OV
OV
OV
cv
0 0
0
�'
d
10)
a� CA
.Itd
Q
o
-ICJ
io
b
ti
z
^d
to IM4
z
z
0-4O
zz
Q Q
zz
�,
zz
Q
zz
Q
UQ UQ
0.�1
UQ
UQ
cn
�;
o
b
o
0-4�
b
o
0-4
o
F
o°toF
o
Fad
F
d
w
-
.It
o
n
U
Cd � 0 �
G7
b
a
N
° U
N
J a.1
A
W
� x
�U
� W
� L
J
Q
F•
o 0 0
o 0 0
z
v � �
U U U
Q Q Q
z
rFi
cq3
b b b
as as �
�
z
o
d
� a
P�
o
E
Cd
wo
o c
O
cd to
C7 . a w
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-
061, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR A 4.06 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED
WITHIN THE HILLSIDE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
CASE NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 22"d day of October , 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing
and recommended approval to the City Council a request of Winchester Development
to allow two residential lots to development on 4.06 acres located within the Hillside
Conservation Overlay District by means of a Specific Plan (SP 2002-061), Conditional
Use Permit (CUP 2002-071) and a Parcel Map (TPM ), collectively "the Project"
generally located west of Jefferson Street alignment, south of Quarry Lane, more
particularly described as:
A PORTION OF APN: 766-050-008
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan has complied with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the
adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community
Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (EA 2000-395), and determined
that the Specific Plan will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact is recommended; 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 to justify a
recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan:
1 That the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the
La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Low Density
Residential which permits the uses proposed for the property.
2. That the Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated area
development in that the project, as conditioned, provides adequate circulation.
A:\PC.RESO SP 2002-061.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 2002-061
Winchester Development
Adopted October 22, 2002
3. That the proposed Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental
to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting project will require
Planning Commission review and approval of development plans under a Site
Development Permit, which will ensure adequate Conditions of Approval.
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 Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Specific Plan
request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the conditions
of approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22"d day of October, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 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 Specific Plan, or any other
application pertaining thereto. 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 Specific Plan, and any Parcel Map submitted thereunder, shall comply with the
requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the
"Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at
www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain 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.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management
and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water, LQMC; Riverside
AAPC COA SP-2002-061.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
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 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
("SW PPP") .
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection
at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant
to this project.
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration
of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by
the City.
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).
A:\PC COA SP-2002-061.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. The applicant shall acquire an easement across Lot G of Tract No. 27728 for access
to the Specific Plan area in conformance with the City's Genral Plan, Municipal
Code, required by the City Engineer.
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 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.
9. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
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.
10. 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 Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal
B. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
The applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans required by other
agencies and utility purveyors.
A:\PC COA SP-2002-061.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
"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.
11. 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.
12. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files
shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable
through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format,
or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
13. Prior to the approval of any Parcel Map pertaining to this Specific Plan, applicant
shall satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed
Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the satisfaction of its
obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required
by the City.
GRADING
14. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
15. 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.
16. 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,
A:\PC COA SP-2002-061.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
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.
D. SWPPP and BMPs
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 Parcel 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.
17. 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.
18. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown in the Specific Plan, unless the
pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of
Approval.
19. 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 in the
approved Specific Plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to
the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
DRAINAGE
20. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
21. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
A:\PC COA SP-2002-061.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
22. Storm water handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
report prepared for original Quarry. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an
approved manner.
UTILITIES
23. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
24. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within the right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone
stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
25. 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
26. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of 13.24.100 (Access For Individual
Properties And Development), LQMC.
27. General access to and from the Specific Plan area shall be Tom Fazio Lane South
and other existing roads connected to it.
28. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries as
needed to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements.
LANDSCAPING
29. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.)
30. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
A:\PC COA SP-2002-061.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
ALITY ASSURANCE
31. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
32. 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.
33. 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.
MAINTENANCE
34. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.)
35. 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
36. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for
plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permit.
MISCELLANEOUS
37. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Hillside Conservation District
(9.140.040) except subsections C, J1, 2, and 3, L, and M.
• - •• fromm •� • • ---•
38. The existing streambed located directly est of the project will not be altered in any
way without prior consent of the Department of Fish and Game, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the City of La Quinta.
A:\PC COA SP-2002-061.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
39. The applicant will provide to the City of La Quinta or its designee 8 acres (2:1 Ratio)
of mitigation property in Martinez Canyon or an alternate agreed upon location or a
maximum of $4,000 related to possible loss of potential bighorn habitat. Payment
shall be made in the form of a security bond as approved by California Department
of Fish and Game and be made prior to grading.
40. Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and
fertilizers used during the construction and operation of the Project Site will not be
harmful to wildlife.
41. A construction plan shall be prepared and demonstrate, to the extent practicable,
construction activities that emit excessive noise will be avoided adjacent to the
hillside. In addition, during grading and construction activities any blasting or
pile -driving near the hillside will not occur during the period from Jan. 1 through
June 30th
42. The landscape plan shall include only plants that are non -toxic to wildlife. All exotic
plants such as tamarisk and fountain grass are prohibited. Existing trees may
remain.
43. If Bighorn Sheep enter onto the Project Site, an 8-foot fence (or the functional
equivalent) between the development and the hillside, if any, shall be constructed.
The gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. If determined necessary,
the developer shall construct temporary fencing while permanent fencing is
constructed. The fence shall not contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be
entangled. If the developer transfer or disposes of any of the property adjacent to
the hillside, the developer shall reserve an easement sufficient for the construction
of fencing if needed in the future.
44. Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the project area, and shall be kept
away from the hillside areas through appropriate signage and fencing, where
applicable.
45. Access into the hillside area from the site will be discouraged through the use of
signs or barricades, if necessary, unless the access is provided as part of a trail
system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG.
46. The final design of the project shall insure that road and driveways are designed to
minimize headlight shine from vehicles onto the hillside.
47. In all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non -glare glass shall be used in new
construction. Exterior building lights shall not shine on the hillside. Exterior lighting
A:\PC COA SP-2002-061.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
shall be kept at the safest possible minimum intensity and aimed away from the
hillside.
48. The developer shall obtain a stream bed alteration agreement with the Department
of Fish and Game prior to grading if required under the California Fish and Game
Code.
A:\PC COA SP-2002-061.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 A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO DEVELOP IN HILLSIDE PROPERTY
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-071
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
22nd day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing and recommended
approval to the City Council A request of Winchester Development to allow two
residential lots to development on 4.06 acres located within the Hillside Conservation
Overlay District by means of a Specific Plan (SP 2002-061), Conditional Use Permit
(CUP 2002-071) and a Parcel Map (TPM ), collectively "the Project", generally located
west of Jefferson Street alignment, south of Quarry Lane, more particularly described
as:
A PORTION OF A.P.N. 766-050-008
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2001-429),
and determined that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant
impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact is recommended for certification; 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 Conditional Use Permit:
1 . The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the project proposed for
property is residential and the property is designated Low Density Residential.
2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code, or amended as allowed in the applicable Specific Plan.
3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the La Quinta Community
Development Department has determined this Conditional Use Permit will not
have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact has been certified.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditional Use Permit 2001-071
Winchester Development
Adopted October 22, 2002
Page 2
4. The design of the project is appropriate for the use in that it has been designed
with the appropriate parking and vehicular access.
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 that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be
certified for this project.
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -
described Conditional Use Permit 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 22nd day of October, 2002, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
AAPC RESO CUP 2002-071.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-071
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 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
this project. 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. The use of the subject property for residential uses shall be in conformance
with the approved exhibits and Conditions of Approval contained in Conditional
Use Permit 2001-064, Specific Plan 2002-071, and Environmental Assessment
2002-548, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions.
3. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be used within two years of the
effective date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no
effect whatsoever.
"Used" means the issuance of a building permit for the project. A time
extension for this Conditional Use Permit may be requested as permitted in
Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 D.
FIRE MARSHALL
4. Driveways less than 150 feet in length may be 12 feet wide, no turn -around
or turn out is required.
5. Driveways exceeding 150 feet, but less than 300 feet must be no less than 16
feet wide. Turnouts will be required at mid -point on driveways exceeding 150
feet, but less than 300 feet and a turn -around will be required at the building
end. (Upon review, if there are no line of sight problems between the Street
and the building, the Fire Department may waive the turn -out requirement).
6. Driveways exceeding 300 feet in length must be no less than 20 feet wide.
No turnouts will be required, however a turn -around at the building end is
required.
7. If a required turn -out cannot be provided at mid -point, the road width will be
20 feet he full length, and a turn -around is still required at the building end.
8. Turn -around must be within 50 feet of the building.
A:\PC COA CUP 2002-071.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-071
OCTOBER 22, 2002
9. Access must not exceed a grade of 15%. The fire Department fire engines
have serious difficulty on grades exceeding this amount.
10. Depending on the location of the driveways and the distance to the homes a
standard fire hydrant may required at each driveway. The distance from a fire
hydrant and the home should not exceed 500 feet.
11. The existing streambed located directly est of the project will not be altered in
any way without prior consent of the Department of Fish and Game, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the City of La Quinta.
11. The applicant will provide to the City of La Quinta or its designee 8 acres (2:1
Ratio) of mitigation property in Martinez Canyon or an alternate agreed upon
location or a maximum of $4,000 related to possible loss of potential bighorn
habitat. Payment shall be made in the form of a security bond as approved by
California Department of Fish and Game and be made prior to grading.
13. Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and
fertilizers used during the construction and operation of the Project Site will not
be harmful to wildlife.
14. A construction plan shall be prepared and demonstrate, to the extent
practicable, construction activities that emit excessive noise will be avoided
adjacent to the hillside. In addition, during grading and construction activities
any blasting or pile -driving near the hillside will not occur during the period
from Jan. 1 through June 301n
15. The landscape plan shall include only plants that are non -toxic to wildlife. All
exotic plants such as tamarisk and fountain grass are prohibited. Existing trees
may remain.
16. If Bighorn Sheep enter onto the Project Site, an 8-foot fence (or the functional
equivalent) between the development and the hillside, if any, shall be
constructed. The gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. If
determined necessary, the developer shall construct temporary fencing while
permanent fencing is constructed. The fence shall not contain gaps in which
bighorn sheep can be entangled. If the developer transfer or disposes of any
of the property adjacent to the hillside, the developer shall reserve an easement
sufficient for the construction of fencing if needed in the future.
A:\PC COA CUP 2002-071.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-071
OCTOBER 22, 2002
17. Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the project area, and shall be
kept away from the hillside areas through appropriate signage and fencing,
where applicable.
18. Access into the hillside area from the site will be discouraged through the use
of signs or barricades, if necessary, unless the access is provided as part of a
trail system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG.
19. The final design of the project shall insure that road and driveways are
designed to minimize headlight shine from vehicles onto the hillside.
20. In all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non -glare glass shall be used in new
construction. Exterior building lights shall not shine on the hillside. Exterior
lighting shall be kept at the safest possible minimum intensity and aimed away
from the hillside.
21. The developer shall obtain a stream bed alteration agreement with the
Department of Fish and Game prior to grading if required under the California
Fish and Game Code.
MISCELLANEOUS
22. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Hillside Conservation
District (9.140.040) except subsections C, J 1, 2, and 3, L, and M.
A:\PC COA CUP 2002-071.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 TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP 30586 TO ALLOW A SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 4.08 ACRES INTO TWO LOT SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS
COMMON AND GOLF COURSE LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30586
APPLICANT: WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 22ND day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and
recommended approval to the City Council a request of Winchester Development to
allow two residential lots to development on 4.06 acres located within the Hillside
Conservation Overlay District by means of a Specific Plan (SP 2002-061), Conditional
Use Permit (CUP 2002-071) and a Parcel Map (TPM ), collectively "the Project"
generally located west of Jefferson Street alignment, south of Quarry Lane, more
particularly described as:
A PORTION OF A.P.N. 766-050-008
WHEREAS, said Tentative Parcel Map has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that an Environmental Assessment was
completed for this project.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said
Tentative Parcel Map 30586:
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan.
The project is a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the
2002 General Plan Update. Tentative Parcel Map 30586 is consistent with the
goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions
contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan, and
mitigation measures pursuant to Environmental Assessment 2002-458. The
density and design standards for the tract will comply with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan.
B. The design, or improvement of, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance.
A:\PC RESO PM 30586.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Parcel Map 30586
Winchester Development
Adopted October 22, 2002
All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards
contained in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on -
site streets will be private. Access for the single family lots will be provided
from an internal loop street planned under Tentative Tract Map.
C. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or
wildlife, or their habitat.
The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division. Therefore,
this project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish
or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures will be implemented.
D. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map or type of improvements, are not likely
to cause serious public health problems.
The design of the Tentative Parcel Map, as conditionally approved, will not
cause serious public health problems because they will install urban
improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements.
E. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map, or type of improvements, will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through,
or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family
lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support
necessary infrastructure improvements.
F. The design of the lots, or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems in that the Fire Marshall, Sheriff's Department, and the
City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the proposal for public
health conditions and the project is conditioned as appropriate.
G. The design of the lots, or type of improvements, will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision in that the proposed internal streets
will be privately owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly -
owned improvements within the Tentative Parcel Map.
A:\PC RESO PM 30586.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Parcel Map 30586
Winchester Development
Adopted October 22, 2002
H. The design of the lots and grading improvements, including the pad elevation
differentials within the tract are an acceptable minimum in that the tract design
preserves community acceptance and buyer satisfaction.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Parcel Map, the Planning
Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs
of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs
of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and
environmental resources;
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 recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Parcel
Map 30586 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 22"d day of October, 2002 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30686
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 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
Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its
defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative Parcel Map, and any Parcel Map recorded thereunder, shall comply
with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through
66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal
Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at
www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain 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.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES storm
water discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and
Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside
A:\PC COA TPM 30586.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30686
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
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 less than five (5) acres of land, but which is part of a
construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the
Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan
("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection
at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control)
2) Temporary Sediment Control
3) Wind Erosion Control
4) Tracking Control
5) Non -Storm Water Management
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant
to this project.
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration
of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by
the City.
5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the
time of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements
and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the
AAPC COA TPM 30586.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30686
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
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 acquire an easement across Lot G of Tract No. 27728 for access
on the Parcel Map in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
8. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas on the Parcel Map.
9. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
10. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion
of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Parcel Map
and the date of recording of any Parcel Map, unless such easement is approved by
the City Engineer.
PARCEL MAPS
11. Prior to the City's approval of a Parcel Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Parcel 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 f ully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program.
Where a Parcel Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -
image file of such Final Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
12. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. A separated set of plans for each line item specified below
shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless
otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a
larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired.
A:\PC COA TPM 30686.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30686
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1'° = 40' Horizontal
B. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
The applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans required by other
agencies and utility purveyors.
"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.
13. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and 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.
14. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved plans
on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a
standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD
program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format,
or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
15. Prior to the approval of any Parcel Map, the applicant shall install survey monuments
and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed
Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing installation of the survey
monuments or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the
City.
16. 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
A:\PC COA TPM 30586.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30686
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
of any improvements related to this Tentative Parcel Map, shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
17. 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.
18. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Parcel 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.
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 Parcel Map,
or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of
such improvements.
19. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall
submit detailed cost estimates 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 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 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.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements.
A:\PC COA TPM 30586.wpd I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30686
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
20. Should the applicant 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
21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
22. 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.
23. 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.
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC.
D. BMPs for Storm Water Pollution Prevention, erosion Control, and dust control.
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 Parcel 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.
24. 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.
25. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations and grading shown in Specific Plan
AAPC COA TPM 30586.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30686
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
2002-061, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere
in these conditions of approval.
26. 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 in the
approved Specific Plan 2002-061, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading
changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
27. 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
28. The applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter
13.24.120 (Drainage), sub -section "K.", LQMC.
29. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
30. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
31. Storm water handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
report prepared for original Quarry.. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an
approved manner.
UTILITIES
32. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
34. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone
stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
A:\PC COA TPM 30586.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30686
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
35. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation
of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench
restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
36. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
37. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Development), LQMC.
38. General access to and from the Specific Plan area shall be Tom Fazio Lane South
and other existing road connected to it.
39. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries as
needed + 8to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements.
LANDSCAPING
40. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
41 . The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
42. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
43. 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.
44. 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.
A:\PC COA TPM 30586.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30686
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
MAINTENANCE
45. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
46. 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
47. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for
plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits.
IffieWIPr •►_ •�� • • -•
48. The existing streambed located directly est of the project will not be altered in any
way without prior consent of the Department of Fish and Game, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the City of La Quinta.
49. The applicant will provide to the City of La Quinta or its designee 8 acres (2:1 Ratio)
of mitigation property in Martinez Canyon or an alternate agreed upon location or a
maximum of $4,000 related to possible loss of potential bighorn habitat. Payment
shall be made in the form of a security bond as approved by California Department
of Fish and Game and be made prior to grading.
50. Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and
fertilizers used during the construction and operation of the Project Site will not be
harmful to wildlife.
51. A construction plan shall be prepared and demonstrate, to the extent practicable,
construction activities that emit excessive noise will be avoided adjacent to the
hillside. In addition, during grading and construction activities any blasting or
pile -driving near the hillside will not occur during the period from Jan. 1 through
June 30tn
A:\PC COA TPM 30586.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30686
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 22, 2002
51. The landscape plan shall include only plants that are non -toxic to wildlife. All exotic
plants such as tamarisk and fountain grass are prohibited. Existing trees may
remain.
52. If Bighorn Sheep enter onto the Project Site, an 8-foot fence (or the functional
equivalent) between the development and the hillside, if any, shall be constructed.
The gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. If determined necessary,
the developer shall construct temporary fencing while permanent fencing is
constructed. The fence shall not contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be
entangled. If the developer transfer or disposes of any of the property adjacent to
the hillside, the developer shall reserve an easement sufficient for the construction
of fencing if needed in the future.
53. Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the project area, and shall be kept
away from the hillside areas through appropriate signage and fencing, where
applicable.
54. Access into the hillside area from the site will be discouraged through the use of
signs or barricades, if necessary, unless the access is provided as part of a trail
system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG.
55. The final design of the project shall insure that road and driveways are designed to
minimize headlight shine from vehicles onto the hillside.
56. In all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non -glare glass shall be used in new
construction. Exterior building lights shall not shine on the hillside. Exterior lighting
shall be kept at the safest possible minimum intensity and aimed away from the
hillside.
57. The developer shall obtain a stream bed alteration agreement with the Department
of Fish and Game prior to grading if required under the California Fish and Game
Code.
MISCELLANEOUS
58. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Hillside Conservation District
(9.140.040) except subsections C, J1, 2, and 3, L, and M.
A:\PC COA TPM 30586.wpd
z
3
LA QUINTA
PGAWEST
LAKE CAHUILLA�
QUARRY
PROJECT
LOCATION
z z
0 0
in N
w
0
u
w
AVE 5
AVE
VE 6
z
V)
Y
a