2003 06 10 PCP
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
.DUNE 10, 2003
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2003-031
Beginning Minute Motion 2003-010
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 of May 27, 2003.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-770
Applicant .......... Michael Shovlin
Location ........... North side of Highway 1 1 1, 375 feet west of
Adams Street within the One Eleven La Quinta
Shopping Center
Request ............ Consideration of development plans for a 10,580
square foot commercial building
Action .............. Resolution 2003-
B. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751,
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Applicant .......... Washington 1 1 1, LTD.
Location ........... Bounded by Highway 1 1 1, Avenue 47, Washington
Street and Adams Street
Request ............ Consideration of an amendment to Condition of
Approval No. 40 regarding the Target elevations.
Action .............. Resolution 2003-
C. Item .................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-473,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-092, ZONE
CHANGE 2003-114, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
31289 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-
769
Applicant ..........
Jim Hayhoe
Location ...........
Northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence
within Lake La Quinta
Request ............
Consideration of: 1) Certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration; 2) Change of the General
Plan Land Use Category from Community
Commercial to Low Density Residential; 3) Change
to the Zoning District from Community Commercial
to Low Density Residential; 4) Subdivision of three
parcels into seven single family lots; and 5) Review
of architectural, landscape, and site plans for two
single story house plans ranging in size from 3,080
square feet to 3,362 square feet.
Action ..............
Resolution 2003-Resolution 2003-_,
Resolution 2003- Resolution 2003- ,
Resolution 2003-
PC/AGENDA
D. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-462,
SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-062, AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-754
Applicant .......... Marinita Development Company
Location ........... Southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred
Waring Drive
Request ............ Consideration of: 1) Certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration; 2) review of development
principles and design guidelines for a 50,000
square foot market, 23,000 square foot drug and
retail store, and a 20,970 square feet of retail
shops.
Action .............. Resolution 2003- Resolution 2003- ,
Resolution 2003-
E. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-472,
SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-064, AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 31202
Applicant .......... Desert Elite
Location ........... Southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 52
Request ............ Consideration of: 1) Certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration; 2) Development principals
and design guidelines for a residential development;
and 3) The subdivision of 79.21 acres into 202
single family homes.
Action .............. Resolution 2003- Resolution 2003- ,
Resolution 2003-
F. Item ................. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2003-076
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... City-wide
Request ............ Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Code
relating to Front and Side Yard Setbacks and Lot
Sizes:
Sections 9.30.020, .030, .040, .050, .060,.070 - Residential
Districts
Section 9.50.070.13 - Residential Development Standards
Section 9.60.060.13 - Supplemental Residential Regulations
Section 9.60.320.0 - Resort Residential
Table 9.2 - Residential Development Standards
Figure 9.1 - Development Standards: RVL and RL Districts
Figure 9.2 - Development Standards: RC Districts
Figure 9.3 - Development Standards: RM and RMH Districts
Figure 9.4 - Development Standards: RH and RSP Districts
Action .............. Resolution 2003-
PC/AGENDA
Vll. BUSINESS ITEMS: NONE
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Information regarding July Planning Commission meeting dates.
B. Report by Commissioner Robert Tyler on the City Council meeting of
June 3, 2003
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular
Meeting to be held on June 24, 2003, 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
May 27, 2003 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Robbins to lead the
flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler and Chairman Butler.
2. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant
City Engineer Steve Speer, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Martin
Magana, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
1. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
May 13, 2003. Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 7, Item 6, be
corrected to read, "In regard to the Village, the goal is to have pedestrian -
oriented environment and a gas station may not be the best use there,
beyond those that are existing." Page 7, IX.A. be corrected to read,
"Commissioner Kirk gave no report as there was no relevant business at
the City Council meeting of May 6, 2003." There being no further
corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets
to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved.
2. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2003
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
1. Development Agreement 2003-006; a request of California Intelligent
Communities and the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for consideration
of a entering into a Development Agreement for the property located at
the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented
the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department. Staff indicated
that the Summary Report was inadvertently included and is not
part of what the Commission is considering.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the "development plan"
that was referred to in the staff report. Staff indicated it was the
Specific Plan that had been approved by the Planning Commission
and would be considered by the Council on June 3, 2003 and
would be attached to the Development Agreement. Commissioner
Tyler asked staff for clarification on the termination fees for the
Boutique hotel in relation to when transient occupancy taxes are
paid. Staff would ask the City Attorney to review the question.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Richard
Oliphant, developer of the project, gave a review of the Agreement
and introduced Emily Hemphill, attorney for the applicant. Ms.
Hemphill reviewed the changes that were under consideration.
She stated the original form of the document did provide vesting
rights under California Law Development Agreements, which
generally allows the developer to do whatever the document
states. The City Attorney wanted to be sure the City could adjust
its fees and the developer would pay whatever fees were
applicable at the time. In the redraft of the document, the vested
rights were eliminated and they are requesting that the vested
rights with respect to the uses that are approved should remain
vested in the developer for the performance terms within the
Development Agreement. The City Attorney did agree with this.
She clarified the "cluster homes" and their location. In Section 3.4
there are certain one-time fees that have to be paid at the sale of
each casitas in each Boutique hotel unit. Then there are annual
mitigation fees. The developer will pay the one-time fees and the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\5-27-03WD.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2003
HOA will be responsible for paying the annual fees. Again the City
Attorney has agreed with this, but time did not permit making the
changes before this meeting. In respect to default, they had
negotiated a provision that stated the maximum damages that the
developer would be responsible for in the event of a default would
be equivalent to the outstanding balance on the Agency's loan
contribution. In addition, the Agency also has the right to
repurchase the property or revert the property back to the Agency
if the developer defaults as well as penalties on top of this. In
Section 7.2.D. the Ehline Development Company was omitted and
should be included as a permitted transferee. Finally, in Section
7.2.F. clarification was made as to what obligations are to be
assumed by the transferee.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked the length of the time before the
homeowners' association (HOA) would be assuming the
responsibility of the fees. Ms. Hemphill explained that once the
first casitas unit closes escrow, the HOA has to be in place and
would immediately collect the monthly assessments. The
developer will control the HOA in the beginning.
5. Chairman Butler asked if staff agreed with the changes as
proposed by the applicant. Assistant City Attorney Michael
Houston confirmed that the City Attorney's office has reviewed
the proposed changes and he would recommend language to
include in the Commission's recommendation to the Council.
6. There being no questions of the applicant Chairman Butler asked if
there was any other public comment on this project. Mr. Dave
Lippert, 78-745 Rockberry Court, asked for clarification of the
selling price of the homes. Staff clarified this information is
contained in the Summary Report which is not before the
Commission. Mr. Lippert asked what changes were to be made to
the Specific Plan. Chairman Butler stated this is not part of what
was being considered at this meeting.
7. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the
matter up for Commission discussion.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
3
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2003
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-028 recommending approval of Development
Agreement 2003-006, as amended:
a. Replace Paragraph 2 of Resolution with the following:
"Recommend approval of the Development Agreement with
those amendments incorporated therein as approved and
agreed to by the City Attorney."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
2. Conditional Use Permit 2002-075; a request of Cham Thi Prince and Lee
W. Jones for consideration of a use permit for a Cosmetology School, in
an existing commercial space located at 47-120 Dune Palms Road, the
southeast corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit 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 Robbins asked staff to explain why parking spaces
were being reserved. Staff stated 20 spaces were reserved by the
applicant based on the number of students that would be present
at any one time at the school. The use of the school requires
three spaces for each student that is present. Based on the
number of students and different shifts the school would be
operating, there should be no more than eight students at any one
time which equates to 24 parking spaces. If it were to be
computed on the retail space, it would require 25 spaces. Since
the use was changed from what was originally approved under the
Specific Plan to a school, staff proposes a restriction on the lease
agreement to reserve the number of spaces for the school.
Commissioner Robbins stated his concern was that if 20 parking
spaces were reserved and only 16 students were present, none of
the other uses would be able to use the remaining spaces. Staff
stated the lease agreement could be modified at a later date if
needed.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2003
3. Commissioner Kirk asked why the City should even care about
this. Wouldn't the management company be able to best figure
out how to arrange the parking needs.
4. Chairman Butler asked if the retail services being provided would
create a need for additional parking spaces and he was concerned
that there would not be enough parking spaces. Staff stated these
students not only attend school, but provide services as part of
their training. There is a retail aspect to this request and the
parking need is unknown. Chairman Butler asked if this wasn't a
landlord/tenant issue and not an issue for the City. Staff stated it
was part of the Conditional Use Permit application approval
process.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the number of
students per session. Staff stated there were three classrooms
and they were limited to a total of eight students.
6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Lee W.
Jones, applicant, stated he was available for questions. In regard
to the parking he sees no issue. A lot of students will be using
public transportation as well as being dropped off. The number of
students present at any one time will vary. Discussion followed
regarding the parking issue.
7. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Butler
asked if there was any other public comment on this project.
Commissioner Abels asked how many students and customers
could be there at any time. Mr. Jones stated it is an unknown
number because you do not know how many students will be
attending at any one time.
8. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the
matter up for Commission discussion.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2003
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-029, approving Conditional Use Permit 2003-
075, as amended:
1. Condition #1 deleted.
2. Amend Condition #2: "...to restrict the total number of
students..."
3. Condition #3: remove any reference to Condition #1.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2003-764; a request of Paul Ehline Company
for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for four new
single family prototype residential units with three different architectural
designs for each prototype within the Greg Norman Estates Development
located at the northeast corner of Madison Street and Airport Boulevard.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magana 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 why this project was not subject to the
10% compatibility rule. Staff explained these units fall within the
range allowed. Discussion followed regarding clarification of the
compatibility rule.
3. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated the specific plan is
the overriding land use document for the Zoning Code. In the
hierachy of land entitlements you have the General Plan, Specific
Plan, and the Zoning Code falls underneath this to the extent the
Specific Plan has a different standard. A finding could be made
that the standard controls and takes precedent over the Zoning
Code. Commissioner Kirk stated it does not supercede the
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\5-27-03WD.DOC 6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2003
compatibility section of the Zoning Code unless the Specific Plan
states so. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated that is
correct, but to the extent there is a deviation in absolute square
footage sizes, a finding could be made on the supremacy of the
Specific Plan. Commissioner Kirk stated there is no deviation in
the uses. It appears the Zoning Code needed to be changed.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked how you define compatibility when the
entire area is under one Specific Plan and in that area there are
several developments developed by different developers. Staff
clarified that it pertains to areas where it is the same developer.
5. Commissioner Kirk asked if the original Site Development Permit
could be amended to allow this square footage. Discussion
followed regarding alternatives available to the Commission.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m. to
allow staff time to review the issues raised.
6. Staff reviewed the approvals the applicant had already received.
7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike
Stoltz, representing the applicant, asked that they be allowed to
move the location of the model units.
8. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of the
applicant.
9. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public
participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation
portion and opened the matter up for Commission discussion.
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-030, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\5-27-03WD.DOC 7
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2003
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
1. Commissioner Robbins was unable to attend the meeting and gave no
report on the City Council meeting of May 20, 2003.
2. Commissioner Abels asked staff to look into the issue of larger garages to
accommodate SUV vehicles.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on June 10, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. on May 27, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\5-27-03WD.DOC 8
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 10, 2003
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-770
APPLICANT: MICHAEL J. SHOVLIN
REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 10,580 SQUARE
FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 1 1, 375 FEET WEST OF ADAMS STREET
WITHIN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 89-
150 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 90020162), PREPARED
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON APRIL
17, 1990. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS
ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED
WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
BACKGROUND:
The vacant project site is located along Highway 1 1 1, between McDonald's and the
Shell gasoline station, south of Wal-Mart (Attachment 1). The parking lot has been
installed to the south of the proposed site.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicants are proposing a 10,580 square foot one story building to be used for
retail uses (Attachment 2). The architecture of the building is similar to the existing
freestanding shop buildings in the Center. The building has a flat roof of heights
varying from 18 feet (for most of the building) to 30 feet at the tower at the southeast
corner of the building. Architectural features from existing buildings include a detailed
cornice, rectangular tower, wall light sconces, square decorative tile, two decorative
stucco/metal trellis' on the rear (south) side of the building and wood outrigger posts
in the tower. Exterior colors consist of similar light earth tones used in adjacent
buildings. Adjacent to the front (north) side of the building, a large patio area is
shown. The landscaping plans proposed for this project have not been submitted.
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc rpt.wpd
As a retail use, 43 parking spaces (1 /250 square feet) are required. The project
provides 47 new spaces on the north and west side of the building.
There is a sign program for the Center. No signs are shown for the new building.
That would mean this building will use the existing program.
Landscaping will need to be submitted at a later date for approval. A minimum of
three vines is recommended on the columns at the front of the building.
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC):
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of June 4, 2003, and recommended
approval of the project by adoption of Minute Motion 2003-023, subject to conditions
(Attachment 3).
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 30, 2003.
All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public
hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no
comments have been received.
FINDINGS:
The findings, as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the
Zoning Ordinance, can be made as noted in the attached Resolution provided the
recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed. Note, the current Zoning Code
requries buildings within 150 feet of State Highway 111 to have a roof height of not
more than 22'- 0". This Code provision was enacted in 1996 to insure low profile
buildings adjoining Image Corridors and Major/Primary Arterial thoroughfares.
However, the Code permits architectural projections to exceed this height based on the
following statement:"...architectural features not containing usable floor space, such
as chimneys, towers, gables and spires, are permitted to extend fifteen feet above the
maximum structure height set forth in Table 9-6 if approved as part of the site
development or other permit (Section 9.90.020)." Therefore, Condition #49 is
recommended to allow the roofline for the project to vary to approximately 30'- 9" to
retain the architectural integrity of the shopping center.
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc rpt.wpd
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 2003-_, approving the development plans for Site Development
Permit 2003-770, subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Plan exhibits
3. Draft minutes of the June 4, 2003, Architecture and Landscaping Review
Committee meeting
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, rincipal Planner
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc rpt.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
10,580 ± SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE
ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-770
APPLICANT: MICHAEL SHOVLIN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 10th day of June, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider the
request of Michael Shovlin to approve the development plans for a 10,580± square
feet commercial building in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, located on the
north side of Highway 1 1 1, 375 feet west of Adams Street, more particularly
described as:
APN 643-080-047
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee did on
the 4th day of June, 2003, at a regular meeting, adopted Minute Motion 2003-023,
recommend approval of the architectural plans for the new building, subject to
conditions; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of
said Site Development Permit:
1. The General Plan designates the project area as Regional Commercial. The
proposed commercial building is consistent with the commercial designation of
the property.
2. The proposed commercial building is designed to comply with the Zoning Code
and Specific Plan requirements, including, but not limited to, height limits,
parking, lot coverage, and signs.
3 The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the
request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 89-
150 (State Clearinghouse Number 90020162), prepared for Specific Plan 89-
014, which was certified on April 17, 1990. No changed circumstances or
conditions are proposed, or new information has been submitted which would
trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review.
p:\stan\sdp 2003-770 pc res.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Michael Shovlin
Site Development Permit 2003-770
Adopted: June 10, 2003
4. The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to the
architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details,
roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding
development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The project
uses architectural features, colors, and materials to match the surrounding
existing buildings.
5. The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries,
interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities,
screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site
design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the
quality of design prevalent in the city. The proposed building is located on an
area that is designated for a commercial building.
6. Project landscaping, including, but not limited to the location, type, size, color,
texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide
relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and
vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between
adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an
overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and
complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and
water use.
7. The building signs will be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and
Center's sign program, and will be in harmony and visually related to the
proposed buildings, with the approval of the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in' this case.
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2003-770 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of June, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
p:\stan\sdp 2003-770 pc res.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Michael Shovlin
Site Development Permit 2003-770
Adopted: June 10, 2003
AYES:
NOES:
ASSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
p:\stan\sdp 2003-770 pc res.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CQNDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-770 - MICHAEL SHOVLIN
ADOPTED: JUNE 10, 2003
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify; and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this site
development plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense
counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
o Fire Marshal
o Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
o Community Development Department
o Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
o Desert Sands Unified School District
o Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
o Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
o California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
v SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
3. 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),
I_.QMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources
Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
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).
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc coa.wpd 1 of 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-770
Michael Shovlin
Adopted: June 10, 2003
PROPERTY RIGHTS
4. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements
and other property rights necessary for construction or proper functioning of the
proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to
dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for
maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements.
5. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and
utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer.
6. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
PUBLIC STREETS
A. Highway 111 (Major Arterial — State Highway, 140' Right of Way) — No
additional street right of way is required to comply with the General Plan
street widths.
7. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of
way shown on the approved Site Development Plan are necessary prior the
applicant dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary
rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City.
8. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and
along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five
feet with the express concurrence of IID.
9. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as
follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is
approved):
Highway 1 1 1 (Major Arterial — State Highway) — 50-foot from the R/W —
P/L.
The setback requirement applies to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc coa.wpd 2 of 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-770
Michael Shovlin
Adopted: June 10, 2003
10. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access
to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and
common areas.
1 1. Direct vehicular access to and from Highway 1 1 1 from lots with frontage along
said street is restricted, except for those existing access points identified on the
approved Parcel Map. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written
permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which
grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments
are to occur.
12. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way
or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned
by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access
easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property
owners.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed
to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
13. "Site Development Plans shall normally include all surface improvements,
including but not limited to: parking lot improvements, finish grades, curbs &
gutters, ADA requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc.
Site Development Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
14. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee established by City Resolution, the applicant
may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
15. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to
the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they
may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of
construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall
update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions.
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc coa.wpd 3 of 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-770
Michael Shovlin
Adopted: June 10, 2003
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
plans.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
16. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the
City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of the development or building
permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements.
GRADING
17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary
geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified
engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils
report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist.
18. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant
shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in
accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a
form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance
with the provisions of the permit.
19. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water
erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided
with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development
and Public Works Departments.
20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each
pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the
difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be
organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
21. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
plan for ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER. Nuisance water shall be retained on
site and disposed of in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer.
22. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the
Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from
the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc coa.wpd 4 of 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-770
Michael Shovlin
Adopted: June 10, 2003
which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide
pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses
which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and
furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building
permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and
successors in interest in the land within this Site Development Permit excepting
therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The
form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such
discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions
in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations.
23. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water
(through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or
adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a
requirement for development of this property.
UTILITIES
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, electrical vaults, water
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
25. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all
proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv
are exempt from this requirement.
26. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities
in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration
requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
PARKING LOT AND ACCESS POINTS
27. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking).
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts,
dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features
shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths
and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer.
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc coa.wpd 5 of 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-770
Michael Shovlin
Adopted: June 10, 2003
A. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public
streets are limited to the access locations approved in Specific 89-014.
23. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete.
The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include
recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation
test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current
production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix
designs are approved.
29. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices and pavement
markings. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement
thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of
the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City,
whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
30. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots, and park areas.
31. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan
checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by
the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the
City Engineer.
32. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn
or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
33. The plans shall provide for pocket planters around three columns at the front of
the building. The planters shall include shrubs, and/or vines, and groundcover.
34. One parking space in the middle of the parking lot (single loaded aisle) shall be
used for a planter with a shade tree and ground cover provided for shading.
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc coa.wpd 6 of 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-770
Michael Shovlin
Adopted: June 10, 2003
35. Parking islands shall be shortened by four feet.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
36. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
37. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient
construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings.
38. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by
the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans,
specifications and applicable regulations.
39. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each
sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed"
and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the
accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image
files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions.
MAINTENANCE
40. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all
on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The
applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released
from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
41. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makes application for plan checking and permits.
42. 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).
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc coa.wpd 7 of 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-770
Michael Shovlin
Adopted: June 10, 2003
43. Prior to completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the
property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a
reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the
cost of the reapportionment.
MISCELLANEOUS
44. Applicant shall comply with the approved Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan
89-014.
45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, final working drawings shall be approved
by the Community Development Department.
46. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened and installed using
compatible architectural materials and treatments, in a manner so as not to be
visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all
such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety
Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. Method
and design of screening must be approved by the Community Development
Department prior to any issuance of building permits related to structures
requiring such screening.
4.7. Vines shall be added to the trash enclosure.
48. "People spaces" shall be thoughtfully developed.
49. Roof elements shall be limited to a height of 22'-0", excluding the roof structure
over the tower element, which is ailed to be up to 30'- 9" high.
SIGNS
50. Signs shall comply with the approved sign program.
LIGHTING
51. Rear elevation wall mounted lights for the building shall use non-adjustable
shoebox type down shining light fixtures with recessed or flush mounted lenses.
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc coampd 8 of 9
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2003-770
Michael Shovlin
Adopted: June 10, 2003
FIRE DEPARTMENT
52. Approved super fire hydrants shall be installed not less than 25 feet, nor more
than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular
travel ways. Fire Department connection and post indicator valve shall be located
at the front of the building.
53. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from the centerline to the
side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
54. Minimum fire flow 1500 GPM for a 2-hour duration. Fire flow is based on type
VN construction and a complete fire sprinkler system.
55. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run
concurrent with the City plan check.
56. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, FDC, PIV, etc.) shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building
permit.
57. City of La Quinta Ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 square feet
or larger to be fully sprinkled, NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will need to
be submitted to the Fire Department for plan check.
58. The required water system, including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
59. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for
approval a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting
and/or signs.
60. Install a KNOX key box on the building. Contact the Fire Department for an
application.
P:\STAN\sdp 2003-770 pc coa.wpd 9 of 9
CASE MAP
ATTACHMENT #1
ORTH
cnsE No. N---1
SITE DEVELOP PERMIT 2003-770 SCALE:
SHOVLIN I NTS
ATTACHMENT #3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
June 4, 2003
B. Site Development Permit 2003-770; a request of Michael Shovlin for
review of development plans for a 10,580 square foot commercial
building located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, 375 feet west of
Adams Street within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center.
1. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Mr.
Dave Smalley, representing the applicant, who gave a
presentation on the project.
2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if there were any exit
doors on the rear of the building. Mr. Smalley stated they are
not noted on the rear elevation. Committee Member
Cunningham noted his concern about the view from Highway
1 1 1. Mr. Smalley explained the doors are inside the portico and
are set back with a column. Committee Member Cunningham
asked about the trash enclosure. Mr. Smalley stated there is a
berm that will hide most of it.
3. Committee Member Thorns asked if they had tenants for the
stores. Mr. Smalley stated there is a pool company and a real
estate tenant; no food vendors. Committee Member Thorns
noted there appears to be a nice "people space" that would
accommodate outdoor seating. He would like to see it further
developed for people to use this space. Maybe something
simple in water. The whole complex is missing "people places".
Also, the parking landscape islands project out to far and need
to be shortened by at least four feet; even the ones at the
corners.
4. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Cunningham to
adopt Minute Motion 2003-023 approving Site Development
Permit 2003-770, as recommended by staff and amended:
a. Condition added to require vines on the trash enclosure;
b. People spaces thoughtfully developed;
C. Parking islands shortened by four feet.
Unanimously approved.
G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\6-4-03 WD.doc
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 10, 2003
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751, AMENDMENT NO.
1
LOCATION: BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 111, AVENUE47, WASHINGTON
STREET AND ADAMS STREET
APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD
REQUEST: AMEND CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 40 OF SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751 (TARGET ELEVATION)
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-
459 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 87-011, AMENDMENT NO.
4, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON DECEMBER 17, 2002. NO
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED,
AND NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH
WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
A:\PC Staff rpt SDP 2002-751 Amendment No. 1.wpd
BACKGROUND
Site Location/Project Description
The currently vacant site for proposed Target building is bounded by Highway 111,
Washington Street, Adams Street, and Avenue 47 consists of 50.62 acres
(Attachment No. 1). The Washington Park Specific Plan and Site Development Permit
for Target was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November
26, 2002 and approved by the City Council on December 17, 2002. The approval
granted a 126,000 square foot retail facility (Target) with a 10,000 square foot
outdoor garden center.
Request by Applicant
The applicant is requesting (Attachment No. 2) the Planning Commission amend
Condition of Approval No. 40 under Resolution 2002-170 requiring Target to have an
average vertical height of 35-40 feet as it relates to the proposed elevations
submitted to the Planning Commission on May 10, 2003. The Site Development
Permit Condition of Approval No. 40 reads:
"The Target Building shall have a vertical average height of 35 feet up
to 40 feet; and work with staff to design variations in color or materials
on the mid -section of the front of the building."
The Planning Commission reviewed this request on May 10, 2003 (Attachment No.
3) and directed to staff to schedule a public hearing to amend Condition No. 40 to
allow the proposed Target elevation heights as submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval.
Staff recommends the Condition to read as follows:
"The Target Building shall have vertical heights ranging from 24 feet up
to 36 feet; and work with staff to design variations in color or materials
on the midsection of the front of the building."
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, approving Site Development Permit
2002-751, Amendment No. 1 modifying Condition of Approval No. 40, as
recommended by staff.
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
A:1PC Staff rpt SDP 2002-751 Amendment No. 1.wpd
Attachments:
1. Project Location Map
2. Applicant's letter
3. Minutes for the May 10, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting
A:\PC Staff rpt SDP 2002-751 Amendment No. 1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO. 40 OF SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751, AMENDMENT NO. 1
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
10th day ofJune, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
Washington 1 1 1, LTD for approval to amend Condition No. 40, approved under
Resolution No. 2002-170, and generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1, Avenue 47,
Washington Street and Adams Street, more particularly described as :
A.P.N.'S 643-020-017, 643-020-018, 643-020-022, 643-020-023,
and 643-090-016
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified Environmental
Assessment 2002-459 for Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 4, Washington
Park Commercial Center. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new
information is proposed which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent
environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166.
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 Site Development Permit, Amendment No. 1:
1. The amended condition for the project is consistent with the General Plan in
that the property proposed for the commercial project is designated as Regional
Commercial.
2. This amended condition for the project has been composed 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 that this site Development Permit will
not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact has been certified.
A:\PC RESO SDP 2002-751, Amendment No. 1.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2002-751, Amendment No. 1
Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve the above -described amended Site Development
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 10th day of June, 2003, 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 SDP 2002-751, Amendment No. 1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751, AMENDMENT NO. 1
WASHINGTON 111, LTD
JUNE 10, 2003
40. The Target Building shall have vertical heights ranging from 24 feet up to 36
feet; and work with staff to design variations in color or materials on the
midsection of the front of the building.
A:\PC COA SDP 2002-751 Amendment No. 1.wpd
ATTACHMENT #1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Washington 1119 LTD
April 28, 2003
Jerry Herman
Director of Planning
City of La Quinta
PO Box 1504
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253-1504
Dear Mr. Herman:
Bill Sanchez
Owner's Representative
78-365 HWY 111, #351
La Quinta, CA 92253
T 760.485.5308
F 760.564,3499
gsanchez@dc.rr.com
Please accept our request for Planning Commission clarification of conditions set forth under Planning
Commission Resolution 2002-111 and Site Development Permit 2002-751.
Washington 111, LTD is requesting to be added to the May
receive further clarification on the condition requiring the North
vertical height of 35 feet and up to 40 feet.
Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
B II Sanchez
Owner's Representative
le Planning Commission hearing to
Target elevation to have an average
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 10, 2003
CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-473, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 2003-092, ZONE CHANGE 2003-114, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 31289 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-769
APPLICANT: JIM HAYHOE
REQUEST: (1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
(2) CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CATEGORY FROM
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (UP
TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), (3) CHANGE THE
ZONING DISTRICT FROM CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) TO
RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), (4) SUBDIVIDE THREE
PARCELS (2.33 ACRES) INTO SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, AND
(5) REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPE, AND SITE
PLANS FOR TWO SINGLE STORY HOUSE PLANS RANGING IN
SIZE FROM 3,080 SQUARE FEET TO 3,362 SQUARE FEET.
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF CALEO BAY AND VIA FLORENCE
WITHIN LAKE LA QUINTA
PROPERTY(
OWNER: MIKE LANG (LANG PROPERTY HOLDINGS)
ARCHITECT: PEKAREK-CRANDELL, INC.
ENGINEER: NAI CONSULTING (KRIS R. SCHULZE, R.C.E.)
LANDSCAPE
DESIGN: RAY MARTIN DESIGN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-473;
BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
GAT61289 Hayhoe2003\SRPCTr3l289HayhoeFinal.wpd Page 1 of 7
ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED.
GENERAL
PLAN/ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH CC ZONE DISTRICT
(ORDINANCE NO. 381) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH RL
ZONE DISTRICT
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: LAKE LA QUINTA INN, A BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY
SOUTH: ACROSS VIA FLORENCE, EXISTING LAKE LA QUINTA SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSES FRONTING VIA FIRENZE THAT WERE BUILT IN
1995 BY CENTURY COMMUNITIES (SPINNAKER COVE
PROJECT); VIA FIRENZE IS A CUL-DE-SAC WITH 16 SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSES.
EAST: EXISTING LAKE LA QUINTA PRIVATE LAKE
WEST: ACROSS CALEO BAY, VACANT COMMERCIAL PARCELS WITHIN
LAKE LA QUINTA PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
UNDER SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 2002-733 AND 2002-753
BACKGROUND:
The vacant, irregularly -shaped lake front lots are located on the east side of Caleo Bay
and north of Via Florence (Attachment 1). Caleo Bay, a north -south oriented two-lane
public street, provides access connections to perimeter public streets and Lake La
Quinta Drive.
Tracts 24230 and 26152 established Lake La Quinta, a private development of
approximately 281 single family lots on approximately 103 acres oriented around a
man-made lake generally bounded by Adams Street on the east, Avenue 48 on the
south and Avenue 47 on the north. Gated access locations into Lake La Quanta occur
on Via Florence, Dulce Del Mar and Adams Street (Attachment 2).
The existing detached, one story Lake La Quinta houses were built by various builders
and typically range in size from 1,909 square feet to 3,800 square feet on 0.17-acre
and larger lots. The prevalent style of architecture is Mediterranean/Spanish, utilizing
plastered walls and overhangs, tile roofs, metal roll -up garage doors and walled
GATr31289 Hayhoe2003\SRPCTr3l289HayhoeFinal.wpd Page 2 of 7
courtyards. Typical building heights range from 17 feet to 20 feet for existing houses,
excluding architectural tower projections. Exterior building colors are typically in
shades of white and brown.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The various applications are described below:
General Plan Amendment - Under the request, the Community Commercial (CC)
designation will be converted to Low Density Residential (LDR) for the 2.33-acre site
allowing up to four dwelling units per acre. An LDR category supports the
development of attached and detached single-family houses in varying development
products such as country clubs, condominiums, townhouses, subdivision tracts, etc.
Zone Change - Under the request, the CC (Community Commercial) designation will
be converted to RL (Low Density Residential) for the 2.33-acre site. This land use
category encourages one- and two-story houses of not less than 1,400 square feet on
minimum 7,200 square foot lots.
Subdivision Map - The developer plans to create seven single-family lots that range in
size from 12,938 square feet to 16,946 square feet with each lot taking access from
Caleo Bay. The following table provides a breakdown of the lot characteristics:
Lot 1
16,946 sq. ft. (0.38 ac.)
Pad = 62.0' high
Lot 2
15,124 sq. ft. (0.34 ac.)
Pad = 62.0' high
Lot 3
14,074 sq. ft. (0.32 ac.)
Pad = 62.0' high
Lot 4
12,938 sq. ft. (0.29 ac.)
Pad = 61.5' high
Lot 5
15,494 sq. ft. (0.35 ac.)
Pad = 61.5' high
Lot 6
13,810 sq. ft. (0.31 ac.)
Pad = 61.0' high
Lot 7
13,244 sq. ft. (0.30 ac.)
Pad = 61.0' high
Note: Project density is three dwelling units per acre.
Lot widths average 65 feet and are typically perpendicular to the 60-foot r-o-w street;
lot lengths vary from approximately 74 feet to over 200 feet. Most lots are rectangular
in shape, excluding Lot 7 which is an irregular, five -sided lot on the southerly -most
portion of the subdivision map abutting Via Florence (Attachment 3).
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\SRPCTr3l289HayhoeFinal.wpd Page 3 of 7
Development Plans - The applicant is proposing to build seven single-family houses
from 3,080 square feet to 3,362 square feet in size with attached garage parking
areas (Attachment 4). In addition to garages, each house has one open parking space.
A project overview is provided below:
Development Topics
Project Attributes
RL Code Provisions
Building Height
Up to 20' high (one story),
Up to 28' tall (two stories),
excluding architectural
excluding architectural
projections
projections
Roof Pitches
4:12 using gable and hip
Unspecified; As determined
designs
by the Planning Commission
Roof Material
Clay barrel tile (U.S. Tile)
Unspecified; As determined
by the Planning Commission
Exterior Wall Finish
Smooth stucco and stone
Unspecified; As determined
veneer
by the Planning Commission
Garage Parking
2 or 3 spaces + open
2 spaces (Min.)
parking spaces; concrete
paver driveways
Building Sq. Ft.
3,080 sq. ft. and larger * *
1,400 sq. ft. (Min.)
Multiple Facades* * *
2 Facades per unit type
2 Facades per unit type
* The Community Commercial Zone District allows buildings up to 40 feet tall (three stories).
* * Plan 1 offers conversion of one garage space into a guest suite, enlarging the house size to 3,300
square feet.
* * * Per Zoning Code Section 9.60.330.
Note: Any proposed architectural projections shall comply with Section 9.50.060 of the Zoning Code.
The proposed building elevations use a variety of window styles and shapes. Stone
veneer, in irregular shapes, is used to accent front and rear building elevations
depending on the plan type and/or option in shades of brown. The exterior building
colors are primarily in shades of brown and gray with other accent colors used for
garage doors, chimney caps, etc. An exterior material and color sample board will be
available at the meeting.
The roofing material is manufactured by U.S. Tile and consists of blended colors in
shades of red and brown. Eave overhangs are encased in stucco or have exposed
wood trusses. Tile roofed patio covers extend off the back of the houses to shade
doors and windows.
G:\T61289 Hayhoe2003\SRPCTr31289HayhoeFinal.wpd Page 4 of 7
The conceptual landscape plan for the site consists of a wide variety of specimen trees
(e.g., citrus, Japanese oleander, Chilean mesquite, etc.), one- and five -gallon shrubs,
and vines for parkway areas highlighted by palm trees, turf, gravel and rock boulders.
The proposed landscaping will provide visual relief and soften the view of the
meandering six-foot high masonry wall that is placed, on average, 15 feet from the
sidewalk. This privacy wall is being planned to buffer noise from future commercial
projects and Washington Street traffic. Driveway access gates are constructed using
wrought iron in rectangular patterns flanked by 24-inch square masonry columns.
Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC)
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of May 7, 2003, and on a 2-0 vote,
adopted Minute Motion 2003-020 recommending approval, subject to a condition that
requires shrubs on Caleo Bay to be able to withstand summer temperatures.
(Attachment 5).
Public Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 21,
2003, and mailed to all affected property owners within 500 feet of the project site
along with a separate notice to the Lake La Quinta HOA (Attachment 6).
Public Agency Review: A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public
agencies and City Departments on April 8, 2003. All written comments received are
on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received
have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval.
MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings and conditions necessary to approve the request can be made and are
contained in the attached Resolutions.
CONCLUSION:
Adding this project to the Lake La Quinta development (i.e., RL designated residential
parcels and recreational amenities) will establish a land use density of approximately
2.7 dwelling units per acre which is within the Low Density Residential (LDR) category
range. Conversely, commercially -designated land will drop to 18.65 net acres with the
proposed land use revision. A revised land use table for the entire Lake La Quinta
development would be as follows:
GATr31289 Hayhoe2003\SRPCTr3l289HayhoeFinal.wpd Page 5 of 7
Low Density Residential
79.44 ac. (existing SF lots & streets)
21.18 acres (lake)
02.38 acres (recreation lot)
02.33 acres (new addition)
105.33 acres - total
Medium Density Residential
10.17 acres (one parcel) *
Community Commercial
18.65 acres (eight parcels)
* Site Development Permit 2002-732 and Conditional Use Permit 2002-069 (80-unit senior apartment
complex), Southern California Presbyterian Homes
The proposed development of low -profile, single-family houses is compatible with the
adjacent Lake La Quinta land uses, assisting the orderly development of this mixed
land use community.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact (EA 2003-473) pursuant to the findings set forth in the attached
Resolution;
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-092, subject to the attached
Findings;
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Zone Change 2003-1 14, subject to the attached Findings;
4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 31289, subject to the attached
Findings and Conditions of Approval; and
5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Site Development Permit 2003-769, subject to the attached
Findings and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1 . Vicinity Map
2. June 1990 Lake La Quinta Map
GATr31289 Hayhoe2003\SRPCTr3l289HayhoeFinal.wpd Page 6 of 7
3. Tentative Tract Map 31289 Exhibit
4. Site Plan Exhibit
5. ALRC Minutes of May 7, 2003 (Excerpt)
6. Lake LQ HOA letter dated June 4, 2003
7. Development Plans (Planning Commission only)
Prepared by:
Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner
GATr31289 Hayhoe2003\SRPCTr3l289HayhoeFinal.wpd Page 7 of 7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-
473) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-092, ZONE
CHANGE 2003-114, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31289 AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-769
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-473
APPLICANT: JIM HAYHOE FOR MIKE LANG
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for the above -cited applications to develop a seven -lot single
family development on 2.33 acres, currently designated for commercial activities,
located at the northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence within Lake La Quinta,
more particularly described as:
APN: 643-200-009 to -01 1; Parcels 9-1 1 of Parcel Map 27892
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 City mailed notice of its intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code (PRC) § 21092 on May
15, 2003 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 Planning Commission on June 10, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun
newspaper on May 21, 2003, and further caused the notice to be filed with the
Riverside County Clerk in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received comment letters
on the Mitigated Negative Declaration from local public agencies. Community
Development Department personnel reviewed and considered these comments, and
prepared written responses to these comments which are contained in the staff report;
and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on June 10, 2003, did
consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification of the Mitigated
G:Tr31289fo1der/ResoPCEA473 Hayhoe.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
EA 2003-473 for Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 2
Negative Declaration for the Project; 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 CEQA, 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 (MND), 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 2003-473.
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,
in that the site has been graded under prior development approvals and mitigation fees
were paid on November 20, 1989, to comply with the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
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.
G:Tr31289fo1der/ResoPCEA473 Hayhoe.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
EA 2003-473 for Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 3
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.
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 received thereon.
SECTION 10: The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 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 PRC § 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).
G:T01289folder/ResoPCEA473 Hayhoe.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
EA 2003-473 for Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 4
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended
to the City Council for final certification.
SECTION 16: The Community Development Director shall cause to be
filed with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA Guideline §
15075(a) once reviewed by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 101h day of June, 2003, by the 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
G:T61289folder/ResoPCEA473 Hayhoempd
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2003-092, Zone Change 2003-114,
Tentative Tract Map 31289 and Site Development Permit 2003-769
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, CA 92253; Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-
7125
Project Location: Northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence (APN: 643-200-
009, -010 and -011)
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jim Hayhoe, P. O. Box 4378, Palm Desert,
CA 92261
Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Community Commercial to Low
Density Residential to allow for the construction of single family residential dwelling
units.
Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 2.33 acres into seven single family residential
lots. Minimum lot size will be 12,938 square feet, with an average lot size of
14,518 square feet.
Site Development Permit to review and approve the design of homes greater than
3,000 square feet and parkway landscaping.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Bed and Breakfast Inn
South: Lake La Quinta, Low Density Residential development
West: Community Commercial lands, mostly vacant, with several approved
commercial projects
East: Lake La Quinta, Low Density Residential development
Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.) -
Coachella Valley Water District and other public agencies
NCEQAchecklistEA 03-473.wpd
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Determination
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
u
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.
F
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
IN
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.
FE-
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.
/s/ Greg Trousdell. Associate Planner May 14. 2003
P:\CEQAchecklistEA 03-473.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 analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR
or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed
in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning
ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
71 Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
81 The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
P:\CFQAchecklisthA 03-473.wpd
3
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?
(Aerial photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area'? (Application
materials)
[I. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (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)
IIII. 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
Iandbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
t�
X
X
X
X
X
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (General Plan Biological Resources Element, all
exhibits)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan Biological Resources
Element, all exhibits)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (General Plan Biological Resources Element, all exhibits)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (General Plan Biological Resources Element, all exhibits)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element, all exhibits)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (General Plan
Cultural Resources Exhibit, previous Lake La Quinta investigations)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit, previous Lake La
Quinta investigations)
X
X
X
X
X
X
F.i
X
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? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit, previous
bake La Quinta investigations)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Geotechnical letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May 2003)
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 letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May
2003)
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 letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May
2003)
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 letter Report,
1?arth Systems Southwest, May 2003)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment'?
(Application materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school'?
(Application materials)
MI
K/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/1
X
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area'? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (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)
VIIII. ]HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR, p. III-
187 ff.)
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? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
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? (Project Preliminary
Grading Plan)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Project
Preliminary Grading Plan)
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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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. 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.)
Xl. 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? (Parking lot-- 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)
M
X
X
X
/./
X
X
09
x
KI
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for X
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)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection'? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan
EIR, 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)? (Project Site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project Site Plan)
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project Site Plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project Description)
XVI. 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.)
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.)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals'?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
00
X
/a
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
:none
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
3eneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
:jeneral Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
--ity of La Quinta Municipal Code
Letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May 2003
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2003-473
a)-d)
The proposed General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Tentative Tract Map
and Site Development Permit will result in the construction of seven, one-story
single family homes on approximately 2.33 acres (three parcels). The potential
impacts associated with detached homes is considerably less than commercial
development. No impact is expected from buildout of the proposed project.
II. a)-c)
The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to
Williamson Act contracts.
III. a1, b) & d)
The construction of seven single family homes will result in fewer impacts than
that which could be caused by commercial development. The impacts to air
quality standards or existing plans is expected to be negligible.
The construction of the seven homes will result in the creation of dust during
construction operations. The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area
for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller).
The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 2.33 acres of
land. The site had previously been mass graded as part of the Lake La Quinta
master planning process. Although this mass grading will result in less grading
than might otherwise be expected, the project geologist still recommends that
remedial grading be undertaken. This has the potential to generate 61.5 pounds
per day in fugitive dust during the grading of the site. The site is also in a high
wind erosion hazard area. These factors will result in a potential impact without
mitigation. Mitigation measures have been included to address this issue.
The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of PM 10.
These include the following control measures.
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities:
Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation,
track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind
fencing, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of
unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\EA Addendum Hayhoe.wpd
The contractor 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 ongoing 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. Landscaping of front yards shall be completed as soon as possible to
reduce the potential for dust generation.
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
10. The project proponent shall conform to the notification standards
included in the 2002 SIP for PM 10 in the Coachella Valley.
The construction of the proposed project will not generate any objectionable
odors.
IV. a)-f)
The project site has been previously graded, and contains little if any native
vegetation. Further, the site is isolated, and surrounded on all sides by other
developments or by previously graded lands. No significant biological resources
are expected to occur on the site, nor is any significant habitat in existence
there. The impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be
negligible.
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\EA Addendum Hayhoe.wpd
V. a)-d)
As previously stated, the site has been previously mass graded. The occurrence
of any cultural resources is highly unlikely. Since the City has previously been
a rich source of archaeological material, however, a mitigation measure is
proposed, should any significant resource be found during the grading process.
1. Should any archaeological resource be uncovered during the site grading
process, all work in that area shall cease, and an archaeological monitor,
meeting the City's qualifications, shall be called to inspect the site. The
archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect 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 completion of the project.
VI. a) i)-iv)
A geotechnical report was prepared for the proposed project'. The geotechnical
analysis found that the site occurs in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The
property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground
movement in the event of a major earthquake. The City Engineer will require the
preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the
submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from
ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b) The site is located in a high blowsand hazard area, and will therefore be subject
to significant soil erosion from wind. The project proponent will be required to
implement the mitigation measures listed under air quality, above, to guard
against soil erosion due to wind. These mitigation measures will lower the
potential impacts associated with wind erosion to a less than significant level.
VI. c)-e)
The soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the development
proposed by the project proponent'. The project geologist recommends the
implementation of remedial grading techniques to ensure the proper compaction
of the soils at the site. A number of recommendations were also made regarding
the footings and foundations at the site. The implementation of these
recommendations will lower the potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
1 Letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May, 2003.
2 Ibid.
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\EA Addendum Hayhoe.wpd
VII. a►-h)
The construction of seven homes will not generate hazardous materials, or a risk
of upset associated with those materials. The City's household hazardous waste
requirements will be implemented. No impact associated with hazardous waste
is expected as a result of the proposed project.
VIII. a) & b)
The construction of seven homes will not significantly impact water supply, nor
will it violate water or wastewater requirements. The construction of
commercial space on the site, which could accommodate up to 35,000 square
feet of retail, office or restaurant use under the current land use designation,
would likely have an equal or greater impact on water supply or water
standards.
VIII. c►&d)
The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on- and off -site
flows. The City Engineer requires that all projects retain the 100-year storm on -
site, unless otherwise allowed under the Master Drainage Plan for Lake La
Quinta. The proposed project will be required to conform to these standards,
which is expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Furthermore, the construction of homes is likely to result in less impermeable
surfaces on the site than would be expected with commercial or office
development, so that the potential for on -site percolation is greater with the
proposed project than would be expected with commercial development.
VIII. e)-g►
The construction of seven homes will not have an impact on the City's storm
drainage system. The site is not located within a FEMA designated 100-year
storm area.
IX. a)-c)
The project will not divide an existing community. On the contrary, the project
represents an extension of the residential land uses which currently occur east
and south of the site. The General Plan currently designates this property for
Community Commercial development. However, its location off the major
arterial (Washington), makes the site less desirable for commercial development.
The requested change in General Plan and Zoning designations will add to the
inventory of available residential land in the City, and only fractionally reduce
the amount of commercial land available. The impacts to land use and planning
associated with the proposed change in land use designation is expected to be
less than significant.
The site is located within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan for which fees were paid in the amount of
$85,236.00 on November 20, 1989 (Tract 24230) for the entire Lake La Quinta
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\EA Addendum Hayhoe.wpd
development of 142.06 acres. Payment of the mitigation fee ensure any
potential impacts are less than significant.
X. a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
XI. a) & b)
The construction of seven homes will have no significant effect on the noise
environment. The project will not generate either excessive noise levels or
ground borne vibration.
XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment
and activities. Existing homes occur to the south and east of the site but are
separated by roadways and a lake. The construction will be a sufficient distance
away that noise levels at the residential property lines should be well below City
maximum permitted standards.
XI. d1 & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The proposed project will result in seven housing units, which are likely to
generate about 15 residents. This increase in population is not significant. No
impacts are expected to population and housing.
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 offset the costs of added police and fire services. The project will be
required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of
building permits. The impacts on parks will be less than significant, since the
residents will have access to private recreational facilities at Lake La Quinta, and
park fees will be collected as required by Chapter 13.48 of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
XIV. a) & b)
Recreational facilities in the City will not be impacted by the addition of about
15 residents. These residents will also have access to the private recreational
facilities available at Lake La Quinta and other citywide public facilities.
XV. a) & b)
The proposed project will generate approximately 67 trips on a daily basis. The
generation of trips from residential development is much less than that of
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\EA Addendum Hayhoe.wpd
commercial office or retail development. The impacts associated with traffic
generation at the site are therefore expected to be lower than those previously
analyzed in the General Plan EIR, which considered commercial development on
this site.
XV. c)-g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the site does not create
any hazardous design features. The driveways for each house will access Caleo
Bay, which is a non -General Plan, local street with limited traffic now or at
buildout of the General Plan. The residences will be required to provide on -site
parking to meet the City's parking requirements. The proposed housing will have
access to the public transit available along Washington Street.
XVI. a)-f)
Utilities are available at the project site. The residential units will generate less
need for utilities than commercial development would likely require. No
significant impacts to utilities are expected as a result of the proposed project.
XVII. a)
The proposed project has the potential to impact the habitat of sensitive species
without mitigation. The mitigation provided in Section IV, above, reduces these
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XVII. d)
The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due
to air quality impacts during the construction process. Since the Coachella
Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, which can cause negative health
effects, Section III, above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce
the potential impacts on air quality to a less than significant level.
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\EA Addendum Hayhoe.wpd
W
U
z
Q
J
a
V
Q
z w
U
O cr.
d0
Q L.
J
LL Q
0
�CD
0
J cc
CL
C7
z
FE
0
CZ
C
0
z
LU
CL
v)
cc
cc
Cl)
ui
CA
vA
Q
M
O
O
N
M
m
a)
U
C
a)
0
U-
co
C
«3
cu
m
0
a)
m
U
0
c
o
U
U
ca
a)
O
z
z
0
P
v
0
J
F-
w
i
cc
CL
1 +1
O co
E
C�—NCD
r-
-0 OChM C
O Q. a)
CU
CD C� E
CL
cca +, o
Q Cc>c U ►-
a• C a) O
O > +,, C
c�oNm
(0 (n
CN-O�
M
CD Cn a) c
(7OF- ca0
zz
LU
U
w
a7
a)
U
O
CL
M
n
d'
M
O
O
N
0
LU
W
W
F-
Ca7
W
Z
0
W
F-
Q
W
a
f"
a
Z
0
H
u
W
Z
Z
0
L)
Z
Q
C7
0
m
IL
Z'
0
Z'
0
2
Z
0
t=
CD
LU
Z
F-
V W
N
= U
H
W
a)
O W Q
t
cu LU LU
M GC 2
E W ~
.. LL
Z O
� Z
0
a °a
V J m
0
CL U- Q
Q = W
W
Ca
uj
m
U
Qw
W
O=
U U
Ch
+,
co
()
a;
Q
a)
CD
c
mcn
0
O
CD
0
W
cn
6
U
C
U
U O
I�
co
O
2
a)
ca
ja.
v
g
_n
cn
��CL
d
+°
U
O
c
d N >'
cn
.--
a)
cvn
a.. ate.
in
U) o >
C
O
O
O
O
U
a)
U
cn
a)
0
0
Z_
f0
y
C
m E
m
Cl)
E
F"
U
U)C
V
co
cn a
a)
C) U
O
0)U
tm
'o
►-
0
O
co
O -
7
O
a_
a
rn a.
CL. -0
0
a_
Y
Y
cc
0
0
O0 0
�
ZLo
W
U
_U
.O
U)H
>
a••
>
a_
O
Op
(D
ate)
c c
c c
aai
d
O
c
m N
m a)
O D
W
U
E
cm
cc
LU
W
O
C`
U
c
>
>CL
a 0-
U
U
U
m 0
m a
a=. m
a)
+;
o
E
a)
m
O
E
_
O c
0
Q
rr
0
LU
a)
a)
cn
N
H=
o
0
N
�-
U
o
—
rn �
(n
N
W
4=
c
+.j
O
4�
COv)
cn
Q
O
mc
p)
D
U
U
E
O
(�
O
U
a
O
N
a)
0
cc
LO
CnN
O
a)
Q
C
N
O
co
CL c
o
>
D
O co
O
d
m
CLU)
+1
0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO REDESIGNATE 2.33
ACRES FROM THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) LAND
USE DESIGNATION TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
FOR THREE PARCELS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF CALEO BAY AND VIA FLORENCE WITHIN
LAKE LA QUINTA
CASE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-092
APPLICANT: JIM HAYHOE FOR MIKE LANG
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 101h day of June, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
General Plan Amendment 2003-092 to redesignate 2.33 acres from the Community
Commercial (CC) designation to Low Density Residential (LDR) designation for three
parcels located at northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence within Lake La
Quinta, more particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 643-200-009 to -01 1
Parcels 9-1 1 of Parcel Map 27892
Portion Section 30, T5S, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, on Mach 20, 2002, the City Council approved a citywide
General Plan Update changing the commercial properties in Lake La Quinta to
Community Commercial (CC) from Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) by adoption of
Resolution 2002-44, currently with certification of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR No. 2000091023) by adoption of Resolution 2002-43; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2003, the Community Development Department
mailed case file materials to all affected agencies for their review and comment. All
written comments are on file with the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the Public
Hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 21, 2003, for the June 10, 2003
Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 13.12.100 (Public Notice
Procedure) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Notices were also mailed to all property
owners within 500 feet of the development site on May 15, 2003. To date, only a
letter of support from the Lake La Quinta HOA has been received; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has
completed Environmental Assessment 2003-473. Based upon this Assessment, the
project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a
GATr31289 Hayhoe2003XResopc GPA092 Hayhoempd - Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
General Plan Amendment 2003-092 - Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 2
Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office
on May 16, 2003, as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; 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 pursuant to Section
9.230.020 of the Zoning Code to justify a recommendation to the City Council for
approval of said land use change:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The General Plan provides direction for
growth and practical policy implementation tools to manage that growth. The
proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies of the General Plan in that it provides for a mix of land uses similar to
what currently exists in the immediate area. Adding this project to the Lake La
Quinta development (i.e., Low Density Residential parcels) will establish a land
use density of 2.7 dwelling units per acre which is within the LDR category
range.
2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed land use change will not create
conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in
that the proposal is consistent with existing Lake La Quinta land uses.
3. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed project is compatible with surrounding
Lake La Quinta land uses and provides a buffer between existing houses and
commercial parcels to the west of Caleo Bay. Although the proposed residential
project will generate traffic, the proposed land use change will add less traffic
to the area than the existing commercial designation.
4. Property Suitability: The proposed land use designation is suitable and
appropriate for the property in that it is consistent with the Lake La Quinta
community and urban services are currently accessible to the parcels in
accordance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
5. Change in Circumstances: The continued development of the City requires
ongoing analysis to accommodate various land uses as prescribed by the City's
General Plan Land Use Element. Approval of the proposed land use change is
warranted because there is a need to supply residential uses adjacent to
commercial areas, and the change provides a transitional land use between Lake
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\Resopc GPA092 Hayhoe.wpd - Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
General Plan Amendment 2003-092 - Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 3
La Quinta residential houses and future commercial uses on the west side of
Caleo Bay (e.g., Policies 1 and 2 of the Residential Land Use section).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2003-473 in that no significant effects on the
environment were identified, provided mitigation measures are met;
3. Pursuant to City Council Resolution 2000-77, no more than twelve General Plan
Element amendments may occur during a one-year period. Since January 2003,
the City Council has approved a total of three amendments (GPA 2002-088,
2003-089 and 2003-090); and
4. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan
Amendment 2003-092 as contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made
a part of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 10`h day of June, 2003, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003kResopc GPA092 Hayhoempd - Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
General Plan Amendment 2003-092 - Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 4
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\Resopc GPA092 Hayhoe.wpd - Greg
CASE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-092
Exhibit "A"
Under the request, the Community Commercial (CC) designation will be converted to
Low Density Residential (LDR) for the 2.33-acre site (three parcels) located at the
northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence within Lake La Quinta. The new LDR
category allows a residential density of up to four dwelling units per acre. Applicant:
Jim Hayhoe for Mike Lang
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 643-200-009 to -01 1; Parcels 9-11 of Parcel Map 27892
Portion Section 30, T5S, R7E, SBBM
9
w
200.83
yeti
♦ b
r
CO
e PM 182/83
CO84_
PAR.B
S
PARA
O
1 206
v
3.20 AC NT
PARS
30
� ow�
I
A
1.01 AC NT �o
??
Nolrth
PAR.10
312.78
Q
l
PAR.11
<
1 l
N
PAR.3
CA
a�
3.03 AC NT
0
G/Hayhoe Folder/GPA Exhibit Hayhoe.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE TO
REDESIGNATE 2.33 ACRES FROM THE CC -COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION TO RL-LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL FOR THREE PARCELS LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF CALEO BAY AND VIA
FLORENCE WITHIN LAKE LA QUINTA
CASE: ZONE CHANGE 2003-114
APPLICANT: JIM HAYHOE FOR MIKE LANG
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 10th day of June, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Zone Change 2003-114 to redesignate 2.33 acres from the CC -Community
Commercial to RL-Low Density Residential for three parcels located on the east side
of Caleo Bay and north of Via Florence within Lake La Quinta, more particularly
described as:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 643-200-009 to -01 1
Parcel 9-1 1 of Parcel Map 27892
Portion Section 30, T5S, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2003, the Community Development Department
mailed case file materials to all affected agencies for their review and comment. All
written comments are on file with the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
381 changing the zone district designation from the site from Regional Commercial to
Community Commercial in compliance with the March 20, 2002 General Plan Update;
and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the Public
Hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 21, 2003, for the June 10, 2003
Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public Notice
Procedure) of the Zoning Ordinance. Notices were also mailed to property owners
within 500 feet on May 15, 2003. To date, only a letter of support from the Lake La
Quinta HOA has been received; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has
completed Environmental Assessment 2003-473. Based upon this Assessment, the
project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office
GATr31289 Hayhoe2003\Resopc ZC114 Hayhoempd - Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Zone Change 2003-114, Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 2
on May 16, 2003, as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; 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 pursuant to Section
9.220.010 of the Zoning Code to justify a recommendation to the City Council for
approval of said Zone Change:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The General Plan provides direction for
growth and practical policy implementation tools to manage that growth. The
proposed project is consistent with the City's goals, objectives and policies of
the General Plan in that the project will assist the City by providing a mix of land
uses for future development to help meet the needs of the community per
General Plan Amendment 2003-092.
2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed land use change will not create
conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in
that the proposed change is consistent with existing Lake La Quinta land uses.
Although the proposed residential project will generate traffic, the proposed land
use change will add less traffic to the area than the existing commercial
designation.
3. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed project is compatible with surrounding
uses and in conformance with General Plan Amendment 2003-092. Adding this
project to the Lake La Quinta development will establish a land use density of
2.7 dwelling units per acre which is within the LDR category range.
4. Property Suitability: The proposed land use designation is suitable and
appropriate for the property in that it is consistent with the Lake La Quinta
community and in accordance with Zoning Code standards. Urban services are
currently accessible to the parcels in accordance with the goals and objectives
of the General Plan.
5. Change in Circumstances: Approval of the proposed Zone Change is warranted
because there is a need to supply residential uses adjacent to Caleo Bay
commercial areas. This change provides a transitional land use between Lake
La Quinta residential houses and future commercial uses on the west side of
Caleo Bay.
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\Resopc ZC114 Hayhoe.wpd - Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Zone Change 2003-114, Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2003-473 in that no significant effects on the
environment were identified, provided mitigation measures are met; and
3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change
2003-1 14 as contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 101h day of June, 2003, 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
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\Resopc ZC114 Hayhoe.wpd - Greg
CASE: ZONE CHANGE 2003-114
Exhibit "A"
Under the request, the CC -Community Commercial designation will be converted to RL-
Low Density Residential for the 2.33-acre site (three parcels) located at the northeast
corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence within Lake La Quinta. Applicant: Jim Hayhoe
for Mike Lang
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 643-200-009 to -01 1; Parcels 9-1 1 of Parcel Map 27892
Portion Section 30, TSS, R7E, SBBM
w
200.83
m171.11
N.
r m PM 182/83
u
0
PAR.B
0
r 8
PARA ' o,so
yo "0 13 206 A'
o PAR.9
W 3.20 AC NT NO3 ; so 3
0
9
1.01 AC NT �
%� mirth PAR.10
312.76 1 O
s
z14 PAR.11
PAR.3 11
e O 0
3.03 AC NT
G/Hayhoe Folder/W Exhibit Hayhoe2003.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION OF
2.33 ACRES INTO SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CALEO BAY AND VIA
FLORENCE
CASE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31289
APPLICANT: JIM HAYHOE FOR MIKE LANG
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California
did, on the 10' day of June, 2003, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a
request by Jim Hayhoe for Mike Lang (Lang Property Holdings) to create seven single
family lots on 2.33 acres located at the northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence
in a Low Density Residential Zoning District, more particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 643-200-009 to -01 1
Parcels 9-1 1 of Parcel Map 27892
Portion Section 30, T5S, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2002, the City Council approved dual left-hand
turn lanes at Lake La Quinta Drive and Washington Street during discussion of the
Washington Street Rehabilitation Project (Case No. 2001-02). Construction work to
instail the vehicle turn pockets was completed in March 2003; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2003, the Community Development Department
mailed case file materials to all affected agencies for their review and comment. All
written comments are on file with the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the Public
Hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 21, 2003, for the June 10, 2003
Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 13.12.100 (Public Notice
Procedure) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Notices were also mailed to all property
owners within 500 feet of the tract map site on May 15, 2003. To date, only a letter
of support from the Lake La Quinta HOA has been received; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has
completed Environmental Assessment 2003-473. Based upon this Assessment, the
project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office
GATr31289 Hayhoe2003\ResoPC T31289Hayhoempd - Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Tract Map 31289, Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 2
on May 16, 2003, as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify a recommendation
to the City Council for approval of said Map:
Finding A - Consistency with General Plan, Zoning Code and any applicable Specific
Plans.
The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) per General Plan Amendment
2003-092 which allows up to four residential units per acre. The Land Use Element
of the General Plan encourages differing residential developments throughout the City.
This project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General
Plan insofar as the creation of residential lots will provide for continued growth within
La Quinta.
The property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) by Zone Change 2003-1 14 and is
consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element in that lots exceed the City's
minimum of 7,200 square feet. Additionally, the proposed detached single family
houses under Site Development Permit 2003-769 are consistent in design with other
Lake La Quinta housing stock. The development of the project, as conditioned, will
be compatible with the surrounding area.
Finding B - Site Design and Improvements
Infrastructure improvements to serve the subdivision were installed by the previous
developer. The proposed seven individual driveways on Caleo Bay have been
determined to be properly spaced, and will not impede traffic movement. In summary,
adding this project to the Lake La Quinta development will establish a land use density
of 2.7 dwelling units per acre which is within the LDR category range.
Findings C through E - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
The proposed tract map could not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment provided that recommended mitigation is required pursuant to
Environmental Assessment 2003-473.
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\ResoPC T31289Hayhoe.wpd - Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Tentative Tract Map 31289, Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 3
Finding F - Public Health Concerns
The design of the proposed subdivision map and its related improvements are not likely
to cause serious public health problems, in that responsible agencies have reviewed
the project for these issues with no significant concerns being identified. The health,
safety and welfare of current and future residents can be assured based on the
recommended conditions, which serve to implement mitigation measures for underlying
subdivision maps. On April 18, 2003, the Coachella Valley Water District stated that
site is protected from regional stormwater flows and that their agency will furnish
domestic water and sanitation service to the site based on District regulations.
Site improvements comply with City requirements, provided on -site water retention is
handled per the Lake La Quinta Hydrology Report on file with the Public Works
Department. Dust control measures shall be required during construction work as
required by Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code. The site is physically suitable for the
proposed land division, as the area is relatively flat and without physical constraints,
and the Map design is consistent with other surrounding parcels. As planned, lot sizes
average twice the minimum size required by the RL Zone District requirements.
That under the City's policy for parks and recreation development, found in the City's
General Plan (Chapter 5), the City's goal is to provide three (3) acres of park land per
1,000 residents pursuant to Policy 2; this project will provide payment to the City for
usable open space outside the tract's boundary which is allowed pursuant to Chapter
13.48 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Finding G - Site Design (Public Easements)
Public easements will be retained in order to construct any houses on the proposed
lots, ensuring adequate facilities for future homeowners in compliance with Section
13.24.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
said Planning Commission in this case;
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\ResoPC T31289Hayhoe.wpd - Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Tentative Tract Map 31289, Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 4
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2003-473 in that no significant effects on the
environment were identified, provided mitigation measures are met; and
3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Tentative Tract
Map 31289 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 10" day of June, 2003, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOTES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
G:\Tr3' 289 Hayhoe2003\ResoPC T31289Hayhoe.wpd - Greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31289
JIM HAYHOE FOR MIKE LANG
JUNE 10, 2003
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
(the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding
to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map
thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall
cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This tentative map and any final maps thereunder shall comply with the requirements
and standards of § §66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the
Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (L.QMC).
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall
obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from
those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans,
applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the
plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits,
the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's
Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The
applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is
available for inspection at the project site.
4. Final maps under this tentative map shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of final map approval.
A:\ I T 31289-COA.DOC Printed June 4, 2003 Page 1 of
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for
construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall
include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential
improvements.
6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility
easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer.
7. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1. Caleo Bay (Local Street, 60' ROW) - No additional right of way is
required to comply with the General Plan street widths.
8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
9. The applicant shall grant a perimeter setback easement to the Lake La Quinta HOA that
covers the area between the public right of way and the perimeter wall shown on the
approve site plan for Site Development Permit 2003-769.
10. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of landscaping and
related improvements from the perimeter walls to the sidewalk and including
landscaped setbacks, and other public or common areas, by creation of a Homeowners
Association (HOA), or annexation into an existing HOA.
11. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility
lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas.
12. Direct vehicular access to Caleo Bay from lots with frontage along Caleo Bay is
restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as
otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction
shall be shown on the recorded final tract map.
13. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate,
from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction,
permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur.
14. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or
access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others,
A: l T 31289-COA.DOC Printed June 4, 2003 Page 2 of
the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to
those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners.
15. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of
this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council
and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property
unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer.
FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S)
16. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of
the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media
acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items
so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to
AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map.
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.
17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24"
x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets &
Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for
Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have
signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until
they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths,
entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include
irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading"
plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
1T 31289-COA.DOC Printed June 4, 2003 Page 3 of 9
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 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. The applicant may be required to prepare
other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other
agencies and utility purveyors.
Off -Site Street Plan:
1 " = 40' Horizontal
The plan shall show pavement restoration improvements concepts and any mail
box clusters that are proposed.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan:
1 " = 40' Horizontal
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
AV Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or
a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top of Wall & Top
of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or
sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
18. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements
of construction. For a fee established by City Resolution, the applicant may acquire
standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
19. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the
City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be
fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and
prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to
reflect as -constructed conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted
to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans.
A: 1 i' 31289-('OA.DOC Printed June 4, 2003 Page 4 of
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
20. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map
and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the applicant may be required
to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to
reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are
obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future
construction by others, or a combination of these methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the
City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or
building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements.
21. The applicant shall construct improvements, install survey monumentation, and/or
satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct
improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a
final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel
map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall
conform with Chapter 13, LQMC.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing
structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
22. If improvements and/or monumentation installation are secured, the applicant shall
provide estimates of improvement and monumentation installation costs for checking
and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit
costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's
schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved
by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable
improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized
for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority
that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the
development.
23. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals
(e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements
(e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or
secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed
and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings
within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is
approved by the City Engineer.
24. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement,
A: 1131289-COA.DOC Printed June 4, 2003 Page 5 of
the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building
inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call
upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
25. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain
and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as
otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not
exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e.
the slope at the back of the landscape lot), which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted
with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb
shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six (6) of the curb,
otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All
unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half
inches 0.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
26. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary
geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified
engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils
report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that
a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety
Code.
27. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall
submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance
with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable
to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of
the permit.
28. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water
erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with
other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public
Works Departments.
29. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad,
the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference
between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot
number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
A:\ 1131299-COA.DOC Printed June 4, 2003 Page 6 of
DRAINAGE
30. Stormwater shall be directed to the approved drainage system for Tract 24230/Tract
26152 (Lake La Quinta). Nuisance water from frontages along Caleo Bay, including
driveways, shall be disposed of utilizing the existing Caleo Bay drainage system.
Nuisance water from the back portions of the proposed residential lots shall be
disposed of utilizing the existing stormwater retention system/lake.
UTILITIES
31. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and
telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
32. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed
utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt
from this requirement.
33. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in
existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration
requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide
certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
34. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall
conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1. The applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the City of La
Quinta for fair share cost to implement a two-way left turn lane on
Caleo Bay between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48.
2. Grind existing one -tenth foot of Caleo Bay pavement surface by an
approved method and overlay with an equal thickness of an approved
asphalt concrete mix design after all utility connections have been
made. The grind/overlay operation shall be continuous across the entire
width and length of Caleo Bay where cut.
35. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City
Engineer.
A:\ FT 31289-C'OA.DOC Printed June 4, 2003 Page 7 of
36. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -
block street lighting is not required.
37. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading;
traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets
and sidewalks).
38. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC,
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by
the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas
shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
39. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard
Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
40. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey
water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street
sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall
be vertical 0/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any
lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent
building(s) on the lot.
41. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time
of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The
submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent
(less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results
confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The
applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved.
42. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only
when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -
maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices,
pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed
with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to
final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed
by the City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots, and park areas.
44. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
VIT 31289-COA.DOC Printed June 4, 2003 Page 8 of 9
45. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or
spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
46. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit
and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
47. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
48. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers,
surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction
supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings.
49. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing
procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as
evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications
and applicable regulations.
50. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet
shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall
be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the
drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously
submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions.
MAINTENANCE
51. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -
site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The
applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from
this responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
52. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction
inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes
application for plan checking and permits.
53. Permits issued under
Development Impact
permitlsl.
this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building
A. 1 T 31289-COA.DOC Printed June 4, 2003 Page 9 of
FIRE DEPARTMENT
54. For residential areas, approved standard fire hydrants, located at each street
intersection and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than
165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour
duration at 20 psi.
55. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8-inches from centerline to the
side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
56. Gates, if any, shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Gate pins shall
be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the
rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system.
57. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being
placed on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval.
58. Building plan check (non-residential, if any) is to run concurrent with the City of La
Quinta plan check.
59. Conditions are subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. Final conditions will be
addressed when plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire
Department at the time construction plans are submitted. All questions regarding the
meaning of the Fire Department conditions should be referred to the Fire Department
Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886.
MISCELLANOUS
60, All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file
documents for plan checking purposes.
61. All mitigation measures included in Environmental Assessment 2003-473 are hereby
included in this approval.
A:VI'T 31289-COA.DOC Printed June 4, 2003 Page 10 of
62. The Community Development and Public Works Directors may allow minor design
changes to the final map application that include a reduction in the number of
buildable lots and changes in lot sizes, provided the applicant submits a Substantial
Compliance Application to the Public Works Department during plan check disclosing
the requested changes and how the changes occurred. These changes shall be
conveyed to the City Council when the map is presented for recordation
consideration.
63. Two copies of the draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department during final map processing.
The City Attorney shall approve the document before the subdivision map is
recorded. Within six months of the subdivision map being recorded, Tract 31289
shall be annexed into the Lake La Quinta HOA in order to ensure orderly development
of the master planned community and its privately maintained facilities.
64. The tentative map shall expire within two years, unless an extension is granted per
Section 13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
A:\'I T 312R9-('0A.D0C Printed June 5, 2003 Page I I of
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TWO
PROTOTYPE ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE PLANS
RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3,080 SQ. FT. TO OVER 3,300
SQ. FT. FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31289 WITHIN
LAKE LA QUINTA
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-769
APPLICANT: JIM HAYHOE FOR MIKE LANG
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 101h day of June, 2003, consider a request by Mr. Jim Hayhoe for Mike
Lang (Lang Property Holdings) to approve architectural and landscaping plans for
detached single story residential houses on seven lots located at the northeast corner
of Caleo Bay and Via Florence in a RL Zone District, more particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 643-200-009 to -01 1
Parcel 9-1 1 of Parcel Map 27892
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2002, the City Council approved dual left-hand
turn lanes at Lake La Quinta Drive and Washington Street during discussion of the
Washington Street Rehabilitation Project (No. 2001-02). Construction work to install
the vehicle turn pockets was completed in March 2003; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2003, the Community Development Department
mailed case file materials to all affected agencies for their review and comment. All
written comments are on file with the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the City's Architecture and Landscape Review Committee
approved the developer's plans on May 7, 2003, on a vote of 2-0, by adoption of
Minute Motion 2003-020, subject to minor changes to the proposed landscape plan
being made during plan check processing; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has
completed Environmental Assessment 2003-473. Based upon this Assessment, the
project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office
on May 16, 2003, as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\ResoPCSDP769 Hayhoe.wpd/Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Site Development Permit 2003-769, Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the Public
Hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 21, 2003, for the June 10, 2003
Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public Notice
Procedure) of the Zoning Code. Notices were also mailed to property owners within
500 feet of the project site on May 15, 2003. To date, only a letter of support from
the Lake La Quinta HOA has been received; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit
pursuant to Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) and Section
9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. General Plan and Zoning Code Consistency - The General Plan provides direction
for growth and policy implementation tools to manage that growth. The
property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) pursuant to General Plan
Amendment 2003-092, allowing residential land uses up to four units per acre.
The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies
of the General Plan and Zoning Code.
2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act - The site has been
previously disturbed pursuant to the requirements of Tracts 24230 and 26152.
Various City Departments have determined that the proposed single family
development could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment
provided that recommended mitigation is required pursuant to Environmental
Assessment 2003-473.
3. Architectural Compatibility - The one story houses are architecturally compatible
with materials used to construct existing Lake La Quinta houses in that exterior
walls are covered in plaster and roofing is clay S-tile. The overall design
elements of the project are aesthetically pleasing and consistent with
neighboring houses.
4. Site Design Compatibility - Site grading for the project is minimal and consistent
in design with abutting properties, as conditioned. The proposed one story
houses allow mountain vistas, to the west, to be preserved in a greater fashion
than if multistoried buildings were planned. The seven individual driveways on
Caleo Bay have been determined to be properly spaced, and will not impede
traffic movement.
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\ResoPCSDP769 Hayhoe.wpd/Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Site Development Permit 2003-769, Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 3
5. Building Sizes - Housing sizes exceed 3,000 square feet which is greater than
the minimum requirement of 1,400 square feet under the RL Zone District
provision and in keeping with Lake La Quinta development policies.
6. Landscape Design Compatibility - Landscaping for Caleo Bay includes a variety
of trees and palms, shrubs, groundcover and turf. The plant pallette is varied
and blends with the proposed Lake La Quinta improvements in the immediate
area, as conditioned. The landscape design compliments the surrounding
residential and commercial areas in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual
quality of the area.
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 to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2003-473 in that no significant effects on the
environment were identified, provided mitigation measures are met; and
3. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2003-769 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, subject to the findings and conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of June, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\ResoPCSDP769 Hayhoe.wpd/Greg
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Site Development Permit 2003-769, Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 4
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\ResoPCSDP769 Hayhoe.wpd/Greg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-769
JIM HAYHOE FOR MIKE LANG
JUNE 10, 2003
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
1. The applicant/property owner agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim,
action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this
application and any other challenge pertaining to this project. This indemnification
shall include any award toward attorney's fees.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Building permits shall be issued within one year, unless an extension is applied
for and granted by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of
the Zoning Code. Minor amendments to the development plans shall be subject
to approval by the Community Development Director.
3. Final front yard and Caleo Bay parkway landscaping plans shall be submitted to
the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to
issuance of any building permit for units authorized by this approval in
compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the Municipal
Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella
Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to
submittal of the final plans to the Community Development Department. Specific
landscape requirements for the project are:
A. Front yard landscaping shall consist of two trees (i.e., a minimum 1.5 inch
caliper measured three feet up from grade level after planting), ten 5-gallon
shrubs, and groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the trunk
is a minimum six feet tall. Double lodge poles (two-inch diameter) shall be
used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or
emitters. To encourage water conservation, no more than 50% of the front
yard shall be devoted to turf. Future home buyers shall be offered an option
to have no turf areas in their front yard through the use of desertscape
materials.
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\Cond PC SDP769 Hayhoempd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-769, Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 2
B. Parkway shade trees shall be delivered to the site in 24-inches or larger
boxes with minimum two-inch calipers. Trees shall be a minimum height of
ten feet once installed. Parkway landscaping improvements on Cale Bay
shall be maintained by the future homeowners association.
C. Shrubs that shall not be used abutting Caleo Bay are Agapanthus africanus
'Peter Pan', Buxus microphylla japonica, and Pittosporum tobira 'variegata';
parkway shrubs shall be able to withstand the intense summer heat and
seasonal winds.
D. The developer, and subsequent property owner(s), shall continuously
maintain all required front yard and parkway landscaping in a healthy and
viable condition as required by Section 9.60.240 (E3) of the Zoning Code.
4. Prior to building permit issuance, all required RL District requirements shall be
met, including any planned architectural projections. Section 9.50.060 of the
Zoning Code addresses architectural projection requirements for features such as
chimneys, cantilevered window seats, roof overhangs, etc.
5. Caleo Bay masonry walls shall be clad in stucco to match the existing Lake La
Quinta perimeter walls to the south of the development. Pilasters may be
constructed using split -face masonry or a combination of other types of
decorative materials. The location and height of rear yard walls abutting the lake
shall be approved by the Lake La Quinta HOA before applying for a building
permit.
6. A centralized mailbox delivery system shall be used for the project pursuant to
any requirements of the U.S. Postal Service, unless individual mailboxes are
allowed.
PUBLIC SAFETY
7. Install wide -angled peepholes into front doors.
8. Graffiti resistant paint should be applied to Caleo Bay walls.
9. Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize
observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting
materials are encouraged along fence and property lines, and under vulnerable
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\Cond PC SDP769 Hayhoempd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Site Development Permit 2003-769, Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 3
windows. Additional public safety information may be obtained by contacting
Senior Deputy Andy Gerrard at (760) 863-8950.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
10. Private driveway access gates shall be equipped with a rapid entry system
(KNOX), unless otherwise allowed by the Fire Marshal. Plans shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Gate pins shall be rated
with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid
entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. A final
inspection is required once the gate improvements have been installed.
11. Final conditions will be addressed when plans are reviewed. A plan check fee
must be paid to the Fire Department at the time construction plans are submitted.
For additional assistance, please contact the Fire Department Planning &
Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886.
MISCELLANEOUS
12. The developer shall comply with all applicable conditions of Tentative Tract Map
31289 and Environmental Assessment 2003-473.
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\Cond PC SDP769 Hayhoe.wpd
ATTACHMENTS
CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-473, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-092, ZONE CHANGE 2003-114,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31289 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2003-769
Vicinity Map
Attachment 1
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 643-200-009 to -01 1; Parcels 9-11 of Parcel Map 27892
Portion Section 30, T5S, R7E, SBBM
w
. 9 200.83
,y11 17
m PM 182/83
8
� PAR-8
:J �p
PARA �,�° �° •r6,
O q3• 2
° PAR.9
3.20 AC NT s0 3
I 1.09 AC NT �
N �i'tI1 PnAR.10
312.78 1 U
PAR.11
14 ?�
N PAR.3 <%
� g O ma's
3.03 AC NT
G/Hayhoe FolderNicinityExhibit Hayhoe2003.wpd-Greg
Lake La Quinta Map Attachment 2
SHEET INDEX MAP
SCALE V - 300'
G/Hayhoe Folder/LakeLQ Exhibit Hayhoe2003.wpd-Greg
ATTACHMENT 3
tl
!i
ig ill 111111 11 ed
if d
Bi d
r �p �e
° r i� i •
z rrr ......
'"1 d�� 91!1� ONEIL
dil
fil
l
Q
I � l
-W VA
�)T M
mm
I
4`
ATTACHMENT 5
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
May 7, 2003
retention basin planting schemes in front of the project. Mr.
Brudvik stated they were his la architects (Casa Verde
Landscape), who were unable nd the meeting. Committee
Member Thorns stated the ng designs are not very good. It
appears to be complica probably not what they want at the
front of the project street exposure is like the front yard of
a house. This n o go back to the landscape architect as it is
too complic or this project. Staff gave a history of the
project.
3. Co
El
Pe Member Bobbitt asked i
of wood. Mr. Brudvik :;io
material.
There being no further
Committee Member
2003-019, appro
amended:
a.
PKench doors were to be
not wood, but composite
sion, it was moved and seconded b
Cunningham to adopt Minute Mo
Development Permit 2003-
The five retention basins shall
landscape architect and reviewE
Community Development Departr
Unanimously approved.
E. Site Development Permit 2003-769.; a request of Jim Hayhoe for Mike
Lang for review of architectural and landscaping plans for Tentative Tract
31289 located at the northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence
within lake La Quinta.
1. Committee Member David Thorns excused himself due to a
potential conflict of interest due to the proximity of his residence
to this project and left the room.
2. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell gave an overview of the project
and introduced Ray Martin, landscape architect, who gave a
presentation on the Caleo Bay parkway landscaping.
3. Committee Member Cunningham stated he likes the visual relief
for Lake La Quinta to take the residential out to Caleo Bay to make
them mini -estate houses.
GAWPDOCS\ARLC\5-7-03.wN 7
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
May 7, 2003
4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the Pittosporm "Wheeleri" and
Agapanthas will burn in the summer heat (on the west exposure)
and the buxus are bad over the long term. They need more sun
tolerant plants.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion
2003-020 approving Site Development Permit 2003-769, as
amended:
a. The applicant shall revise the plant pallette to utilize more
sun tolerant plants.
Unanimously approved with Committee Member Thorns being
absent.
Committee Member Thorns rejoined the meeting.
F. Commercial Property Im rov t Pro ram 2003-022 ; a request of La
Quinta Real Estate-Rupe ayian for review of a request fund exterior
improvements at 7 alle Estado.
1 . Mana t Assistant Debbie Powell gave an ove the
pr nd introduced Rupert Yessayian represe a project,
gave a presentation on the request.
3.
Committee Member Cunningham staidWis is what the program
was designed for in the Village a ommittee Members Thorns
and Bobbitt agreed.
There being no furthe ssion, it was moved and second
Committee Memb Hingham/Bobbitt to adopt Minut
0
2003-021, app CPIP 2003-022, with a total
Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
G:\WPDOCSWRLC\5-7-03.wpd 8
Jun 04 03 05:31P John Miller 760-564 4514 p.1
LAKE LA QUINTA HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATON
c/o J & W MANAGEMENT
P.O. BOX 1398 PALM DESERT, CA 92261
(760) 568-0349
June 04, 2003 ATTACHMENT 6
SENT VIA FACSIMILE
(760) 777-1233
City of La Quinta
Associate Planner
Greg Trousdell
78-495 Calle Tampico
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Mr. Greg Trousdell:
The Lake La Quinta Board of Directors as well as the Lake La Quinta
Homeowner's Association, requests that you look favorably at the request t
"Jim Hayhoe Lake La Quinta 7 Unit Development" and have the
commercial property that is located on Caleo Bay, next to the existing Lake
La Quinta Inn, rezoned to R-1 single-family residences.
The residents of Lake La Quinta have already voted to have this property
annexed into the Lake La Quinta Homeowner's Association if the property
is rezoned from commercial to residential. Over 216 of the 281 members
have returned their signed ballots voting in favor of this great project.
We ask that you please consider this wonderful addition to our city as well
as to the Lake La Quinta community. The community feels that this project
would be an asset and asks that you approve the rezoning of the property to
residential.
If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ohn Miller
President
(760) 564-3642
06-04-03 16:32
RECEIVED FROM:760 564 4514
P.01
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 10, 2003
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-462
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-062
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-754
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: MARINITA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND
2► REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR A:
A) 50,000 SQUARE FOOT MARKET
B) 23,000 SQUARE FOOT DRUG AND RETAIL STORE
C) 20,970 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SHOPS
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED
WARING DRIVE (APN: 604 070-003).
ENGINEER: DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-462;
BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, WHILE THE PROJECT MAY
HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT, MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN
IMPOSED ON THE PROJECT TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO A LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR
CERTIFICATION.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC)/ NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (NC)
SURROUNDING
PC Stfrpt CUP 02-073/SDP 02-755.wpd
LAND USES:
NORTH: ESPLANANDE SUBDIVISION UNDER CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH: MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION
EAST: VACANT LAND (CITY OF INDIO)
WEST: MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION
RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant requests that this project be continued to the June 24, 2003,
Planning Commission Meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to work with
staff on some development issues.
Prepared by:
Martin Magana
Associate Planner
PC Stfrpt CUP 02-073/SDP 02-755.wpd
PH E
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 10, 2003
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-472, SPECIFIC
PLAN 2003-064, TENTATIVE TRACT 31202
APPLICANT: DESERT ELITE, INC.
REQUEST: A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 202 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
THAT WILL RANGE IN SIZE FROM 2,200 TO 2,800
SQUARE FEET, EXCLUDING 14 CUSTOM HOMES, ON
LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 8,800 TO 27,000 SQUARE
FEET.
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND MONROE
STREET; APN 767-200-004 & 005
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT ARE ANTICIPATED AS A
RESULT OF THIS PROJECT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT.
GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND
AGRICULTURE/EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY
ZONING: LOW DENSITY/ AGRICULTURAL
EQUESTRIAN/RESIDENTIAL (LD/A-E)
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES: NORTH: RECREATIONAL; ELDORADO POLO CLUB
SOUTH: LOW DENSITY/ AGRICULTURE
EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL (LD/A-E);
AGRICULTURE
EAST: LOW DENSITY/ AGRICULTURE
EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL (LD/A-E);
AGRICULTURE
o:\oscar\santana homes pc rpt
BACKGROUND:
WEST: LOW DENSITY/ AGRICULTURE
EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL (LD/A-E);
AGRICULTURE
Site Background
At approximately 79.21 acres is size, the site is situated at the southwest corner of
Avenue 52 and Monroe Street in City's Sphere of Influence. The subject property is
currently under review by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for
annexation into the City of La Quinta. The property is vacant, but has been used for
agriculture. The property is bound by the El Dorado Polo Club (an equestrian use) to
the north in the City of Indio; agricultural properties are located east, west and south
of the site in unincorporated Riverside County. With the exception of the property in
the City of Indio all the surrounding properties are located within the City's Planning
Area "1 " and designated for residential use.
Project Request
The following applications have been filed for review:
1. A Specific Plan to establish development standards and design guidelines for a
79.21 acre residential development. The Specific Plan proposes minimum lot
sizes of 8,880 square feet, a private street system and common area amenities,
including equestrian facilities. Home sizes range from 2,200 to 2,800 square
feet with 14 semi -custom or custom homes.
2. The Tentative Tract Map is necessary to subdivide the 79.21 acres into a gated
community with 202 residential lots, private streets, on -site retention and
common area amenities (Attachment 1). Lots will range from 27,000 square
feet to 8,800 square feet.
The subdivision (Rancho Santana) will be a gated residential community consisting of
202 single family lots, including 14 custom equestrian lots. The 188 lots will range in
size from 8,880 to 27,000 square feet; the 14 custom lots located on the southeast
portion of the site will be half acre in size. Interior amenities will include walking paths
as well as equestrian trails that will provide access to the equestrian lots, exercise
arena (located southeast portion of the site), and the perimeter trail. Below is a list of
the project's development standards:
a
i1
n•\ncrar\gantana homes oc rot
AGRICULTURAL/EQUESTRIAN
OVERLAY
Minimum lot size for single-family dwellings
(sq. ft.)
8,000
Minimum lot frontage for single-family
dwellings (ft.)
80
Minimum lot frontage on cukde-sacs and
knuckles/irregular lots
35/70
Minimum lot frontage for flag lots
15
Maximum structure height (ftX
28
Maximum number of stories
2
Minimum front yard setback (ft.)'
20
Minimum setback to accessory structures3
20
Minimum setback to manure storage
25
Minimum perimeter setback for a project'
10/20
Minimum side yard setback (ft.)
14 combined no less than 5 on interior
side
Minimum rear yard setback (ft.)4
20
Maximum lot coverage I% of net lot area)
40
Minimum livable area excluding garage (sq. ft)
1400
Maximum/average perimeter landscape
setbacks (ft)'
10/20
*GENERAL NOTES*
1. The maximum structure height for all buildings shall be 22 feet for all buildings
located within 150 feet of any General Plan -designated Image Corridor.
2. Minimum garage setback shall be 20 feet if a "roll -up" type garage door is used.
3. Casitas may have a front yard setback of fifteen 0 5) feet. Separation between
the main house and a detached casitas shall be ten (10) feet.
4. Patio structures may have a rear yard setback of fifteen 0 5) feet.
5. Perimeter landscape setbacks are adjacent to perimeter streets: first number of
equal minimum at any point; second number equals minimum average over entire
frontage (thus, 10/20).
Four floor plans are proposed for the 188 homes that will range in size from 2,200 to
2,800 square feet. Each home will have two front elevation options with a modern
Spanish/Mediterranean theme and will include earth -tone colored stucco, exterior
shutters, porches, six foot high block fencing, stone veneer accents, and split rail
fencing in the front courtyard entries. Detached casitas will also be included.
Public amenities will include an eight foot wide on -street bike/golf path, a six foot
meandering walkway and a 10 foot multipurpose trail. Avenue 52 and Monroe Street,
both Primary Arterials, will be improved in accordance with the General Plan
requirements.
0 3
p:\oscar\santana homes pc rpt
Main and secondary access will be provided on Avenue 52 and will have limited
turning movement (right in and right out). Secondary access will be from Monroe
Street and will have full turning movement.
Rancho Santana includes an equestrian landscape concept that includes canopy trees,
split rail fencing, decomposed granite trails, enhanced desert planting, and stone walls.
In addition, the perimeter landscape will include a six foot high split face block wall, 10
foot equestrian trail with a split rail fence, landscaping with a meandering six foot
sidewalk. The project entries will include stone pilasters, with oversized rustic gates
complimenting the equestrian theme. The Main access will include extensive desert
friendly landscaping. In addition to the equestrian trails within the project, two open
spaces for passive and active recreation will be provided.
Public Notice
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 19, 2003. All
property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
Public Agency Review
All written comments received are on file with the Community Development
Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the
Conditions of Approval for this case.
Statement of Mandatory Findings:
The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Specific Plan and the Tract Map
can be made, as noted in the attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for Environmental Assessment 2003-472.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Specific Plan 2003-064.
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-recommending to the City
Council approval of Tract Map 31202.
64
p:\oscar\santana homes pc rpt
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Tentative Tract Map Exhibit (8.5" x 11 ")
3. Specific Plan for Rancho Santana (Planning Commission only)
4. Tentative Tract Map 31202 (full size, Planning Commission only)
Prepared by:
Oscar W. Orci, Planning Manager
p:\oscar\santana homes pc rpt
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-472 PREPARED
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-064 AND TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 31202
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-472
APPLICANT: DESERT ELITE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 10th day of June, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2003-472 for Specific Plan 2003-064 and Tentative Tract
Map 31202 (the "Project"), for lands bounded by Avenue 52 on the north, Monroe
Street on the east, more particularly described as follows:
APN 767-200-004 and 767-200-005
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2003-472)
and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan 2003-064 and Tentative
Tract Map 31202 could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there
would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures
were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed 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 2003-472.
2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
P:\OSCAR\SANTANA HOMES\PC RESO EA.DOC �/
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2003-472 — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants
or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Specific Plan 2003-064 and Tentative Tract Map 31202 do not
have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on
environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Specific Plan 2003-064 and Tentative Tract Map 31202 will not
result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable
when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as
development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the
proposed project.
6. The proposed Specific Plan 2003-064 and Tentative Tract Map 31202 will not
have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population,
either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which
would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2003-
472 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
� PAOSCAMSANTANA HOMESTC RESO EA.DOC 4
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2003-472 — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2003-472 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-472 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 10th day of June 2003, 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
Gi 3
PAOSCAMSANTANA HOMESTC RESO EA.DOC
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Rancho Santana
(Specific Plan 2003-064, Tentative Tract Map 31202)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Oscar W. Orci, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Southwest corner of Avenue 52 and Monroe Street
APN: 767-200-004 and -005
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Desert Elite c/o John Pedalino
78-401 Highway 1 1 1, Suite G
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Proposed through Annexation: Low Density
Residential, Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay
7. Zoning: Proposed through Annexation: Low Density Residential,
Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay
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 property in question is currently under review by the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation into the City. The property is
in active agriculture.
Once annexed, the applicant wishes to develop the parcel for single family
residential development. The Specific Plan has been submitted to establish
the design standards and guidelines under which such development would
occur. The Specific Plan proposes minimum lot sizes of 8,000 square feet, a
private street system and common area amenities, including equestrian
facilities.
The Tentative Tract Map is necessary to subdivide the 79.21 acres into a
gated community with 202 residential lots, private streets and on -site
retention and common area amenities. Lots will range from 33,518 square
feet to 8,800 square feet.
PAOscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 1 1J
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Avenue 52, El Dorado Polo Club
South: Vacant desert lands and agricultural lands
West: Agricultural lands
East: Monroe Street, agricultural lands
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission
Coachella Valley Water District
PAOscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.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
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1)
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Oscar Orci, Planning Manager
May 28. 2003
Date
0
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chk1st472.wpd 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers
that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if
the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"
answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site
as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be
cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at
the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chk1st472.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 outcropping, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (Aerial photograph)
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? (Aerial Photo in SP)
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 PM10
Plan for the Coachella Valley)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KI
f3
'AOscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 5
✓.
V
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
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? ("Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis...",
James Cornett Ecological Consultants, February, 2003)
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? ("Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis...",
James Cornett Ecological Consultants, February, 2003)
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? ("Biological
Assessment and Impact Analysis...", James Cornett
Ecological Consultants, February, 2003)
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? ("Biological Assessment and Impact
Analysis...", James Cornett Ecological Consultants, February,
2003)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? ("Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis...",
James Cornett Ecological Consultants, February, 2003)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
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? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit 9.1)
X
X
X
KI
X
KI
9
':\Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 6
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or
site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without
merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a
high probability that it contains information needed to answer
important scientific research questions, has a special and
particular quality such as being the oldest or best available
example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event
or person)? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit 9.1)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? CIPaleontologic Assessment Desert Elite" San
Bernardino County Museum, February 2003)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan Cultural
Resources Exhibit 9.1)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
1) 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? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering, February
2003)
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, February 2003)
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, February 2003)
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? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,,, T-
JL10
�Cscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 7
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? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
e► Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
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)
X. 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.)
K. 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.)
KI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
(General Plan p. 95)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Parking lot-- no
ground borne vibration)
X
►Ll
X
X
X
X
f3
X
\Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 9
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)
(11. 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)
(111. 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)
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:
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)
91
X
X
X
X
X
X
rJ
11
K4
X
X
IN
Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 10
KV
(VI.
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)? (Project Site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project Site Plan)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project Site Plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
Description)
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.)
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.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chk1st472.wpd 11
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X
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?
b1 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?
:VIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
X
X
X
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.
None
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.
J
Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 12
OURCES:
laster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
eneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
eneral Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002'.
CAQMD CEQA Handbook.
ity of La Quinta Municipal Code
3aleontologic Assessment Desert Elite, Rancho Santana," prepared by the San Bernardino
)unty Museum, February, 2003
3iological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Desert Elite Residential Project,"
-epared by James W. Cornett, February, 2003
3eotechnical Investigation Proposed 80 Acre Residential Development...," prepared by Sladden
igineering, February, 2003
Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 13
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2003-472
a), b) & c)
Avenue 52 is designated a secondary image corridor in the General Plan. This
designation requires that care be taken in the design of the landscape parkway
in this area. The project proponent has incorporated into the Specific Plan an
additional private parkway, in addition to the 20 foot street parkway, which will
include an equestrian trail. This enhanced treatment will improve the aesthetic
appearance of the street, and is supported by General Plan policies regarding
image corridors. Homes will be no more than 22 feet within the 150 image
corridor setback, further reducing the visual clutter in the area. Impacts
associated with viewsheds are expected to be inconsequential.
I. d) Lighting within this project will include landscaping, entry access points and
similar functions. All lighting will be required to conform to the City's lighting
ordinance, which prohibits the spillage of light onto adjacent properties. Lighting
from a residential project is generally low in intensity, and the impacts
associated with light and glare from this project are expected to be less than
significant.
II. a)-c)
The proposed project site is currently in agriculture as a sod farm. There are no
Williamson Act contracts on the parcels, however'. The proposed Specific Plan,
and subdivision of 79.21 acres will ultimately result in the loss of this acreage
to agriculture. The land is designated Prime Farmland in the Riverside County
Draft Integrated Plane.
The loss of 79 acres of land in sod farming will not represent a significant loss
of prime agricultural land in the Valley. The sod farming lands which occur in
the annexation area do not represent a significant portion of those lands in that
use in the Coachella Valley.
In addition, the requested City zoning designation for this project includes the
Agriculture/Equestrian Residential Overlay, which promotes the preservation of
agricultural and equestrian land uses within urbanizing land uses. The project
will include horse riding trails, an equestrian jumping course, and other
equestrian amenities, which will perpetuate a measure of equestrian land use
within the Plan area. The impacts to agricultural resources are expected to be
less than significant.
Personal communication, Marvin Roos, Mainiero Smith & Associates, May 16, 2003.
Hearing Draft Riverside County General Plan, April, 2003.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 1
III, a) The proposed Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not generate emissions
in excess of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
thresholds for criteria pollutants (see below) and therefore will not obstruct
implementation of applicable air quality management plans.
III. b) & c)
The single largest contributor to air quality in the City is the automobile. It is
expected that the proposed project's primary air quality impact will be
associated with vehicle trips and construction dust.
The proposed project will result in the construction of 202 single family
residences, which will generate 1,933 trips at build out3. Based on this trip
generation, the SCAQMD has established formulas to calculate emissions,
which are shown in the Table below.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 99.85 3.84 20.48 -- 0.43 0.43
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 1,933 trips/day and average trip length of 10 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 from the proposed project are not expected to be significant
at this time.
The construction of the proposed project will 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).
3 Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 210, Single
Family Detached.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 2
s:.
The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 79.21 acres of
land. This has the potential to generate fugitive dust during the grading of the
site. Since the site will be mass graded and then built in phases, potential also
exists for on -going fugitive dust for unbuilt areas. The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan
adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the
construction process and as an on -going issue. These measures will be
integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These include
the following control measures.
o :*
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction
Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind
fencing, re -vegetation, track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization,
wind fencing, access restriction, re -vegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving,
chemical stabilization, access restriction, re -
vegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of
unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The contractor 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.
r
G�
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 3
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Avenue 52 and
Monroe shall be installed with the first phase of development.
8. All lands shown as Phase 2 through 4 shall be landscaped or chemically
stabilized within 30 days of the termination of mass grading on the site.
The project proponent shall submit a landscape or stabilization plan to the
Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the
issuance of any grading permit on the site. As development occurs, only
one phase, as depicted on Exhibit 6 of the Specific Plan, of the site shall
be disturbed at one time. Phases not yet under construction shall be
maintained in a stabilized or landscaped condition until constructed upon.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
11. The project proponent shall be required to employ a PM 10 monitor during
all mass grading of the site, in conformance with the 2002 PM10
Management Plan.
12. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and
end of grading activities in conformance and within the time frames
established in the 2002 PM 10 Management Plan.
III. d) The construction of residential dwelling units will not generate any pollutant
concentrations.
III. e) The construction of the proposed project will not generate any objectionable
odors. The area is in equestrian and agricultural land uses at the present time,
and the odors associated with manure and other equestrian activities are
commonplace in this area.
IV) a)-f)
The proposed project site is currently in agriculture, and does not harbor native
habitat. A biological survey prepared for the proposed project found neither
habitat nor animal species of concern on the site'. There will be no impact to
biological resources from implementation of the proposed project.
V. a), b) & d)
The site is currently in agriculture, and has been for some time. There is
considerable evidence in other parts of the Valley, however, that buried
r I--
Y_.,J
4 "Biological Assessment and impact Analysis of the proposed Desert Elite Residential Project," prepared by James W. Cornett, February 2003.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 4
resources can occur in agriculturally active areas. There is therefore a potential
that buried resources do occur on the site which will not be uncovered until
grading and excavation occur. As a result, the following mitigation measure
shall be required:
1. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential
archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time
as a qualified archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended
mitigation measures. The archaeologist shall also 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.
V. c) A paleontologic study was conducted for the proposed project'. The study
found that although the site has been in agriculture, there is a high probability
that fossilized molluscs dating to ancient Lake Cahuilla could exist on the site.
The field survey found such remains, although they were disturbed by the
agricultural activity. The study recommends the following mitigation measure
to assure that potential impacts to paleontologic resources are reduced to a less
than significant level:
1. A paleontologic monitor shall be present during grading activities. The
monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to
avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are
likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily stop or redirect grading
activities to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. The monitor
shall also be required to curate and submit a written report to the
Community Development Department for review and approval prior to
occupancy of the first building on the site.
VI. a) i)-iv)
The proposed project lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone, The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the
City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code
requirements for seismic zones. A geotechnical study was prepared for the
proposed project'. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 43 feet at the
project site. The risk of liquefaction on the site is therefore considered limited,
and mitigation measures are not necessary.
"Paleontologic Assessment Desert Elite, Rancho Santana," prepared by the San Bernardino County Museum, February 2003.
6 "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 80 Acre Residential Development...," Sladden Engineering, February, 2003. ,T: �-♦
PAOscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 5
VI. b) The site is located in a severe blowsand hazard area, and will therefore be
subject to significant soil erosion from wind. The project proponent will be
required to implement the mitigation measures listed under air quality, above,
to guard against soil erosion due to wind. These mitigation measures will lower
the potential impacts associated with wind erosion to a less than significant
level.
VI. c)-e)
The study found that soils on the subject property consist primarily of silty
sands and sandy silts. These soils have a very low expansion probability, as
defined in the Uniform Building Code. The soils on the site are not expansive,
and will support the development proposed by the project proponent. The soils
will require over -excavation, as required in the City's standards for construction
under the Uniform Building Code. These standards will ensure that the stability
of the soils is mitigated. The project will be connected to sanitary sewer
provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, and will not rely on septic
tanks.
VII. a)-h)
The proposed project consists of the construction of 202 residential housing
units. No significant use, transport or storage of hazardous materials is
expected at the site.
VIII.. a), c),d) & e)
The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site
flows. The City Engineer requires that all project retain the 100 year storm on -
site. The proposed project includes several retention basins which will be used
as passive and active recreation areas and equestrian facilities. These retention
basins are sized to meet the City's standards for stormwater retention, thereby
reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject
property. The proposed project 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.
VIII. f) & g)
The proposed project does not occur in a 100 year flood plain, and will
therefore not place housing or other structures in such a flood plain.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 6
IX. a)-c)
The proposed project site is currently in agriculture, and is surrounded by vacant
or agricultural lands. The site is in an area of the City which is rapidly
urbanizing, with development which can best be characterized as low and very
low density residential planned communities. The project as currently designed
is consistent with the General Plan and meets the standards of the Development
Code. The project is outside the boundaries of the Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan. No impacts to land use and housing are expected.
X.a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
XI. a)
The proposed project is in an area of the City that is relatively quiet at this time.
The General Plan predicts, however, that vehicular traffic in this area at buildout
will result in noise levels slightly above City standards, without mitigation. In
general, on most City roadways, the construction of a perimeter wall, 6 feet in
height, results in a reduction of 5 to 12 dBA for adjacent back yards. This is
expected to be sufficient to lower impacts on the subject site. In order to assure
that the residential units built within the project site are not subject to excessive
noise levels, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to the approval of the Specific Plan by the City Council, the
applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department for
review and approval, a professionally prepared noise analysis which
demonstrates that adequate mitigation measures can be implemented to
reduce potential impacts associated with noise to a less than significant
level. It is anticipated that the construction of a perimeter wall, 6 feet in
height, and/or berming of the proposed parkways on the site, will be
sufficient to lower General Plan buildout noise to less than significant
levels.
XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment
and activities. The project site is not surrounded by sensitive receptors, and
therefore will have little impact during initial construction phase. As
development within the site occurs, however, it can be expected that residents
will have moved into early phases of the project when later phases are under
construction. In order to assure that these residents are not significantly
impacted by construction noise, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1. Construction staging areas, and stationary equipment such as generators
and service areas, shall be located as far from existing residential units
as possible.
r�
PAOscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 7
2. The construction hours stipulated in the City's noise ordinance shall be
strictly adhered to.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The site is currently in agriculture and will not disturb existing populations or
housing units. The construction of housing units on the site is well within the
numbers analyzed in the City's 2002 General Plan. No impacts to population
and housing are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
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 and
sales tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services.
The proposed project 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 project 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 proposed project includes the construction of on -site passive and active
recreational opportunities. These will be available to all project residents,
thereby reducing potential impacts to off -site City recreation facilities. The
construction of the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant
impact on recreational facilities.
XV. a) & b)
The proposed project will generate 1,933 trips per day. The requested land use
on the subject parcel is well within the limits analyzed in the City's General Plan
traffic study, which found that buildout of the General Plan in this area would
result in acceptable levels of service. The impacts to the circulation system are
expected to be consistent with those identified in the General Plan EIR, and are
not expected to be significant.
XV. c)-g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the site does not create
any hazardous design features. The proposed residences will be required to
provide on -lot parking in conformance to the City's standards. The site plan
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 8
provides for emergency access points. Alternative transportation in the form of
bus stops 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 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.
XVII. a)
The project is currently in agriculture, and does not harbor native species or
habitat. It therefore has no potential to degrade the quality of the environment
or affect local plants or animals.
XVII. b)
The project is consistent with the long term goals for housing and equestrian
facilities included in the General Plan. The project is on the eastern boundary of
the City, in an area which is rapidly urbanizing, and therefore represents a logic
extension of development. There is no potential for the project to achieve short
term goals to the disadvantage of long term goals.
XVII. c)
The impacts associated with the project are not cumulatively considerable. The
project will somewhat lower the potential density on the parcel from that
analyzed in the General Plan EIR, thereby reducing anticipated impacts
associated with buildout of the General Plan.
XVII. d)
The project has identified impacts associated with noise and air quality, which
both affect human beings. However, a number of mitigation measures are
proposed which reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 9
W
Z
a
J
IL
O
U
Z d
7 V
Z CO
L G
• C7
1a
_Z
O
Z
LO
O
O
c
co
It
O
O
O
O
N
(D
n
O
z
J
W
U
Q
a
y
O
N
W
N
N
Q
M
O
O
N
N
N
m
a)
N
U)
O
O
C
O
C
c0
N
O
O
c
m
Q
O
N
C
O
U
N
a-+
O
0
� N
C O
co N
(O (')
O n.
Co
O
N U
C co
� N
a m
a
(n F-
w
N
a)
U
O
d,
C
rl-
co
It
(")
O
O
N
'i1
M
Z
z
V
W W
J
W
~
O
a
U.
z
O
F-
a
W>-
m
Q
Z
W
V
W
V
�
W
LU
x
>
U U
H
a
�
W
N
'O
c
Z
co
a)
c
O
E
a;
c�
d
F0"O
'
rn oo�
c
0
O
co +�
C U
+u)
U
C
+o
U
+oco
U
tm)
OH
U �-
p
D
f0
(a O
can
N
O
w
a)
p 10
n-
d
6
O
O
c
fn
c
U
d
W
Q
U
p
C a)
2 m R
a)
E
p
O
+�
a)
+_.
Q NO N
U O
x
U)
O
m
Z
O
CO
+-
c0
4- C
E
U
'D
F
},
U
O
O
�
U
O O
a)
y.,
O
C
m
O1
>
z
cn
cni
cn
z
m
E
N-a
co
C
m
.0
~
CO►
j
U
O0
n a O
O
a
�`
U
c+M
��ma
0)
�0vWUr
O
�
d)
D)O
O)
C
m
OU
a)
O
a)
O m O
. C
O
+
`
O
c
'
`
O
mQ
[L
n.
rn n_
n_ -0 p
c0
rn
n_
m`
cn a
p
n
O
cc
a
Z
c
4-
°C
O
E
E
u'z
cc
a
c
c
c
z
O
—i m
m0
E E
Q.
a)
-
>
N
E
a)
E
a)
E
�+ +�
z
Z Z
O O
N
a)
a)
a)
m co
a n.
m a )
(n
-V
p
>,
co
,, a
m
a
m
a
O
a
N g
o
c
c
p p
o
c
c a)
() p
a)
p
m
p
LU
m
ti
W
W
C C
U
E
C
C
C
c
>,
>
_
n
E
m
a
D
v
U
},
U
m m
d
U
o m
m
m
F-
to
p
V
W
:3
O
a
W
O
C
o
O a)
CM
Q
N
+_+
E m
(n
W
O
to y
a)
p N
O0
V%
o
O
wo
a>cc
Nm
Q)
C0
N
E
O
N
>
+
W Z
c
a
�►=
cno
y
o
z
`o
a
+
a
�c)
�
°
9aa
W
U
E
o
a)
a)
E'v
OL
m
c
oD
�
ca
41
ai
co
` LD
CD
>
O
Nc
�N
a)
O
Va)
W W
N
m
`o
CL coa
O+
E
O
25
m
n. _I
co
J d
n_
(1)
N
O
W
n.
W
F—
Q
Um
Z
Q W
�U
W
O=
U U
Q
W
F-
to
c
O U)
U
Co y v
D U
� O N
�aa
c
to
Z
_c
rn rn
c c
•c
a Co
n rn
c
00
to
U.
Z
O
W
J a
O
�
N
00
>41
a
w
t� o
E
cc
E
E a
o aD
U n
rn
c
Z
�
_
E"
W
a) .D
L i=
Cl)
f..
O
N
w
W
m
c0 U
E
�
V O
p
N
M
O)
U
L •E E
to �
W
Q
U m
Z
Q W
J Y
U
W
O =
U U
Q
uj
I-
c
c
D O
N
O
O to
U
N y
U
O
y U
C
U
c
4-- U
to
cn a
a
cn
a a
U
c
c
O
to
O
C7
O)
U
c
O
Q
>
F-
C
O)
N
rn
O
c c
c
o
n o)
a
c
c
O
a�
a�
Z
a
a
O
O
-W
-= cc
mo
a)
a)
~
z Z
n
n
a0
c
+,
_
a)
C
C
a)
W
O E
O
E
LU
E a
E
a
U n
U
n
rn
c
W
cm
Z
O
U
Cc
a
M
O
O)
O
'~
cl)
cn
c
O
0
ca
U
T
W
c
N
cc
O
O
Q
y=-
z
a
(D
M
W
O
++
cn
-J
C
O
a
W
Q
U w
213
W
Y
JCL
U
E W
O=
U U
Q
C C
rc
O O
W
U U
F'
a) a)
pc
a a
V
y �
c c
O a)
cn cn
c c
O O
Z
� �
y t�l1
O O
v U
rn rn
c c
n n
m
Z
W
OJC 0
O a)
E E
y ~
Z zCL
t6 N
aO
g
0 aa)
0 n
LU
cm cm
v v
m m
+1
c rn
a�
E 0
Z
O_
aci
.D o
L
a) to c
O
W
7
~
tc0 O
O) a N
N
W
tm Co c
U
Q�
m 3j
to `°d i
O N U
y
U V O
N
i o to m
Z
en CD L CD
c .0
�
O
c Q U o .c
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN GUIDELINES
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 79.21 ACRE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY AVENUE 52 ON THE NORTH, MONROE
STREET ON THE EAST AND VACANT LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH AND WEST
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-064
APPLICANT: DESERT ELITE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 10th day of .dune, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Specific Plan 2003-064, to allow the development of a 79.21 acre single family
residential subdivision generally located at the southwest corner of Avenue 52 and
Monroe Street, and more particularly described as:
APN's 767-200-004 and 767-200-005
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan has complied with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended
(Resolution 83-63), in that an Environmental Assessment (EA 2003-472) was prepared
for Specific Plan 2003-064 and Found that although the proposed project will have
environmental impacts, all impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify
a recommendation for approval of Specific Plan 2003-064:
1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La
Quinta General Plan in that the project has been designated for Low Density
Residential with equestrian amenities.
2. This Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare in that the development allowed under the Specific
Plan is compatible with existing uses and the development standards contained
in the Specific Plan will ensure high quality development.
3. That the Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated area
development in that the project is to be located on land designated as Low
Density Residential.
4. That the project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to
ensure public health and safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment
2001-436 assessed the environmental concerns of the Specific Plan; and,
3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 2001-055
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10th day of June, 2003, 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 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF
±79.21 ACRES INTO 202 NUMBERED LOTS AND 35
LETTERED LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31202
APPLICANT: DESERT ELITE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 10th day of June, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a
request by Desert Elite for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide ±79.21
acres into 202 numbered lots and 35 lettered lots, generally located at the southwest
corner of Avenue 52 and Monroe Street, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 767-200-004 and 767-200- 005.
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application 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 2003-472),
and determined that the proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have a significant
impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact has been certified; 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 make the following mandatory findings recommending
approval of said Tentative Tract Map 31202:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The property is designated for Low Density
Residential uses on the General Plan Land Use Map. The project is consistent
with the goals, policies and intent of the General Plan insofar as low density
residential with equestrian amenities is consistent with the land use designation
of the City.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: With the Specific Plan, the proposed project
is consistent with the development standards of the Low Density
(Agriculture/Equestrian Overlay) Residential Zoning District, including, but not
limited to, setbacks, architecture, building heights, building mass, exterior
lighting, parking, circulation, open space and landscaping.
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The design of
the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to either cause ,
substantial environmental damage nor substantially injure fish and wildlife or
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31202
DESERT ELITE
ADOPTED: JUNE 10, 2003
their habitat. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of
CEQA, in that Environmental Assessment 2003-472 was prepared for this
project with a recommendation for certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact. Mitigation measures are included in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration that reduces impacts to less than significant
levels.
4. Design Improvements: The design of the subdivision and/or the type of
improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the
site is physically suitable for the subdivision. Infrastructure improvements
(water, sewer, gas, electricity, etc.) will serve the site as required.
5. Easements/Access: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with the
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of
property, within the proposed subdivision in that adequate roadways will be
provided to meet the intent of the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
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 for this Tentative Tract Map;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract
Map 31202 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the
Conditions of Approval attached hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 10th day of June, 2003, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
P:\OSCAR\SANTANA HOMES\PC RESO TTM 31202.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31202
DESERT ELITE
ADOPTED: JUNE 10, 2003
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\OSCAR\SANTANA HOMES\PC RESO TTM 31202.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31202
DESERT ELITE — RANCHO SANTANA
ADOPTED: JUNE 10, 2003
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 Tract Map, and any Final 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
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of
cal
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
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
County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order
No. 99-08-DWQ .
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land
that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5)
acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that
encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required
to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any
on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for
inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance
of all improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (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.
JJ
P:\0sca6Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 2 of',
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
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 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 public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial - A) - The standard 55 feet from the
centerline of Avenue 52 for a total 1 10-foot ultimate developed right
of way except for an additional right of way dedication for a dual left
turn lane 0 2 feet each, 24 feet total; length to be determined by a
traffic study), two through eastbound lanes (12 feet each, 24 feet
total), a 8-foot bike lane, and a deceleration/right turn only lane (12
feet wide and 100 feet long) at the intersection. The right of way
dedication shall be 63 feet from the centerline and 100 feet long plus
a variable dedication of an additional 50 feet to accommodate the
curb transition of the deceleration/right turn only lane. Monroe Street
(Primary Arterial - A) - 55 feet from the centerline of Monroe Street
for a total 1 10-foot ultimate developed right of way; additional 25
foot dedication will be required measured from the existing 30 foot
right of way along Monroe Street.
8. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-of-
ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
9. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
PAOscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 3 of
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
A. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Streets "A" through "L" - All onsite streets, except in the entry gate
area, shall have right of way retained to accommodate a 36-foot
travel width (measured at the gutter flow line) plus additional width
to the back of the approved curb design. In the entry gate area, the
right of way width shall be wider and adjusted as needed to
accommodate the median islands and travel way.
10. Right-of-way geometry for standard knuckles and property line corner cut -backs at
curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801, and
#805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
12. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-
of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to
approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant
the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
13. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public
utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such
easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval
of IID.
14. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Avenue 52 and Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall
design is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 4 o
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on
the Final Map.
15. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox
clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map.
16. Direct vehicular access to Avenue 52 and Monroe Street from any portion of the
site from frontage along Avenue 52 and Monroe Street are restricted, except for
those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise
conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall
be shown on the recorded final tract map.
17. 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.
18. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-
of-way, or access easement, the recordation of the tract map is subject to the
Applicant providing an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to those
properties, or notarized letters of consent from the affected property owners.
19. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion
of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map
and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by
the City Engineer.
FINAL MAPS
20. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard
AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program.
Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a
raster -image file of such Final Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
' cra
f
PAOscar\Santana Homes1TT31202COA.doc P age 5 of:
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
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.
21. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
22. 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 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. Note, the applicant may be
required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to
improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4'
Vertical
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and
separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering
sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and
landscape setback area.
B.
Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan:
1 "
= 20'
Horizontal
C.
Perimeter Landscape Plan:
1 "
= 20'
Horizontal
D.
On -Site Street Plan
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
E.
On -Site Rough Grading/Drainage Plan:
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits,
or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 6 of
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
"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.
In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan are
required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and the City Engineer.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building
floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements.
23. 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.
24. 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.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
25. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site
improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured
and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the
construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same,
or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
26. 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
PA0scar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 7 of
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
27. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any
existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed
improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation.
When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common
on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls,
landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the
issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the
occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development,
or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant
to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all
permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the
development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required
to:0) 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 by others, or (4) 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 Final Map,
or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of
such improvements.
PAOscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 8 of:
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
28. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant
shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -
site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for
checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the
unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall
be approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also
submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map,
along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's
detailed cost estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
GRADING
29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
30. 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.
31. 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, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections
8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm
Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
PAOscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 9 of
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final 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.
32. 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.
33. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating
terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F)
except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope
shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the
backslope (ie the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed
2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet
adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is
within six (6) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way
shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be
depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind
the curb.
34. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the
pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of
Approval.
35. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from
the building pads in adjacent developments. Where compliance within the above
stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to
minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner
dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
11 t.,
Lf 4
PAOscar\Santana Homes\TT312O2COA.doc P age 10 of
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
36. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site
by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on
the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading
changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
37. 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.
IM il 11► e ei9
38. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on
site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend
to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3
hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off.
39. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches
per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant
provides site specific data indicating otherwise.
40. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance
water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field approved by the
City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain surges of
up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
41. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through
underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well
sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for
development of this property.
PAOscaO Santana Homes\TT31202C0A.doc P age 11 of:
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
42. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved
by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
43. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to
Engineering Bulletin 97.03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be
planted with maintenance free ground cover.
44. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback
lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the
setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The
perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped
with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
45. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
46. . The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention
capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into
the historic drainage relief route.
47. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
48. When an applicant proposes discharge of storm water directly, or indirectly, into
the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City
from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage
discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or
area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or
expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be
executed and furnished to the City prior to the issuance of any grading,
construction or building permit, and shall be binding on all heirs, executors,
administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative
parcel map excepting there from those portions required to be dedicated or deeded
for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City
Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall
make provisions in the final development CC&Rs for meeting these potential
obligations.
UTILITIES
PA0scar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 12 of
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
50. 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.
51. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and
all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
52. 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
53. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
54. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will
convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue
during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved,
the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1 /8" batter and a minimum
height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb
height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
55. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 13 of
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
A OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W):
Widen the south side of the street along the Tentative Tract
boundary to its ultimate half street width specified in the General
Plan and requirements of these conditions listed below. Rehabilitate
and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to
augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to
La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. Street widening
improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but
not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and
signs, except for street lights.
Construct 53-foot roadway improvements (3-foot median nose, travel
width to include two 12-foot left turn lanes, two 12-foot eastbound
through lanes, 8-foot bike lane and 12-foot deceleration/right turn
only lane, excluding curbs).
Construct half width of an 18-foot wide raised landscaped median
along the entire boundary of the Tentative Tract Map plus variable
width as needed to accommodate a dual left turn pocket for the
eastbound traffic at Avenue 52 and a left turn in only lane at the
main entry. The curb on the existing centerline shall be asphalt
concrete.
Construct 6-foot meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk
shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and
convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the
back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals
not to exceed 250 feet.
The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet,
and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to
assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander
into landscape setback lot and approach within 2 feet of the
proposed equestrian trail.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 14 of
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Construct a 10-foot equestrian trail as approved by the City Engineer.
Applicant is responsible for 25% of the cost to design and install the
traffic signal at the Avenue 52 and Monroe Street intersection.
2) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial; 1 10' R/W):
Widen the west side of the street along the Tentative Tract boundary
to its ultimate half street width specified in the General Plan and
requirements of these conditions listed below. Rehabilitate and/or
reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and
convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's
urban arterial design standard. Street widening improvements shall
include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street
lights.
Construct 34-foot roadway improvements to comply with the General
Plan (travel way, excluding curbs).
Construct half width of an18-foot wide raised landscaped median
along the entire boundary of the Tentative Tract Map plus variable
width as needed to accommodate a dual left turn pocket for the
eastbound traffic at Avenue 52 and full movements at the entry. The
curb on the existing centerline shall be asphalt concrete.
Construct 6-foot meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk
shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and
convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the
back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals
not to exceed 250 feet.
The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet,
and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to
assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander
into landscape setback lot and approach within 2 feet of the
proposed equestrian trail.
Construct a 10-foot equestrian trail as approved by the City Engineer.
r` I )
0 :_
PAOscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 15 of 2
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
The applicant shall install a traffic signal at the project's entry on
Monroe Street when warrants are met. Applicant is responsible for
50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal if
complementing cost share from development on the other side of
street is available at time the signal is required. Applicant shall enter
into an improvement agreement and post security for 100% of the
cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on -
site grading permit; the security shall remain in full force and effect
until the signal is actually installed by the applicant or the developer
on the other side of the street. If the land on the other side of the
street does not have an approved project connecting to the subject
intersection, the applicant shall pay 100% of the cost to design and
install the signaHzation for the resulting "T" intersection. If, however,
the applicant's development trails the progress of the development on
the other side of the street, the applicant shall be responsible for
50% of the cost as previously stated.
B) PRIVATE STREETS
1. Construct full 36-foot wide travel width improvements as
shown on the tentative map measured from gutter flow line to
gutter flow line within the approved right-of-way where the
residential streets are double loaded
56. All gated entries shall provide for a two -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound
traffic; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles.)
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a
scale of 1 " = 10`, demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain
entry into the development can safely make a "U" Turn back out onto the main
street from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one
lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks,
bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved
construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by
the City Engineer.
r< ��
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\TT31202C0A.doc P age 16of:
Planning Commission ResoDution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
57. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and
anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural
sections shall be as follows:
Residential
Primary Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
4.5" a.c./6.00" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
58. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time
of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The
submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent
(less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test
results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production.
The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are
approved.
59. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Avenue 52 Primary Entry (approximately 1200 feet west of Monroe Street):
right turn in, right turn out, and left turn in from Avenue 52 into the site.
Left turn out from the entry is prohibited.
B. Avenue 52 Secondary Entry (west end of the Tentative Tract Map): right
turn in and right turn out. Left turn out and left turn in are prohibited.
C. Monroe Street (Located approximately 1,200 feet south of Avenue 52): Full
turn movement is allowed.
60. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings
and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks.
Mid -block street lighting is not required.
61. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
r-
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 17 of
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
62. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County
Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
63. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to
ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements.
CONSTRUCTION
64. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the
buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -
maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control
devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential
developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the
applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten
percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever
comes first.
LANDSCAPING
65. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
66. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
67. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall
obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
55
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 19 of
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
68. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no
lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public
streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
69. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
70. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the
City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall
have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to
reflect the as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
74. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 19 of:
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
75. 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
76. 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.
77. 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).
GFNFRAL
78. Within 24 hours after review by the City Council, the property owner/developer
shall submit to the Community Development Department a check made out to the
County of Riverside in the amount of $64.00 to permit the filing and posting of the
Notice of Determination for EA 2003-472 as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act.
79. Prior to issuance of a Site Development Permit, the final Conditions of Approval
shall be incorporated in the Final Specific Plan document. Applicant shall work with
staff to correct internal document inconsistencies prior to final publication of five
copies of the Specific Plan document.
ENVIRONMENTAL
80. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, building permit or any earth moving
activities for the project allowed in this specific plan, whichever comes first, the
property owner/developer shall prepare and submit a written report to the
Community Development Department demonstrating compliance with those
mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 2003-472.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
81. For residential areas, approved standard fire hydrants, located at each intersection
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 20 of,
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet
from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for a two hour duration at
20 PSI.
82. Blue dot retro-ref lectors shall be placed in the street eight inches from centerline to
the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
83. Any turns require a minimum 38 foot turning radius.
84. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of
all portions of the exterior of the first floor
85. Any roads exceeding 1320 feet must provide for secondary access/egress.
Access, may be restricted to emergency vehicles only, however public egress must
be unrestricted. It appears that there may be an access/egress problem on the
west side of the tract.
86. The minimum dimension for access roads and gates is 20 feet clear and
unobstructed width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height.
87. Any gate providing access from a public roadway to a private entry roadway shall
be located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a
vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road
with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38-foot turning
radius shall be used.
88. Gates shall be automatic, minimum 20 feet in width and shall be equipped with a
rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation. Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin
force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall
remain open until closed by the rapid entry system.
89. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the
Fire Department approval.
90. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for
approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 21 of
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Desert Elite — Rancho Santana
Adopted: June 10, 2003
and/or signs.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\TT31202COA.doc P age 22 of
ATTACHMENT #1
HW 111
tiQo
HWY 111
DR.
CARREON BLVD
I AVENUE 48TH
uj
AVENUE 50TH
in
w
z
0
z
0
U)
Im
AVENUE 52ND
SITE
AVENUE 54TH
VICINITY MAP
r. N.T.S.
G " I
Z �
a F— g a a a E f s 1
ao0Nz°
a° �QNLu
�
06>0>x
pill
lu
Q
i6 Z ¢ 4 4 Q 43.8
l7iflli �p .
A _ _
g�
rl ws al t.]i ia9a rl^Yim
09
�. a4k y'/� �,o�� �$ o�� 08� _8��1 -'jo�• / �111 i �.. � $
�" o� &� �� •s rtY I I \
, w8 w nl
8iit $
!f
n
II
I 1 ws
'r' I of x I 1 ■ o f t1Ei F:• , °^' :r e
L p gt 1 0 nNN-1 Il 'B
og� a � I II '� I l sk
St , • gt 1 1 I A..
COSS
9 E I Big
12
Ja "'l :+
AMR"
I g ��� 'c ---o_ - o�-B- a -J§' �•. :' a g
9'
oil
Y • :$ � t IQ ^'9 8' '�g�g k �t 6' 1 Ib7� #, .r,>• '.
I i - 601 o_^ - of ^ w oB oB It .-.
I tat S' ;,'lw• 'y s 7 t
�. wL
All
e
1
r
�8s �Ss OR
oif
`LO
I'
o-I_ Y
�� ; �'SoE •�a sB 3 s o;i- oB- sB ` oB- g
I ,
IJ Q
1 •$
I §
I III
I ry1 oe,
ii��FF��• a
l 1
I
1
F� 11•
'�J
I I
,1�1r1y
�
oS
ZIA
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 10, 2003
CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2003-076
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE LA QUINTA ZONING CODE,
PERTAINING TO FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AS WELL
AS HOME SIZES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
BACKGROUND:
CITY-WIDE
CITY OF LA QUINTA
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL
CODE ARE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.6, SECTION
21080 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUTES, AND
SECTION 15268, MINISTERIAL PROJECTS, OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES
Staff presented front and side yard setback issues to the Planning Commission at
previous meetings for discussion purposes. Following discussion, the Commission
directed staff to prepare revisions to the Zoning Code for amendments to the side and
front yard setback requirements. In addition, the Planning Commission directed staff
to provide alternatives to expand the minimum lot size requirements for residential
properties.
Code Requirements - Front Yard Setbacks
Table 1, below, provides front yard setback requirements for garages based upon the
type of garage door. Table 2 provides front yard setback requirements for carports.
Garages or carports that have access from the rear of the lot may have a 5 foot rear
yard setback.
PAOscar\Zoning Issues\Stf Rpt-ZCA-076.wpd
T..L.1.. 9. ��r�..e Cethsanivc
Zoning District
Pivot Door
Roll -Up Door
Side Entry
RVL
30'
30'
20'
All other residential
districts
25'
20'
15'
Tahlp 2- Carnort Setbacks
ZONING DISTRICT
RVL
ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
30'
20'
Proposed Regulations - Front Yard Setbaks
Based upon the Commission's discussion, the following code amendments are
proposed:
1. A minimum 25 foot front yard setback, measured from the back of curb
regardless of property line location or type of garage door for properties located
RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH zoning districts.
2. A minimum 15 foot front yard setback for casitas for properties located in the
RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH zoning district. Driveways are not permitted in front
of the casitas.
Code Requirements - Side Yard Setbacks
Typical Zoning Code interior side yard setback provisions are noted below:
Min. Setback Code Section
0.0 feet for fences and walls
Section 9.60.030
0.0 feet for open RV storage
Section 9.60.130
3.0 feet for swimming pools and spas
Section 9.60.070
3.5 feet for roof overhangs, chimneys, awnings* *
Section 9.50.060
3.5 feet for cantilevered bay windows* *
Section 9.50.060
3.5 feet for storage sheds less than 100 s.f. * *
Section 9.60.050
5.0 feet for balconies, stairways, uncovered decks
Section 9.50.060
5.0 feet for the houses and garages
Section 9.30.030
5.0 feet for patio covers, excluding overhangs
Section 9.60.040
P:\Oscar\Zoning Issues\Stf Rpt-ZCA-076.wpd
5.0 feet for storage sheds greater than 101 s.f.
5.0 feet for BBQ's, waterfalls, etc.
5.0 feet for mechanical equipment*
5.0 feet for second residential units
5.0 feet for guest houses
5.0 feet for freestanding permanent fireplaces
10.0 feet for tennis and other game courts
Section 9.60.050
Section 9.60.045
Section 9.60.070
Section 9.60.090
Section 9.60.100
Section 9.60.045
Section 9.60.150
* Note: Five feet if an easement is established in perpetuity between
adjacent properties.
* * Setbacks are subject to certain performance standards.
Proposed regulations - Side Yard Setbacks
Based upon the Commission's discussion, the following code amendments are
proposed:
1. A minimum 15 foot total aggregate side yard setback shall be provided in the
RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH zoning districts. A minimum distance of five feet is
to be provided on at least one side yard.
2. Mechanical equipment, including pool equipment, may be located adjacent to
a property line with a block wall in the side and/or rear yard property line, in
accordance with all applicable building regulations.
3. Architectural projections, accessory structures, and accessory buildings are not
permitted within the required side yard.
Code Requirements - Lot Sizes
The Commission indicated a willingness to expand the minimum lot size
requirements to minimize the appearance of an overbuilt environment; and after
discussion, directed staff to bring back options for amendments to the RL zoning
district. The majority of the City's residential land use is designated Low Density
(RL) Residential capable of accommodating up to four dwelling units per acre. As
indicated below, the minimum lot size in the RL zoning district is 7,200 square feet.
The following table provides the minimum lot sizes in the various residential zones:
Zoning District
Min. Lot Size (square
feet)
RVL
20,000
RL
7,200
RC
7,200
P:\Oscar\Zoning Issues\Stf Rpt-ZCA-076.wpd
RM
5,000
RMH
3,600
RH
2,000*
RSP
N/A
RR
N/A
* Minimum lot size for single-family attached
units.
In attempting to develop options for the expansion of minimum lot sizes in the RL
zoning district, staff considered the following:
• Exclusionary Zoning Implications - A larger lot requirement may result in less
variety of housing opportunities.
• Market driven development versus code mandated requirements - A larger lot
requirement may produce undesirable development and or inflated housing
costs.
• Aesthetic Consideration - A larger lot size may not mitigate the concerns
expressed by the Commission regarding an overbuilt appearance.
• Role of other development standards such as setbacks - Modifications of
other code provisions, including development standards may mitigate the
appearance of overbuilt development without the need for an increase in lot
sizes.
• The Department of Housing Development (HCD) requires cities to develop
and maintain regulations that can accommodate affordable housing - Larger
lot size regulations may reduce the availability of affordable housing
opportunities.
• Development Doctrine - An increase in lot size will be consistent with the
General Plan.
Staff developed the following options:
Option 1. 8,000 square foot lots
This option would result in larger lot developments and in turn may reduce the
appearance of an overbuilt environment. A variety of housing lot size development
opportunities remain because the other zones will not be changed. This option is
consistent with the General Plan policies and programs.
Note, without additional development standards (e.g. side yard setback regulations)
developments may still appear dense. Also, larger lot sizes may limit housing
choices and be a constraint to producing affordable housing, which may not be
acceptable to HCD.
PAOscar\Zoning Issues\Stf Rpt-ZCA-076.wpd
Option 2 Modify Development Standards
This option would modify certain development standards in an effort to create the
appearance of more openness. One example, could be to change the minimum
width of the lots coupled with setbacks regulations to achieve the desired open
space or require more cluster development, as prescribed by the General Plan. This
option would achieve a more aesthetically pleasing (less dense) appearance.
However, this option will result in smaller building pads and the development of
more second story homes.
Option 3. No change
This option would keep things the same. The decision makers and Staff would
review each development on a case -by -case and make a determination regarding
home location, architectural style, site layout, and other development
characteristics to determine if a project is "too dense". The has several entitlement
applications, including specific plan, tract maps, and site development permits.
Staff is recommends Option 3. This option allows the City the opportunity to
review and make adjustments on a case -by -case basis consistent with the General
Plan provisions while establishing requirements that could result in higher
construction costs.
Staff has drafted the attached Resolution for your consideration.
Public Notice
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 31, 2003.
No comments have been received to date.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Zone Code Amendments can
be made, and are noted in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2001-076.
P:\Oscar\Zoning Issues\Stf Rpt-ZCA-076.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL, AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN
CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE LA QUINTA
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD
SETBACKS AND LOT SIZES FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES
CASE NO.: ZCA 2003-076
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 10th day of June, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to make certain
amendments to the Municipal Code, to allow an amendment to the front and side yard
setbacks as well as lot sizes within residential zones; and
WHEREAS, the text amendment is exempt pursuant to Chapter 2.6,
Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act
statutes, and Section 15268, Ministerial Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending
approval of said Zoning Code Amendments:
1 . The proposed text changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the La
Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and
surrounding development and land use designations, ensuring land use
compatibility.
2. The proposed text changes will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare, as they have been designed to be compatible with surrounding
development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements.
3. The proposed text changes supports the orderly development of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case.
P:\Oscar\Zoning Issues\PC Reso-setbaks.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Zoning Code Amendment 2003-076
Adopted: June 10, 2003
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Zoning Code Amendment
is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Chapter 2.6, Section 21080 of the Public
Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes, and
Section 15268, Ministerial Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines.
3. That it does recommend approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2003-073 to the
City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and contained in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10th day of June, 2003, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ASSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Oscar\Zoning IssuesTC Reso-setbaks.wpd