2002 07 09 PCT4,ht 4 4 Q"
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
JULY 9, 2002
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2002-075
Beginning Minute Motion 2002-013
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
11. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for
public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
111. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on June 25, 2002.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item .................
Applicant ..........
Location ............
Request .............
Action ...............
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-442 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
Santa Rosa Developers, LLC
West of Madison Street on the north side of Avenue
58
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact and the subdivision of
approximately 9.78 acres into 33 single family and
other common lots.
Resolution 2002- and Resolution 2002-
A. Item ................
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-744
Applicant ..........
Jai Nettimi
Location ............
79-390 Paseo del Rey
Request .............
Compatibility review of a deck for a single family
two-story house
Action ...............
Continued to July 23, 2002
B. Item .................
SIGN APPLICATION 2002-627
Applicant ..........
Imperial Sign Company/Rinker Company
Location ............
Southeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Highway
111
Request ............
Review of a sign program for Parcel 2, retail building
at Dune Palms Center (formerly Lapis Energy,
Specific Plan 96-028)
Action ...............
Minute Motion 2002-
Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Discussion regarding summer meeting schedule.
B. Report on the City Council meeting of July 2, 2002
X. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 25, 2002
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:09
p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Robbins to lead the
flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney Marc Luesebrink, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal
Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit,
and Martin Magana, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
June 11, 2002. Commissioner Robbins asked that Page 6, Item #15 be
corrected to state,"... Commissioners Robbins/Butler..."; Commissioner
Kirk asked that Page 9, Item #12.A. be corrected to read: "...12 signs,
and up to 487 square feet"; Item 12.13. "...seven signs, and up to 695
square feet." There being no further corrections, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to approve the minutes as
corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS:
A. Coachella Valley Water District representative, Ms. Carrie Oliphant gave
a presentation on proposed reservoir construction in the La Quinta Cove.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-25-02.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2002
7. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public
comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion
of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission
discussion.
8. Commissioner Robbins asked that Condition #41 be corrected to
read, "fully sprinkled".
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-069 approving Site Development Permit 2002-
741, subject to findings and conditions as amended:
A. Condition #33: Sign not to exceed size of Ross Dress for
Less sign.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
B. Tentative Tract Map 29053, Extension #2; a request of La Quinta
Jefferson Fifty for approval of a second one year extension of time for
a tentative tract map which creates 103 single family lots on 33 + acres
located at northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue
50.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked where there had been grading at the
site. Staff stated they have been allowed to do so.
3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Mike Smith, Warner Engineering, stated the
purpose of the extension is to allow time to record the second and
third phases. They would like to request a change to Condition
#56 to change the wording from "berming" to "mounding". Staff
stated that was acceptable.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-25-02.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2002
4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation portion of the public hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-070 approving Tentative Tract Map 29053,
Extension #2, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
C. Environmental Assessment 2002-455, General Plan Amendment 2002-
087, and Tentative Tract Map 30521; a request of Lido Equity Partners
for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for an Environmental Assessment, change of General Plan Land
Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density
Residential for ten acres, and the subdivision of 43.6 acres into 147
single family and other miscellaneous lots located at the northeast corner
of Washington Street and Miles Avenue.
1. Commissioner Robbins excused himself due to a potential conflict
of interest and left the dias.
2. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the changes in the circulation pattern
are due to the nearby residents. Staff stated yes.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked why the lots could not be graded to the
same height as the existing lots that abut this project on the east
between Bradford Circle and Forbes Circle. Also, did a sound
study require the sound wall. Staff stated the study was done in
compliance with the environmental study. Commissioner Tyler
asked about the height restrictions on Miles Avenue. Staff stated
the height limit was 22 feet within 150 feet. Commissioner Tyler
asked why the gate off Via Sevilla could not be constructed earlier
than anticipated (Phase 4).
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-25-02.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2002
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike
Smith, Warner Engineering, gave a presentation on the project and
stated they have no problems with the conditions as submitted by
staff. The reason for the height of the lots is due to the contours
of the site.
6. Commissioner Kirk asked why the phasing was changed. Mr.
Smith stated it was the applicant's request. It is based on how
the marketing people believe they can sell the homes.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the gate on Via Sevilla could be
constructed earlier than planned. Mr. Smith stated it was probably
based on financing ability.
7. Commissioner Butler stated that if there was a five foot wall and
a one foot differential in height currently, they would need to put
a one foot extension on the existing wall. Mr. Smith stated that
was true.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked about the type of homes to be built.
Mr. Mike Osborne, developer, stated the homes would be one
story high single family residences.
9. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification on the turning
movements. Staff clarified it would be right turn in/out and left
turn in on Miles Avenue.
10. Commissioner Butler asked about the phasing of the wall. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated a project is normally conditioned to
have the entire perimeter wall installed with the first phase.
11. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission on this project. Mr. Rudy Acosta, 78-595 Carnes
Circle, stated he resides at the end of the cul-de-sac on Carnes
Circle, and his experience with prior developers in the area has
been anything but pleasant. Currently there is a six foot wall
between himself and the proposed development. Is this proposal
planning to share the existing wall. They do not want the same
experience they had with the Santiago development which ended
up with a 8-9 foot wall. He also asked what the rear yard
setbacks would be. Another concern is that the construction be
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-25-02.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2002
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked the height limit of the building. Staff
stated that Pad 5 is limited to 28 feet in height.
3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Vuksic, architect for the project, gave a
presentation on the project and stated he was available to answer
any questions.
4. There being no questions of the applicant nor any other public
comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion
of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission
discussion.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-074 approving Site Development Permit 2002-
743, subject to findings and conditions as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A Site Development Permit 2002-742; a request of Toll Brothers, Inc. for
review of architectural and landscaping plans for ten new single family
prototype residential units with two different designs for each prototype
and project perimeter landscape plans for Mountain View Country Club
located at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52.
1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Associate Planner
Martin Magaha presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-25-02.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2002
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins asked about the landscaping plans for the
prototype units. Staff stated they met all the requirements of the
Code.
3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing the applicant, gave
a presentation on the project and stated he was available to
answer any questions.
4. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels
closed the public participation portion and opened the matter for
Commission discussion.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 2002-012,
approving Site Development Permit 2002-742, as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Chairman Abels gave a report on the City Council meeting of June 18,
2002.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Robbins/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held July 9, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. on June 25, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-25-02.wpd 10
PH #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 9, 2002
CASE NOS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-442 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 30487
APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 9.78 ± ACRES INTO 33 SINGLE FAMILY AND
OTHER COMMON LOTS
LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 1,620 FEET WEST OF MADISON STREET AND
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58
PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AS APPLICANT
ENGINEER: JOHN HACKER AND ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-442.
BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) AND RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: HERMITAGE STREET IN PGA WEST WITH SINGLE STORY
RESIDENTIAL HOUSES BEYOND
SOUTH: ACROSS 58T" AVENUE, VACANT RESIDENTIALLY ZONED
PARCELS
P:\Greg T\STPC 30487 58th Santa.wpd/Pagel
EAST: VACANT RESIDENTIAL PARCEL AND LIONS GATE
DEVELOPMENT BEYOND
WEST: EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
BACKGROUND:
The 9.78-acre vacant site, measuring approximately 330.46 feet wide by 1,324.28
feet long, is bounded on the south by Avenue 58 and located approximately 0.3 miles
west of Madison Street (Attachment 1). This property was a date farm starting in the
early 1950's up until the early 1990's based on historical records. The original
structure for the farming operation has been removed. Currently, the majority of the
site contains rows of isolated dead or dying young palm trees and dense brush and
trees on the north end of the site. Drainage of the site is accomplished through sheet
flow to the south-southeast.
The project site is bounded to the north by a block wall and the existing PGA West
Country Club, to the west by a densely vegetated parcel with an existing residence
and miscellaneous out buildings, to the south by Avenue 58 and to the east by an
existing date grove.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The Tentative Tract Map proposes to create 33 single family lots oriented around a
1,130 ± foot long private cul-de-sac street (Street Lot "A"). Each single family lot
measures approximately 70' wide by 140' long (9,800 sq. ft.) and larger which
exceeds the Zoning Code requirement of 7,200 square feet. Although a private
community is planned, site gating is not proposed. A 20'-0" wide emergency vehicle
access lane is planned to the south of Lot 7 to be used in the future between this
project and the neighboring parcel (Attachment 2).
Two sets of stormwater retention basins have been placed in the project with two
along Avenue 58 and two centrally located (i.e., south of Lots 7 and 27) for a
combined drainage area of 0.58 acres. Off -site street improvements are based on the
City's newly adopted General Plan provisions for a Secondary Arterial (undivided)
street with meandering sidewalk and 22-foot wide landscaped parkway. Site grading
is consistent with adjoining properties, and less in height than PGA West to the north.
A conceptual landscape plan for Avenue 58 and the on -site retention basins has been
prepared. The applicant's design uses lawn for a majority of the open space areas
highlighted by 15 gallon trees (two varieties), palm trees (two varieties), five gallon
shrubs and vines, granite boulders, annual color, and various forms of groundcover.
P:\Greg T\STPC 30487 58th Santa.wpd/Page2
A six foot high wall separates the retention basins from the Avenue 58 parkway improvements.
Housing units for this development will be processed separately at a later date, subject
to the requirements of Zoning Ordinance. The RL (Low Density) District allows two
story houses to be developed on this site depending on the proximity to existing one
story houses. For example, two story houses could be built along the north property
line because Hermitage street separates PGA West houses from this site.
Historic Preservation Commission Review:
On June 20, 2002, the City's Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the
applicant's paleontological and cultural resources assessments determining additional
field analysis and testing was required. Based on this information, Minute Motions
2002-014 and -015 were adopted on unanimous votes requiring site monitoring of
grading and trenching activities and completion of the Phase II Archaeology Report.
Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 17,
2002, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no
comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments
received will be handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency Review: A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public
agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the
Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been
included in the recommended Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached
Resolutions.
CONCLUSION:
Condition #57 requires: "The entry street shall be designed to accommodate a gated
entry. The design shall provide for a two -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound
traffic; and shall provide for a full turnaround outlet for non -entry accepted vehicles."
Because of this Public Works Department condition, a revision to the design of the
final map is required to ensure residents can gate the development if they choose to
in the future. Condition #59 allows full turn access into and out of the residential
development. The proposed tract map is a logical extension of development in the
area. The tract map creates single family lots which exceed the City's minimum
standard in the Low Density Residential designation.
P:\Greg T\STPC 30487 58th Santa.wpd/Page3
0A
development. The proposed tract map is a logical extension of development in the
area. The tract map creates single family lots which exceed the City's minimum
standard in the Low Density Residential designation.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact (EA 2002-442) according to the findings set forth in the attached
Resolution; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 30487, subject to findings and
conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Reduced Tract Map Exhibit
3. Large Exhibit (Planning Commission Only)
II, Associate Planner
G:STPC 30487 58th Santa.wpd/GT/Page4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
30487
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-442
APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for a 33-lot single family development on 9.78 ± acres located
on the north side of Avenue 58, approximately 1,620 feet west of Madison Street in
a RL Zoning District (collectively "the Project"); and
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 Section 21092 on June
12, 2002, to landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site and to all public entities
entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice also included a notice of the public
hearing before the Planning Commission on July 9, 2002, and City Council on August
6, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun on June
17, 2002, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk
on June 19, 2002, 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 July 9, 2002, did
consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Project; and
G:\ResoEA442 T30487.wpd
o e
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Environmental Assessment 2002-442
Santa Rosa Dev., LLC
Adopted: July 9, 2002
Page 3
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 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 City Council decision is based is the La Quinta City
Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman, Community
Development Director.
SECTION 12: A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code
§ 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project
implementation.
SECTION 13: Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term
is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2.
SECTION 14: The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence,
rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of
Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended
to the City Council for final certification.
GAResoEA442 T30487.wpd
01-' 7
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Environmental Assessment 2002-442
Santa Rosa Dev., LLC
Adopted: July 9, 2002
Page 4
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 9th day of July, 2002, by the vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
GAResoEA442 T30487.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
1 . Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 30487
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quanta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: North side of Avenue 58, about 1,620 feet west of
Madison Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Santa Rosa Development, LLC
P. 0. Box 11335
Palm Desert, CA 92255
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for
its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Subdivision of 10.04 gross acres into 33 residential lots, and additional
lettered lots for streets and retention basins.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: PGA West County Club
South: Avenue 58, Vacant, Low Density Residential
West: Vacant and Residential, Low Density Residential
East: Vacant, Date Palm Grove, Low Density Residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
PAGreg T\SantaRosaEACklst.wpd
1
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. nn
L�
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 isions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing furtherrequired.
Date
\11� i;
1 4 !!��
P:\Greg T\SantaRosaEACklst.wpd
V
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact"
answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites
in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not
apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -
site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct,
and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an
effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII,
"Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier OR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section
XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references
to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and
other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question;
and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less
than significance
PAGreg T\SantaRosaEACklst.wpd �i �-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan EIR p. III-159 ff.)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (General Plan EIR p. III-159 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application
materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
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)
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 photographs)
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
K4
K9
ri
X
Q.
PAGreg T\SantaRosaEACklst.wpd
4 ���
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
U
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 MEA, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either
individually or in combination with the known or probable
impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?(General Plan MEA,
p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (La O.uinta Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?(General Plan MEA, 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? (Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report, CRM Tech, April, 2002)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resources .(i.e., an artifact, object, or
site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without
merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a
high probability that it contains information needed to answer
important scientific research questions, has a special and
particular quality such as being the oldest or best available
example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event
or person)? (Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report, CRM Tech, April, 2002)
X
X
X
X
R�
91
X
X
X
PAGreg T\SantaRosaEACklst.wpd
5
Ulf
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? (Paleontological Resources Assessment, CRM Tech,
April, 2002)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey Report, CRM Tech, April, 2002)
✓1. 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? (Geotechnical
Feasibility Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November
2001)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Geotechnical Feasibility
Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Earth Systems Southwest,
November 2001)
iv) Landslides? (Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Earth
Systems Southwest, November 2001)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
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 Feasibility
Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001)
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 Feasibility Report, Earth
Systems Southwest, November 2001)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
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? (Phase I & II Investigations, Earth Systems
Southwest, December 2001)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PAGreg T\Santa Rosa EACklst.wpd
2
V14
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? (Phase I & II Investigations, Earth Systems
Southwest, December 2001)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Phase I & II Investigations, Earth Systems
Southwest, December 2001)
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?
(Phase I & II Investigations, Earth Systems Southwest,
December 2001)
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. 94 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)
Vlll. 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-87 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? (General Plan EIR p. III-87
ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -
or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
FN
�1_4
PAGreg T\SantaRosaEACklst.wpd
7
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
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 6.5)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project
Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 73 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.)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
(Noise Impact Analysis, P. A. Penardi, April 2002)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Noise
Impact Analysis, P. A. Penardi, April 2002)
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.)
9
X
X
►Ll
X
IN
X
f3
X
X
P:\Greg T\SantaRosaEACklst.wpd
°�►1
8
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? (Application materials)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive levels? (General Plan 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.)
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)
QII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantia0 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. 46 ff.)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 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)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Application Materials)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
F�q
91
X
PAGreg T\SantaRosaEACklst.wpd cI 1
9 �'
(V. 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 p. 22 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 p. 22 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? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (Application materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application
Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application
Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Application Materials)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 46 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. 46 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. 46 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. 46 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. 46 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
M
PAGreg T\SantaRosaEACklst.wpd �j 1
10
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. 46 ff.)
(VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
(Vill. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
F�q
M
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.
No earlier analysis were used in this review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
t ,,
PAGreg T\SantaRosaEACklst.wpd
V
11
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
istorical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, prepared by CRM Tech, April 5, 2002
aleontological Resources Assessment Report, prepared by CRM Tech, April 5, 2002
oise Impact Analysis, prepared by P. A. Penardi, April 4, 2002
eport of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Earth Systems Southwest,
ecember 6, 2001
eport of Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Earth Systems Southwest,
ecember 6, 2001
eotechnical Feasibility Report, prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, November 16, 2001
P:\Greg T\SantaRosaEACklst.wpd
12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-442
I. d) The area in which the project is located is generally undeveloped. The proposed
project will result in the construction of 33 homes. These homes will generate
a minimal amount of light, insofar as the plans for the homes will be required
to meet the City's dark sky ordinance. These requirements do not allow lighting
to spill over to other properties. The potential impacts associated with light and
glare are not expected to be significant.
III. a) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The Tentative
Tract Map will result in 33 single family homes at build out. These homes are
likely to generate a total of 316 trips per day at build out'. Based on this trip
generation, the proposed project will generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 11.4 0.44 2.34 -- 0.05 0.05
3
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 316 trips/day and average trip length of 7 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light
autos at 75°F, year 2005. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD
for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for
an EIR.
The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving
emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to
chemical pollution are not expected to be significant.
III. c) The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate
matter of 10 microns or smaller). The Valley has recently adopted stricter
measures for the control of PM10. These measures will be integrated into
conditions of approval for all future projects. The construction of the proposed
project will generate dust. The applicant will be required to submit a PM10
"Trip Generation, Sixth Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, based on Single Family Detached
(210) category.
P:\Greg T\SantaRosaEA-Add.wpd 1 J
Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity at the site. 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. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Avenue 58, as well
as the perimeter wall for this project, shall be installed with the first
phase of development.
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.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from buildout will not be significant
V. b) A cultural resource survey was completed for the proposed project2. Both a
records search and field survey were conducted. The study found that the
proposed project site is surrounded by a number of recorded sites, and the
likelihood of buried resources is high. The study, and the Historic Preservation
Commission recommend that the following mitigation measure be required:
2 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, prepared by CRM Tech, April 5, 2002.
P:\Greg T\SantaRosaEA-Add.wpd 2 �� 7
1. The Phase II archaeological testing and evaluation report shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for HPC approval
prior to recordation of the final tract map for the property. The property
shall be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor during on -site
and related off -site grubbing, grading, trenching, and excavation. The
final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of the first building permit.
The monitor shall be empowered to redirect activities on the site should
resources be located.
V. c) A paleontologic resource survey was completed for the proposed project site.
The study found that the likelihood of occurrence of Holocene invertebrate
fossils is high. The study, and the Historic Preservation Commission recommend
that the following mitigation measure be implemented:
1. A qualified paleontologic monitor shall be present on site during all
grubbing, earth moving and excavation activities both on and off -site.
The monitor shall be empowered to redirect activities on the site should
resources be located. A final report shall be submitted to the City on any
resources identified at the site.
VI. a) i) & ii)
A geotechnical Feasibility Report was prepared for the proposed project site3.
The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground
movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be
required to meet the City's and the State's standards for construction, which
include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. 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.
Vill. b)
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject
property. The proposed project will generate 33 single family homes. All homes
will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving
plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential
impacts to groundwater. The proposed tract 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.
Vill. d►
The proposed project has been designed to include on -site retention basins. The
City Engineer will require that these basins be designed to hold the 100 year
3 Geotechnical Feasibility Report, prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, November 16, 2001.
PAGreg T\SantaRosaEA-Add.wpd 3 J 2 3
storm. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a
storm. The project's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. These standards will reduce
the potential impacts associated with surface water to a less than significant
level.
XIII. a)
The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department,
under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax
which will help offset the costs of added police and fire services.
The project proponent 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.
024
PAGreg T\Santa Rosa EA-Add.wpd 4
F
Q
A
�
Uz
d AAW
a�aa�U
O�
UU
Q
�
O
OA
N
W
rn
b
cl
O
O
cd
.O U
N
Ch
U
Q
C
Q �'
l
v)
a a.
bA
�
Cd
o
o
U
U
U
U
CIS C.)
U
W
F
U
U
U aj
U
u
U
.y_, U
�
to
O Q U
U
1-4
a
a
as
a aa. �ioa
a
a
O�
H
z
6D
bD
w
w
b
�b
b
U
U
U
�
U Q GQ
PU
z
vir.
Cdol
4,
O
+'
O
0
b
E '
u
�
>,
Q
O
O
O
N
N
3
E
N
U
N
U
U
N
g
Y
G
3
d -
>
R
a
►-;
�,
u
o
o
a
H
d
A
UCA
a7 U
U
U
0
a�
h
U
Cd u
S U
cC tti
bA
O
cC
N
to
O
Q
00
a]
o
a O
D
®"
Q
rA
N
Cd
P.
O N
U Q
U
►0
O
U
d
O
W
CD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION of
9.78 ± ACRES INTO 33 ± SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER
COMMON LOTS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
AVENUE 58, APPROXIMATELY 0.3 MILES WEST OF
MADISON STREET
CASE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30489
APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California
did, on the 91h day of July, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a
request by Santa Rosa Development to create 33 single family and other common lots
on 9.78 ± vacant acres, located to the north of Avenue 58 and 1,620 ± feet west of
Madison Street, in a Low Density Residential (RL) Zoning District, more particularly
described as:
APN: 762-240-013 (FORMERLY 761-090-01 1)
SW 1 /4 OF THE SE 1 /4 OF SECTION 21, T6S, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public
hearing notice in the Desert Sun Newspaper on June 17, 2002, for the July 9, 2002
Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 13.12.100 (Public Notice
Procedure) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Public hearing notices were also mailed to
all property owners within 500 feet of the tract map site. To date, no comments have
been received from adjacent property owners; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has
completed Environmental Assessment 2002-442. 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 June 19, 2002, as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City's Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the
applicant's Paleontological and Cultural Resources Assessments on June 20, 2002,
determining additional field analysis and testing was required along with site
monitoring pursuant to adoption of Minute Motions 2002-014 and -015; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2002, 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
GAResoPC T30487 58th.wpd - Greg
J27
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Tentative Tract Map 30487, Santa Rosa Development
July 9, 2002
Page 2
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). 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 (3.3 ± dwelling units per acre) will
provide another type of housing market for La Quinta residents while not exceeding
the City's maximum density of four units per acre. Conditions are recommended
requiring on- and off -site improvements based on the City's General Plan Circulation
Element provisions.
The property is designated Low Density Residential (RL) and is consistent with the
City's General Plan Land Use Element. The 70' ± wide by 140' ± long lots exceed the
City's minimum of 7,200 square feet. No houses are proposed for the project under
this application. However, lots are big enough to support building detached housing
units that are a minimum size of 1,400 square feet excluding garage parking areas.
All plans for future single family homes shall be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code in effect at the time building permits are acquired. The development of
the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area.
Finding B - Site Design and Improvements
Infrastructure improvements to serve this project are located in the immediate area and
will be extended based on the recommended Conditions of Approval. The private cul-
de-sac street will provide access to each single family lot in compliance with City
requirements, as prepared. Additionally, emergency access is proposed between this
site and the parcel to the west to ensure compliance with Section 13.24.070 of the
Municipal Code.
Improvements on Avenue 58 will be guaranteed as required by the City's General Plan
Circulation Element at the time the final map is considered pursuant to Section
13.20.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Provisions shall be made to the map's
design to allow the project to be gated in the future through vehicle stacking and
turnaround areas.
GAResoPC T30487 58th.wpd - Greg
028
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Tentative Tract Map 30487, Santa Rosa Development
July 9, 2002
Page 3
The subdivision layout is consistent with the Land Use Vision Statement in the City's
General Plan, which focuses on the facilitation and integration of development, through
desirable character and sensitive design residential neighborhoods to enhance the
existing high quality of life.
Findings C through E - Compliance with the California Environmental Qaulity Act
Various environmental studies were prepared for this project, and after careful
evaluations, the Historic Preservation Commission and various City Departments have
determined that the proposed Map could not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment provided that recommended mitigation is required pursuant to
Environmental Assessment 2002-442.
Finding F - Public Health Concerns
The design of the proposed subdivision map and related improvements are not likely
to cause serious public health problems, in that responsible agencies have reviewed
the project for these issues with no significant concerns identified. The health, safety
and welfare of current and future residents can be assured based on the recommended
conditions, which serve to implement mitigation measures for the project. The Fire
Department has evaluated the length of street and finds no problem with its design
parameters.
Site improvements comply with City requirements, provided on -site water retention is
handled in common basins. Dust control measures shall be required during any further
on -site construction work as required by Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code. The site
is physically suitable for the proposed land division, as the area is flat and without
physical constraints, and the Map is consistent with other surrounding parcels.
That under the City's policy for parks and recreation development, found in the City's
General Plan, the City's goal is to provide three (3) acres of park land per 1,000
residents; this project will provide payment to the City for usable open space outside
the Tract's boundary which is allowed pursuant Chapter 13.48 of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Finding G - Site Design (Public Easements)
Public easements will be retained and required in order to construct any houses on the
proposed lots, ensuring adequate facilities for future homeowners in compliance with
Section 13.24.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
GAResoPC T30487 58th.wpd - Greg
02
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Tentative Tract Map 30487, Santa Rosa Development
July 9, 2002
Page 4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
said Planning Commission in this case; and
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2002-442 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 30487 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 9th day of July, 2002, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOTES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, Califcrnia
GAResoPC T30487 58th.wpd - Greg
n
L� J'�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract
Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion
in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative 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
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 1
0314.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
4. The applicant shaU 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 Nand, 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 of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by
the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation
to this project.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 2
0302
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order
throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been
accepted by the City.
5. The tentative map is valid for a two-year period, unless an extension is granted
per Section 13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements
and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of
the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to
dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for
maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
7. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-
ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Avenue 58 - Secondary Arterial, 88' R-O-W (44' half street width)
9. 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.
10. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Gre,g/Page 3
0 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
A. PRIVATE STREETS
Private Residential Streets: 36-foot travel width.
B. CUL DE SACS
1) Private Residential Cul-de-sac, 50' R-O-W
Use Riverside County Standard 800 for symmetrical Cul De Sacs and
a 38-foot face of curb radius.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-
ways as follows:
A. Avenue 58 (Secondary Arterial) - 10-foot from the Right-of-way or property
line.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 4
034
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
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.
16. 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.
17. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and
properties from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting
those access points shown on the Final Map.
18. 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.
19. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-
of-way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any
properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of-way
or access easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from the
affected property owners.
20. 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
21. 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.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 5
i33
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
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.
22. 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.
23. 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. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
C. On -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
D. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal
E. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show
all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall
& Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot
of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
24. 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.
25. 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
26. Prior to the conditional approval of any Final Map, or the issuance of any
permit(s), the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and
satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed
Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of
such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree
to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
27. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between
the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the
completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply
with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 7
IL►v7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
28. 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.
29. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to:
(1) construct certain off -site improvements, (2) construct additional off -site
improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others, (3) reimburse
others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be
an obligation of this tentative tract map, (4) secure the costs for future
improvements that are to be made by others, or (5) to agree to any combination
of these means, as the City may require.
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.
30. When improvements are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any conditional
approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall submit detailed
construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements,
including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and
approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost
schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall
be approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
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.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 8
��.7iU
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
31. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or
fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City
shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building
inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project,
or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
32. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
33. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtaon a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
34. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
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.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
35. 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.
36. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape
areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
37. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than
three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the
differential shall not exceed five feet.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may
consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance
difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
38. 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.
39. 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.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/GregtPage 10
L 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
DRAINAGE
40. 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 runoff.
41. The applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter
13.24.120 (Drainage), sub -section "K.", LQMC. Stormwater shall normally be
retained in common retention basin(s) as shown on the Tentative Tract Map.
42. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rete shall be two inches
per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant
provides site specific data indicating otherwise.
43. Nuisance water shall be retained on site through an acceptable manner as
approved by the City Engineer.
44. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved
by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
45. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall not exceed six feet
and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1.
46. 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.
47. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page I I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
48. 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.
49. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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
54. 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.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
55. 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.
56. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Avenue 58 - (Secondary Arterial) - 88' R/W and 64' Curb to Curb
Width:
Widen the north side of the street along the frontage adjacent to the
Tentative Tract Map boundary. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct
existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it
from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial
design standard. Street widening improvements shall include all
appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter,
traffic control striping, legends, and signs, except for street lights.
Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or
adjacent, to the subject right of way include:
(a) 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The 6 foot wide meandering
sidewalk shall be completed with the Tract Improvements.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Cul-de-Sac Street - Construct full improvements for a 36 foot wide
(curb to curb) street section as shown on the Tentative Map. The
private cul-de-sac shall be constructed to Riverside County Standard
800 for symmetrical Cul-de-sacs, and shall be constructed with a 38-
foot curb radius, measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 13
�43
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
57. The entry street shall be designed to accommodate a gated entry. The design
shall provide for a two -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound traffic; and
shall provide for a full turnaround outlet for non -entry accepted vehicles.
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 Avenue 58.
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.
58. 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
Collector
Secondary Arterial
Primary Arterial
Major Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
4.0"/5.00"
4.0"/6.00"
4.5"/6.00"
5.5"/6.50"
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
59. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
A. Primary Entry: Right in, right out and left in, left out turning movements.
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.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
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.
62. Corner cutbacks shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawing #805,
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. The developer and subsequent property owner shall
continuously maintain all required landscaping in a healthy and viable condition
as required by Section 9.60.240 (E3) of the Zoning Ordinance.
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.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
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. Compliance
with the requirements of Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the
Muncipal Code is required.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
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.
69. Trees shall be staked with 1.5-inch diameter lodge poles to protect against
damage from gusting winds.
70. Prior to building permit issuance, a front yard landscape plan shall be prepared for
each homesite to include a minimum of two shade trees (15 gallon with 0.75
caliper), five ten-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. No more than 50% of the front
yard area shall be devoted to lawn.
71. Parkway shade trees shall be delivered to the site in 24" or larger boxes with
minimum 1.25-inch calipers. Trees shall be a minimum height of ten feet once
installed. Parkway palm trees shall have a minimum brown trunk height of eight
feet. Existing site vegetation on the project's perimeter shall be retained in place,
unless noted otherwise on the grading plan. Any mature trees and palms that are
relocated during construction shall be evaluated by a licensed arborist prior to
replanting.
PUBLIC SERVICES
72. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 16
�P v
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
QUALITY ASSURANCE
73. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. 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
77. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
78. 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
79. 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
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 17
047
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
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.
80. 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).
81. The developer shall pay school mitigation fees to the Coachella Valley Unified
School District based on their requirements. Fees shall be paid prior to building
permit issuance by the City.
82. Within ten days of Planning Commission's decision, the property owner/developer
shall submit to the Community Development Department a check made out to the
County of Riverside in the amount of $64.00 to permit the filing and posting of
EA 2002-442 (DeMinimus) after final review by the City Council.
83. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.48 (Park
Dedications), LQMC.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Conditions are subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within twelve (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.
84. Approved standard fire hydrants, located at each street intersection and spaced
not more than 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165
feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour
duration at 20 psi.
85. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with
fire hydrants.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 18
'i4�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
86. Gates entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the travel
lanes. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at
least 35'-0" setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop
without obstructing traffic on the road. Where one way road with a single traffic
lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 40-foot turning radius shall be used.
87. 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. A separate pedestrian access gate is also required.
88. 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.
89. 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.
90. The minimum dimension for access roads is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width
and a minimum clearance of 13'-6" in height.
MISCELLANEOUS
91. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file
documents for plan checking purposes.
92. All mitigation measures included in Environmental Assessment 2002-442 are
hereby included in this approval.
93. Design guidelines for housing product shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission per Section 9.60.330 (Tract Development) or Section
9.60.340 (Custom Homes) of the Zoning Ordinance.
94. A permit from the Community Development Department is required for any
temporary or permanent tract signs.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 19
i4?
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30487
SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JULY 9, 2002
95. Prior to final inspection of any tract housing units, a perimeter tract wall shall be
constructed. The final design and location of decorative wall shall be approved
by the Community Development Department.
96. Prior to submitted the Final Map for plan check consideration, the following
corrections and/or information shall be provided:
A. Two copies of the draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and
R's). The City Attorney shall approve the document prior to approval of the
final map by the City Council.
B. A minimum of three street names shall be submitted for each private street
shown on the Map exhibit. A list of the names in ranking order shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for approval.
G:\condTM30487SantaRosa.wpd/Greg/Page 20
,�5)
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 1 �a
S� 6p
I 4y O
3
20 19 64 AC
7� y ILL-
TRA 020.060 / �V i6R• V1
73006 33007 M
rRA CIM 040 PM 75155 TRA 620.073
PAR T PAR 2 e
4 A05 AC GR m4.65 AC GR
4'53ACNT 454ACNr P, (�•1
#� 11 12 13 14 15 o J6
170°� a I 37so3 976AC 978AC j7.0 1955RC: 25 BBagC
PART <� le PAR4
_ Osi lS IO '5ACGR I SACGR Nor h4. 61 AC NT 1461ACNT -o
ee
11
1 21 22
n req vas 30 370 of
_ LA UMTA ITy LIMITS
11[[ �"---------Q
v 28 1 27
VDo
PM 19/77 PARCEL MAP NO. 6377
Case: Tentative Tract Ma48o PM 75/65-66 PARCEL MAPN0.8834 `k0OZ
I May 2000
of Coachella, California, United StateS 26 sepVMUSGS
4 41"A o
_•�f
ii"kC try •d' o":4t>:K,,ai'• h�a �:
Al
??+^xr--.�,. ':v� �'<'x:�. e��'y'r% ; � ^v"''4%�';'`•�•'' 'o°"zse<,,s�._tx ,'
`Y
..3'.'t � e '.�,,• �. �.n;;Y�;d3.xv {. `..i'.i:: v <'a'��gtaFM�%'IIGG
'..�.. ..}n: ...,.i._..2.LN«.: ^)t•�x:C.�`A. "fn:AI" 'K,r3��+•'. a'"'+F'x` .,'•'
' 4. :3 J �' S:{its. °`>Oe.:. ,;.•txaZaq'.u:(:'%• 'J'W.
,.'css� h.:�' ,.. ^t•:'•,.4aitr� `' ``r'r^� .. of S�:.ryk:.. Y"C: '�'�..�. � :e 5rw'n.' 1�^
3%
:4
:
B. ';t;• :i*�£L '6i^' ���'� ' `� n �� asr¢;"ra..,'^i: ...:: .q. � Ys;ry.., r 4� • :}
Y.
.,d.:'�''' . �L�u`.k_yY� : R .a.., t: .s; �j`e,[7• :R`�.7;<;.;:':�:^e: ' .e'y�."oeK:.. �'�'• . ,
... t, a.'d" ,W :..t; ...,, _ b.. c"^aerr: e>+ ;y4.'.•yv:'xr,..,:,!`...' :.;,� k'yy>..
:nY,•5 t' Skda:•o-i ",'wi Y M:�i ::
a`�f.;ai :S
' dkirt�:.(1=z$:' • I'T'<i.«f a�fi u:is'ir.�?�'.
„� 5 :,
sXa$ . ?�.,�; '„��•i?z �' 't;:��>. ,kr:i ix. �.i,,xr.;; ,z. `_�^c.,:•v..: atia�r3A r'^
AZN
^:.:a%,st:,�,�a. , �Y�'tt'<'•.n`„�H,S:y,>
S 1.
k:..
5 <e' a. ,.��'�,
t:x ..sty.'' ,` S., )..:Q' `%:' ^'4! �:'" • �:£ YS:.,,..aa �"1'wr
M
,
; �., r. �. e "'�•'.�,Y35�r'^r+4�eV.• i. .'4,,�: •,:,.<.'.��.f'. ':\. .. C+( ,....
Six; ..:. • :.�.'. ••ems. m`.'•.'t,•SA. r;. ..„.t:•mv �:5:.: :. .. ... .. .. .. ... ...... ..�)�.::w'•Rr+Ya`h.:.w.. .., .. a?tarn
Image courtesy of the US Geological Survey.
Metai-ate W `13,11622SE-:P f:-enteF l._ ,r�,1..�3�--1.1.6,25390,3:3.628 6 Running "i €s-•1e .1.6
ia a 21.E; ?0 � a . 2 �r 2 � ,..c �71., * J�2 :2 c
: 3E ;
-is ffI
+r3�
Attachment 2
�
� � U 37 9W'
0 $
— S71J'
y
,J9.66
$ - �I.o Ic' •I -
o
�`� v � xaN als • aN :.
Pp .O.i14016
LI^ �-I V p6o tea'• oe O ^i (- _-_�� 1 ,
AI
4015
Iail
bN 8 b
r g c 1
i 11z e a s N
IIQ N"
8 ; Cl1 s m
Co
h ;" o ��•• s . vs N o ;b. •�
♦ IIl.H9' •
r'¢9s
11 9 `
• g BOTTON.S8.5 •'T BOncIM-585 :"•''.
IJ 51' 1 : ICo
o flww
4007
.,I o��=mow 8 .• �,......
•w140 G6' 8 €'•G`1.O IJ__
'49
Co
Co
BOTTOM.570 BoTT0Y.57,0 .••�!� •• 8
.•
' 12 Q' I S e9'
N _ 5H9•b'23'll'-J
3JOI3'
I' 's Mh A.VENOE`�
'—� Z�-,
,
B I #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 9, 2002
CASE NO: COMPATIBILITY REVIEW
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: JAI NETTIMI
REQUEST: COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR A DECK IN THE REAR YARD OF
AN EX►STING TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
LOCATION: 79-390 PASEO DEL REY (ALISO AT LA QUINTA)
ENGINEER: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: EXEMPT.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (RL).
BACKGROUND:
To date, the applicant has not submitted detailed dimensioned drawings and has
requested a continuance to allow him additional time to provide the drawings.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Continue the item to the July 23, 2002, Planning Commission meeting.
Prepared by:
Martin Magana
Associate Planner
PCstfrpt.nettimi2.wpd
Page 1 of 1
•
� C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 9, 2002
CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2002-627
APPLICANT: IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY (MR. JIM ENGLE)
PROPERTY(
OWNER: RINKER COMPANY
REQUEST: SIGN PROGRAM FOR PARCEL 2 RETAIL BUILDING AT DUNE
PALMS PLAZA (FORMERLY LAPIS ENERGY; SP 96-028)
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DUNE PALMS ROAD/HIGHWAY 111
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER
CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
BACKGROUND:
Site History
On February 4, 1997, the La Quinta City Council approved Site Development Permit
96-590, one of four applications filed by Lapis Energy Organization for the referenced
site. Subsequently, revisions to the site layout, building design and additional building
area for Allstate Self Storage were approved, and more recently, an amendment to
the specific plan was approved for a 23,200 s.f automotive retail facility on Parcel 2,
located between Allstate and the fueling station.
Currently, the fueling station building is completed and final inspections are pending.
Chevron Oil will be the operator. The 23,200 s.f. building to be on Parcel 2 is under
construction. The Allstate Self Storage facility on Parcel 3 is completed.
The sign program as presently constituted consists primarily of text and drawings
which govern the general type, location and installation of signs for the Dune Palms
Plaza project as a whole.
PROPOSAL.:
The applicant has prepared a sign program which sets forth graphic and text
standards and other requirements for the proposed sign elements. The applicant
proposes criteria for the Parcel 2 building, to address future building mounted tenant
signs. Tenant signs are all to be building mounted, and shown mounted at base
heights of 12 feet on the main facades, and 10 feet on the shed -roofed facades. No
sign locations are shown for the east and south building elevations. Letter design is
an illuminated channel letter with plexiglas facing and aluminum returns and trim cap.
Colors are the same as set forth in the Specific Plan sign program except green has
been added. Letter size is to be no larger that 24 inches for single -line copy and 10
inches for double -line copy. The text line height in both instances is set at 24 inches.
Sign area is limited to 25 feet in length, allowing a maximum of 50 square feet.
Also proposed are two double-faced monument signs for the center; one to be
located on Parcel 1 (Chevron) at Highway 111, the other along Dune Palms Road in
front of the building. These will be the main center identification monuments, with six
tenant panel inserts on both sides of each sign. The monuments as shown are not to
exceed 50 square feet each, at a maximum height of 8 feet. Each sign is
approximately 6' across x 8' high x 2' wide, with one located on Highway 111
toward the northeast project corner, and the other along Dune Palms Road, in front
of the subject building.
ANALYSIS:
1. The sign criteria proposed under this program address the conditions which
apply to sign design, location and installation for the building on Parcel 2, and
monument signing for the main center identification. The entire center has an
approved sign program as part of the Specific Plan adopted for it. Therefore,
these criteria must be consistent with the Specific Plan provisions, as well as
the City sign code.
2. The Specific Plan's sign program limits letter height to a maximum of 18
inches. in order to meet this requirement, double -line copy letter size could
allow a maximum of 12 inches, maintaining a 4-inch separation. A 24-inch x
24-inch logo box would still be acceptable
3. The proposed Sign Program allows corner tenants and two or more contiguous
suites, to have two signs up to an aggregate 50 square feet. Chapter 9.160
(Signs) only permits this for individual buildings (i.e. single tenant). This was
permitted in the La Quinta Court Sign Program, but only in instances where the
storefront faced away from Highway 1 1 1, the opposing wall facing the
Highway would be allowed an additional sign. This building has tenant space
facing Dune Palms Road all along it's frontage, and neither end wall faces a
common parking area or street, as required under Chapter 9.160.
4. The monument signs as shown are in compliance with the Sign Regulations.
Due to the pricing signs required for the Chevron station along Highway 111,
there is no center identification along that frontage. As a center with a Specific
Plan, it is considered to be an individual entity for that purpose and can be
permitted a sign as proposed on Highway 111. The Parcel 2 building
monument is allowed along the Dune Palms Road frontage. Parcel 2 is also
permitted one-third of the Highway 111 monument space under the Dune
Palms Plaza Specific Plan.
FINDINGS:
• Sign Application 2002-627 is consistent with the purpose and intent of
Chapter 9.160, and the approved Sign Program for Dune Palms Plaza,
in that the number and location of signs proposed with said Application
are consistent with said Chapter and Sign Program.
• Sign Application 2002-627 is consistent with and visually related to all
signs incorporated under said Application, as colors, sign design criteria
and location have been considered in the sign design and demonstrated
to allow unique sign options while maintaining basic uniformity among
the proposed signs.
• Sign Application 2002-627 is consistent with and visually related to the
buildings proposed in the Dune Palms Plaza, through incorporation of
colors and materials common to said buildings and as set forth in the
Sign Program.
• Sign Application 2002-627 is consistent with and visually related to
surrounding development.
Adopt Minute Motion No. 2002- , approving Sign Application 2002-627, subject
to compliance with the following requirements:
1 . Amend "Specifications for Building signs", Note under #6, to read that double -
line copy may be a maximum of 12 inches.
2. Delete #15 under "Specifications for Building signs".
3. Incorporate all drawings into the sign program.
v
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Proposed Sign Concepts and Sign Program Text
2. Approved Sign Program - Dune Palms Plaza
0 •
Dune Palms Plaza
Sign Program
Sign Program
The purpose of this Sign Program is to assure coordination and compatibility between all signs within the
Sign Program area. As such, the Sign Program is intended to address placement, color, style, sign
material, and their consistency on the property. Although the Sign Program exhibits establish the letter
and sign dimensions, the Sign Program is not intended to substitute dimensional requirements for those
provided in Chapter 9.160. of the City Zoning Ordinance.
Applicability:
A Sign Program is a coordinated signage plan for an individual building or a group of buildings. For
those signs requiring a program, no permit shall be issued for a for an individual sign unless and until a
Sign Program for the lot on which the sign will be erected has been submitted and approved by the City in
conformance with the City Ordinance.
General Requirements:
All signs shall be constructed, installed and maintained in accordance with the following standards:
1. All sign(s) shall comply with the sign program, meet the provisions of the Uniform Building
Code be maintained in good structural condition and appearance and must be Underwriters
Laboratory (U.L.) and bear the U.L. Listing.
2. The tenant and/or the tenant's contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any and
all permits required.
3. Upon removal of the signage, the former tenant shall be responsible
for the removal of the signage, including: sealing, patching and painting.
4. No audible, flashing, animated, moving, pulsating, electronic and/or search lighting
or sign(s) not specifically mentioned herein shall be permitted.
It is the responsibility of Owner or Owners representative to verify all
conduit locations and services prior to installation of sign(s).
6. No exposed raceway raceways, crossovers, conductors, transformers, etc. shall be
permitted.
7. Sign Contractor must have the following: General Liability Insurance, Workers
Compensation, and a Contracting License.
ATTACHMENT 1
_ F/
8. Sign labels that pertain to Construction and Installation shall be permitted.
9. Penetrations of the building structure required by installation(s) shall be sealed.
10. Sign Contractor shall verify all field conditions prior to installation(s).
11. Sign(s) shall have access and/or adequate "crawl -space" for inspection(s) and
servicing.
12. No live or simulated animals or humans may be used as signage.
13. No sign(s) shall be permitted that propose a nuisance or hazard.
14. No exposed neon shall be permitted.
15. Roof sign(s) or projected sign(s) shall not be permitted.
16. Billboards or advertising displays/structures not located on the building
shall be permitted or not specifically mentioned herein, shall not be permitted.
17. Sign(s) that project onto the public right-of-way shall not be permitted.
Specifications for Building signs:
1. Signage shall be internally illuminated Channel lettering.
2. Letter face to be Plexiglas (1/8" thick).
Color Options: Green, Red, Blue or Black/White.
3. Lettering casing/shell shall be pre -painted aluminum approximately .040
or equal.
4. Letter return shall be pre- painted aluminum approximately .040
or equal.
Color Options: Bronze or Black
5. Letter type style shall be Helvetica or equal (Medium).
6. Lettering may be single or double line copy.
Note: Single line to be a minimum of 12" and a maximum or 24"
Double line copy to be a minimum of 10" and maximum of 10"
copy -- 4" in center.
7. Letter trim -cap (3/4")
Color Options: Gold or Bronze.
8. Sign illumination may range from 4500 - 6500 neon or equal with
30 MA transformers.
9. Lettering to reveal a 5" return/depth.
10. Sign may have logo cabinet i.e. ( 24" by 24" box with
slightly rounded corners with vinyl lettering -- Ivory Plexiglas). Logo shall
not exceed the combined letter height and/or height of letter.
Color Options: Green, Red, Blue or Black/White
11. Sign shall be centered within designated area.
12. Sign square footage not to exceed Isq/ft per lineal ft of building frontage.
(Maximum 25 sq/ft for one sign -- not exceeding 50 sq/ft for two signs).
13. Signage length not to exceed 75% of leasehold.
14. Signage shall have shall be equal distant top and bottom
15. If 2 or more contiguous suites are leased or corner front, a second sign is
allowed. Sign(s) may not exceed 25 square feet or an aggregate of 50 sq. ft.
16. Signs shall be encompassed by a straight-line geometric figure, which encloses
the extreme limits to determine sign square footage.
17 Signage must be within dimensioned limits.
18. See exhibits for material and location requirements.
Specifications for monument signs:
1. Two monument signs per complex shall be permitted.
2. Sign(s) shall be a maximum of 50 sq/ft. per sign. If two signs are permitted,
then the total can not exceed 100 sq ft.
3. Sign(s) not to exceed 8 feet from finish grade.
4. Sign(s) shall be double sided.
5. Sign(s) to be internally illuminated by fluorescent lighting.
0 9
6. Sign(s) to be opaque with translucent copy.
Letter face to be Plexiglas (1/8`J.
Color Options: Green, Red, Blue, Black/White.
7. Sign(s) to be stuccoed to match building color(s).
8. Monument sign(s) to have removable copy.
(Maximum 6 tenants -- divider to be painted to match building color).
9. Sign(s) shall be constructed out of aluminum .040 or equal and iron.
10. Letter type style shall be Helvetica or equal (Medium).
11. Lettering may be single or double line copy.
Note: Copy to be equal with visual opening of sign and centered within
the designated area. No projections above or below new sign panels
will be permitted.
12. See exhibits for material and location requirements.
Specifications for window signs (Secondary)
1. 1 per frontage.
2. Not to exceed 3 sq/ft.
3. Copy shall be vinyl lettering.
4. Lettering to be at least P in height.
5. Lettering type to be Helvetica (Medium).
6. Lettering to be face or second surface mount.
7. Hours of operation may be displayed but are considered in the
square footage.
Submittal Requirements:
A sign application consistent with this program shall consist of the following:
For each proposed sign application on the building, the following shall be specified or
drawn to scale and dimensioned plans:
a) a dimensioned location of each sign in the building and/or property.
b) sign dimensions including letter height, color, sign length and sign projection
from the building.
c) color scheme.
d) type style or graphic style.
e) materials being used.
D method of installation/attachment/cross section.
All permits for sign(s) and their installation shall be obtained by the Owner and/or
its representative. Dune Palms Center and/or its representative shall satisfy all
requirements and specifications herein.
Binding effect:
No sign shall be erected, constructed, installed, displayed, altered, placed or maintained except in
conformance with this program. In case of any conflict between the provisions of this program and any
other provisions of Chapter 9.160 of the City Zoning ordinance, the City Zoning Ordinance shall prevail.
Approvals:
The design and construction of the tenant's signage must receive written approval by the owner or the
Management Company and the City of La Quinta before fabrication and installation. The owners' or
managers' written approval shall be submitted to the City, along with a completed City application,
approved plans, and fees.
Owner's approval shall be based of the following:
1. Conformity to the Sign Program established for the center including fabrication and method of
installation.
2. Complete information, i.e. contractor's name, company name, address, license number, and
workers compensation number.
To secure the owners approval, three (3) copies of the design drawing of the signage must be submitted
directly to the owner or Management Company.
Final Inspection of Sign Installation:
The installing sign contractor shall call the City for a final inspection after having
installed the sign.
2. Final Inspection Card must be obtained on file with Sign Contractor.
K to
A
.ZNO
Q
,�um0
�VO�(Xn9
INZ�Q
LL.
m I � to
ilim
� � 1
In
N
ClLO
O� X
N X.
v z OO
�t1.
C NOILDIS AdONd:D
�,0-�� 119-12L
Z N01133S AdONdO
if
N 3 H 31
13
►p
iW N
�HQ�K
�NCj
�'o<
c �
�N�n<
3 �
q3C�
E
O �X
N
0 .
y�d
U p
70
z
;-►14
is
C
a.+
a.LO
EM
O �
v IP
C M
CO
�40
b.
o.
E
M
N
N
N
ON
V
Q
F—
Z
ce
a
W
T O
�4M
w
uU
ZW
z
2
z
W
z
O
z W
W w
LL
z w
z
w (S)
ZoLo
o
Z
0 0 LLI
z W
le�cjW
< owoo
m ZZ
U o
DL LL N Z
O
W
� N
O = (D
� m
J zW Cfl !j[
LuLLso
wWo
Z J U
Q Q
= Z o U
UW=) 1—
�Ul
M LLI ;
¢�ZL ll1
z C LLI
LU
2 T�
N J �i■
Z
Zptfl Cn
O�AC W
Q U 0
LL
gyp "W
Q LL LLI p Q
iL W
O f�-
Q W
U
.72
i1L
H
LL
w
Lu �we3
~ N p N
LLI Q)v ? o
W T)
J = Z
Zw(Z)-jNO
Z w U J p=
= OIL z W C�
p J W p w W
�z(,Dm z
ON
�0 Qzp
m
�-
Q
r-I
L-A
i
t;
c
A
co
Cto
Em
o�
La �
C M
y
to
P
as
CL
E
M
Ln
N
N
ON
a
V
F-
Z
a
w
Z
2
U
Q
J
O
W
�N
v O
W rz
J
W [fl 11L
W WLU O
Z J U
Qm z
Z
LUM W
� OL
zd'
�
WLN
Z
J per[ OQL
Z O �
U O
U W
�Qo
>LLI �
��
O
U
Q
U
OL
H
E--
z
W
Z
O
Z W
W
z
Lij C)
Z z
o E w
z W
L X
(n W
OO w �O
D u- O
� N Z
O
z
Q 2 U
W
J
W
W
(n
W
IN-
0
U.
W Ul
DZ DZ Q
I d LU
N p
Lu Z Q o Z
W In
LLI
Z ~ � J N O
zwouWnF-
2 pL Z m W
U xUx Z
O J W O 11J W
W O J
Z kD O O Z
Z W Z►LHjD
` O N
O Z
H
J Z3 Q
r1
L_J
d
uj
0
=
LL1
I 1 L
cs
C
A
C �
R�
aca E
r
ii
_m
I/ W
CD
a
E
M
Ln
N
N
Oo
V
1a"
5
Q�
J
09
a
W
Z
T
Z®
d m
:E 00
o
V�
.L
Y ^
Z�
oe �
�J
•aN wIda G�Nno
L*IVA INI
W 9NILIGX3
D<Z� £,
x
td
U
m
OL
O
w
N
ABC
O
w zz
wm�
O
wwo
Z U
Q z
= :z ZZ
p W F-
QazLLI
(D OZ
Zc�,
� � Z
m
zo
o0o
U
U W p
L.QO
vLC)
UJ x DL
LIJ
O
U
Q
U
ll�L
O
Q
Z
N
U
w M
—.
■■
J
�■
LLI
�C
L.Li_ ."�
SEENJ
■■
•
F- U.
W
'
■
o
�r
IN-
■
z
0
QRti
■
■
Z
■■
__�
w
®■
NEE
W W (25
N
F- >.
WZZ� o
�QQW?L
cc
®■
iw
SEEN
-I N O
Z ZZ 0
Z WUWp�-UJ
Ej
Z
ciME
LIJ =
=D�LZmW(3
a
3
®_■
p J J
■
W p W
F- Lli z J OL O Z
z
N
W
W
®■
®■
Z WZLLI,
O N
U
E
D
Q
O X
O
W
J
N
J
NJ
v
C
Ln
N
N
ON
V
_z
Q
uj
D
In
Ap
�4M
00
�0
LW
Ibe
�Z^
of V
aww?1 HIVA GINna
YW INI'•
'
JNLLISX3
LU
z
a
x
~LLI
N X
w�� O N
m U
UJLU
J _.
z _ 2 him ®_■
UWDZ J ®�
LuC�j _ ®E
Q�flL � R
z d w
LLJ IL
=wo
C, oW
zoo o' _
�U� Cz �♦
U
ti Q
U LL U Q
� UJ
■
H LU ®�
(n 2
�x a�
wNp�wC'S
w¢z¢�Zo �!®�
w-� 0; IN
w��zZ Lij (-) LLI d °z
10001
Ml
ZpLpJNU
= El z
W%,
DZZm�� �...M_E
U)
0o Jnu'%J z n � m ®■
04 zWz�o%s) LLJ
U N ME
o O O N O X ��
ZD
3
LU
Q
I N
09-13-@1 14:27 City of LaQuinta Comm.Dev.Dept ID= 766 777 1233
P.88
PROJECT a DON8 PALLS Cmrm
BIGMY 111 i DUNE PALMS RD.
LA QUINTAv CA
SIGN CRITERIA
THIS CRITERI7l HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
CONTINUITY WITH ALL NRW SIGNS FOR THIS LOCATION.
:.. ALL PERMITS FOR NEW SIGNS AND THEIR INSTALTJLTION SHALT. BE
OBTAINED BY DUNE PALS! CTR. OR ITS RSP'RLSENTATIVEt ALONG
WITH THE SUHMITTAL OF DRAWING TO THE LA QUINTA PI.AMUNG AND
BUILDING DEPARTMENTS.
2. DUNE PALMS CTR. OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF ALL MQUIREMENTS AM SPRCIFICATIONS
SET FORTH IN THIS E,XHIHIT.
B. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
1. NO AU1318U p FLASHING OR ANIMATED SIGNS WILL BE plawTTED.
2. NO PROJECTIONS ABOVE OR BELOW NEW SIGN PANELS WILL BY
PERMITTED. EACB NEW SIGN MUST BE WITHIN DIM MSIOHBD LIMITS
AS INDICATED.
3. IT IS THB RESPONSIBILITY OF riUM PALMS CT'R. TO VSRiFY ALL
CONDUIT LOCATIONS AND SERVICP.S PRIOR TO PARRICATION FOR NXW
SIGNS.
4. ALL NEW SIGNS AND THEIR INSTALLATION MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
I4C.AL BUILDING AND X:LELTRICAL CODES AND BEAR AN O.L. XJUM
IN AN IMCONSPICUOUS LOCATION.
5. no EXPOSRD RA=WAYS, CROSSOVERS* CONDUCTORSe TRANSFORMERS,
r=. SHALL BE PERMITTED FOR iM SIGNS.
6. VUNF PALMS CTR. SHALL BE RESPONSI$LE FOR "M INSTALLATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL SIGNS.
7. ALL N= SIGNS ARE TO BE INSTALLED UNDER THR DIAWTION OF
THE PROJECT SIGN CONTRACTOR OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
8. SIGN CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY HIS 'WQRR.
`1} ATTACHMENT # 2
PAGE 1 OF 4
09-13-01 14:28 City of LaQuinta Comm.Dev.Dept ID= 750 777 1233 P-09
• C. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS- WALL SIGNS/CWkNNEL LMM!ERS
1. NO LABELS WILL BE PERMITTED ON THE EXPOSED SURFACE OF NElf
SIGNS, EXCEPT THOSE REQUIRED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE MUM SHALL
BE PLACED IN AN INCONSPICUOUS LOCATION.
2. DESIGN, LAYOUT AND MATERIALS FOR DUNE PALLS CPR. SHALL COWPORM IN
ALL RESPECTS WITH THIS CRITERIA.
3. ALL PEIiVMTIONS OF THE BUILDING STRUCTURE REQUIRED FOR NEW
INSTALLATIONS SHAY-1 BE SEALED IN A WATERTIGHT CONDITION MW
SHALT, BE PATCHED TO MATCH ADJACENT FINISH.
4. THU FACE OF SIGN TO RR CONSTRUCTED OF 1/8 'TBICX ACRYLIC FACES
WITH GOLD TRIM CAP. SIGNS TO DR CONSTRUCTED OF 22 GAUGE SBBET
METAL, PAINT= TAX. FACE COLOR: RM, BLUE, YELLOW, WEITZ OR CORP.
COLORS, SUBJECT TO PLANNING REVIEW-
5. INTERNAL ILLUMINATION OF SIGHS TO BE NEON WITH 30 !!A. TRANSFORMERS.
6. ALL KJW. SIGNS ARE TO. HAVE SERVICE ACCESS TO LAMPS, BALLASTS
AND WIRING.
7.. SIGN CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS BEFORE
INSTALLING NEW SIGNS.
8. NO LOGO SHALL BE LARGER TITAN 4' TALI" AND 4 " IrONGM THAN THE
CHANNSV LETTERS USED IN SIGN. NO LOGOS SION MAY BE INSTALLED
ON CANOPY, EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW.
9. LETTER HEIGHT TO HIS 180 MAXIMUM ACID 12' MINIMUM. SIGN LBbl=
RIOT To MECEBD 751 OF STORE ENTRANCE. SIGH SIZE TO BE
CALCULATED 09 1 SQ. FT. OF SIGN AREA PER 1 LINEAiR FT. OF
BUILDING FRONTAGE. (SEE PROVIDED EXHIBIT)
10. RI.L WAM SIGNS I'M AUTO SERVICE CENTER SHALL BE INSTALLED AS
SROWN IN ATTACBED DRAWING.
D. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS --MONUMENT SIGH
1. ALL NLPW FASTENINGS ARE TO BE CONCEALED AND BE OF GALVANIZED,
STAINLESS OR ALUMINUM METALS.
2. NO LABELS WILL HE PERMITTM) ON THE EXPOSED SURFACE OP NEW
SIG1lS, EXCEPT THOSE REQUIRED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE WHICH SHALL
BE PLACED IN AN INCONSPICUOUS LOCATION.
3. DESIGN, LAYOUT AND MATERIALS FOR COMPLEX SIGNS SHALL CONFORM
IN ALL RESPECTS VITO THIS CRITERIA.
4. THE OVERALL H*ZIGHT OF THE MONUMENT SIGN SHALL DR 8' - 0 0 .
5. THE FACE OF THE MONUMEIA1' SIGN SHALL 11E 3/16' . S-100
POLYCARBONATE PLASTIC AND THE HOUSING SHALL BE 22 GAUGE
SHRET METAL.
6. ALL NEW .SIGNS ARE TO HAVE SERVICE ACCESS TO LAWS, BALLAST AND
WIRINg_
(2)
PAGE 2 OF 4
69-13-01 14:28 City of LaQuinta Comm•Dev•Dept ID= 750 777 1233 P.19
7. SIGN CONTRACTOR SBALL VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS BEFORE
pMUFACTtlRING NEW SIGNS.
g. INTFd3NAL ILLUMINATION OF THE MONUMENT SIGN IS TO BE FLAORSSCSW.
9. COLOR FOR ALL SIDS: RED, BLUE, YELLOW, MITE OR CORP. COLORS"
SOBJwT TO FLhNmING Rmsw.
10. PARCBLSHAVING
NAITUM
OM
SIIGFEONUUMM SIGN FCNGTHE INTERSECTIONt TO
ExCwm 50 SQ.rT.
L?. OTHER CRITMIA/REQUIRFMMTS
1. AUTO SERVICEITA�„L TENANT SIGNS 1/3 SHALL COMPLY WITS SIGN
1�S PER
CRITERIA.
2. GAS STATIOV/*ijlI-XhRT SIG14AGE SUBJECT TO THIS SIGH QUTBRIA AM
IS SIJB►7 ,CT y STATE AND GOV" Thu+ I .AMING pSPT. FOR AUDITI02�I.
SIGNAL
(3)
PAGE 3 OF 4
09-13-01 14:28 City of LtiQuitllr, COMIn.Dr?v -Dept ID= 7E0 777 1233 P.11
r `
P. FROBIBITM si0116
1. 1LA88=MG, MVIVG, PUL.SATIIIO OR IUTUXITTZWLY LICK= SIGNS,
INCLUDING SURCHLIGRTB, ZXCEI"T AtUSLIC SMVICR SIGNS SOCS AS
TNO6l< DI88IA13MG TXM AM T=r=ATtT -
2. VaN $,a=.. WHICH CONFLICT WITH AM Ti IPIC COIRl'lROL VWIClt WX
To COLOR, WORDING, DESIGN, LOCATION ON ILLLA/IIiA?IDS. OIL WITH
=9 SATs. BTYICIErr TLOM 01 VZHICULM OR PLDXVMAN TAA"M
9. ANIMALS Olt 11iTW M 88IMG6, LIVE C* S1KU1.ATM'VTl14zZD ^S SIGNS.
6. IAMDOVNAXMS. OR SI6MS WHIM MIT SOOMP ODOR OIL VI61MA
MATTUR.
5. iCAY. MOaIE L7fT SIGMB. INCLUDING XLECTRourc 21"IRHOARDS.
6. M" SIGNS AND "DJUCTING SiliI1S.
i• I31Tmov TY OF LIGHT. 110 sacra
SYP08RU NNW 682=MGs PERMI'lT�.
i • SITE 6I�I116S OR SING �INCLUDING
INSTMjjo TOit THE PURPOSEO/ADVSRTISIM6 A
FAWWT, SUWWT OR Rusin" UNRUATI M TO Tim PIMISMS
UPON W81(3 Tam SIGN IS LOCAM.
9 • NATUU MICE ARZ NOT PERXhvzwrLV ATTACMEM TO "M 30110190 C
amoulm.
10. SIGNS CM AM MR&IC PROPOM OR P3t0JECT1"G UlTHI11 TAM VCSLIC
AIG"V OT vAY, MICBPT POLITICAL SIGNS AM 'ldOB R R> WXAM By
LSM, TM SWTION SBALL Am FROAIBIT TES PLAcna T ON
AVMTISING ON PULDIC SERVICE ITMS INCLUDING TRA88 �PTJ►CLB6.
M
BIC31" R11 UO BUS STOS ZZNCSES. TRANSIT SMTM AND
TZLRPHONR BOOTHS WITRIM THS PUBLIC RIMT OF "AT M Rawls=
(4)
PAGE 4 OF 4.
Better Cities — A Better Life
'ummer 2002
.ontents
'resident's Message ................ 1
,nportant Numbers...................1
)irector's Report ...................... 2
'002 Policy Committee
tepresentatives ....................... 2
Vestern City Advertising .......... 2
.et the League Know! ............... 2
.egislative Alert: SB 910 .......... 3
.egislative Tracking
system..................................... 3
!002 Department Officers ........ 3
;onference Calendar ............... 3
)evelopment Agreements ........ 4
>ubmit Newsletter Articles........ 4
.00AL Coalition ....................... 4
Ethics Guide Now
kvailable..................................4
knnual Conference Update ...... 5
=armland Protection
.7uide....................................... 5
League Direct Dial
Numbers
Legislative
Rotlline
916 658-8225
Wain Number
916 658-8200
Main FAX
916 658-8240
Publications/
Citybooks
(916) 658-8257
Conference
[nformation
(916) 658-8227
League of CaliforniaGtie.
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 9581
916.658.8200
FAX 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
• �;
Message from the President
Linda Shahinian, Planning Commissioner, Culver City
Think outside the box. We've been hearing this admonition for so long,
it may have become trite, if not meaningless. Does a hackneyed
phrase reflect a useless concept?
This musing occurred to me as I read a cartoon of an office worker, just
fired, saying to his wife, "They told me I was thinking so far outside the
box, they'd prefer me to think outside the building." While amusing, the
underlying truth is daunting.
As planners, we are theoretically encouraged to be creative, to move
beyond the status quo into new areas of design and city building. But
the fact is, those ventures into change are often met with resistance,
and thinking outside the box becomes thinking inside the ballot box.
Initiatives to stop projects are showing up, and succeeding, more and
more. As the November elections near, we will see how cities cope
with this kind of public protest.
Whether the contentiousness makes it to the voting booth or stops at
City Hall, the good news is that the push and pull of ideas and opinions
will hopefully create a middle ground that gives some satisfaction to all
quarters. The key is to find the areas of commonality, and to convince
the populous of the truth that we are not the enemy. We all want safe,
beautiful, economically viable cities and must work to convince
residents, developers, businesses and even city councils of the
sincerity of that mission.
There is clearly no simple method for achieving consensus. It is a
sensitive balancing act that requires give and take in varying degrees,
depending on the project and the players. The planning and
community development departments and commissions are often
between a rock and a hard place in this reach for consensus - in trying
to think outside the box while some are trying to nail the box shut.
While frustrating, there is promise in a new generation of informed
citizens who have a sense of the breadth and complexity of land use
issues.
Continued on page 5
League of California Cities Page 1
lanning and Community Development Newsletter Summer 2002
002 Department Officers I Legislative Alert: SB 910 On the Move!
resident
As of this printing, SB 910, (Dunn) the housing element fines and
nda Shahinian
penalties bill successfully stalled by local governments last summer, is
fanning Commissioner
starting to move again. Heavily amended on May 30th, SB 910 passed
)708 Flaxton Street
out of the Assembly Local Government Committee on June 51h. At the
ulver City, CA 90230
committee hearing, the bill was discussed for more than an hour, with
10/837-2759; Fax: 310/837-4592
Senator Dunn championing the efforts that have been made to come to
idashahinian@mediaone.net
a consensus on housing element reform that includes penalities for
local governments that are not zoning for adequate housing, and local
irst Vice President
government advocates stressing the fact that while many areas of the
ince Bertoni
bil! have been agreed to by all sides, there are still a number of
tanning Manager
3920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 3000
provisions that we cannot support. Issues within the current version of
anta Clarita, CA 91355
SB 910 that local governments cannot support are:
31 /255-4330; Fax: 661 /259-8125
1 Enforcement: Although governments have indicated a
) orcemenou g local
)ertoni@santa-clarita.com
willingness to make concessions on enforcement to achieve an overall
package of reforms, the critical details on this issue remain unresolved.
econd Vice President
Local governments have advocated for a neutral third party review prior
ay Ross
to the imposition of any fines. We have put forth various legal and
lanning Commissioner
administrative options to determine whether a city or county housing
) S. First Street
element complies with the law, however, no agreement exists on the
an Jose, CA 95113
details. We will continue to work diligently on this issue, however, any
)8/286-9800; Fax: 408/998-4790
final enforcement proposal must be viewed as treating local
ass@hopkinscarley.com
governments fairly without shifting the exiting burden of proof.
2) Implementation: Although local governments are willing to
irector and Immediate Past
continue exploring methods by which the state department of Housing
resident
and Community Development (HCD) can follow-up to ensure that local
anet Ruggiero
ommunity Development Director
governments are making good -faith efforts to implement various
z37 Fountain SquaDrive
are
237 Square
programs included in their housing elements, we have serious
Heights, CA
itru16/727-4731;
concerns with other proposals which would allow HCD to unilaterally
Fax: 916/725-5799
rescind compliance throughout the entire 5 or 6 year life of the housing
.lggiero@ci.citrus-heights.ca.us
element for "any" actions undertaken by a city council or board of
supervisors, based upon concerns it may have with changes to other
eague Staff
local laws and policies. This could potentially place local governments
ly Zimmermann
in a constant threat of non-compliance and carries with it the validity of
olicy Analyst
the entire general plan.
400 K Street, Suite 400
acramento, CA 95814
dated ue The Lea's u Oppose, Unless Amended letter on SB 910 is
g p pp
16/658-8219; Fax: 916/658-8240
available on our Web site, www.cacities.org, under both "Legislative
mmera@cacities.org
Tracking" and "Housing and Land Use." Please keep this bill on your
radar screen. If negotiations cannot be reached in the coming weeks,
•
.onference Calendar
we will be calling on cities for assistance in opposing this bill outright. If
you have any questions please contact Aly Zimmermann at 916/658-
2002 Annual Conference
8219 or zimmera@cacities.org.
October 2-5, 2002
Access the League's New Legislative Tracking System!
Long Beach
Access to the League's legislative tracking system is available for
Planners Institute
California city officials and staff. Go to the League's website,
March 20-22, 2003
www.cacities.org, under "legislative advocacy," and then "legislative
Hyatt San Diego Marina
tracking" to register or access the system. This system is where you'll
find sample letters and other valuable information on the League's
legislative priorities.
eague of California Cities Page 3
Nanning and Community Development newsletter Summer 2002
'residents Message,
2002 League Annual Conference Update
*nUnued.
was recently at MIT, see a friend
The League's Conference Planning Committee is trying to expand
rawith a Master's in City
attendance at the League's annual conference to include more
Manning. ! don't know if she and
department heads. In the past, we have had good turnout from Council
er classmates were ever actually
Members, CityManagers, City Clerks and City Attorneys. However,
9 Y Y Y
)Id to think outside the box, but I do
Planning and Community Development Directors, and other
now they were encouraged to
department heads have not shown much interest.
nvision city building in new and
ass!onate ways, while respecting
In an attempt to increase attendance and widen the discussion, this
ie historic cultures that cities
year we are planning to focus on a broader range of topics including
mbrace. I am hopeful that these
homeland security, fiscal reform, building the public trust, quality of life
merging planners, whose
issues, growth -no growth issues, school -city cooperation, local control
ducational journeys spanned two
and the role of cities in regional matters. Our hope is that keynote
enturies, will bring that expanse of
speakers will draw a cross section of participants, thus increasing the
nowledge to creating wonderful
opportunity for an inter -departmental discussion of issues.
ities — inside, outside or alongside
ie box!
As you review your budget for the upcoming fiscal year, please
Xrector's Report, continued.
consider attending the Annual Conference (scheduled for October 2-4
in Long Beach.) The more participation we have, the wider the range of
'he League and CSAC also formed
"perspectives," which will make the meeting more useful for all of us.
Regional Governance Trends
ask Force to study the possible
The Planning and Community Development Department's
nplementation of recommendations
representative to the 2002 Annual Conference planning committee is
•om the Speaker's Commission on
department past president Tom Sullivan, Community Development
regionalism. This was a
Director in Saratoga.
,commendation of the City
tanagers Department. If you are
iterested in knowing more about
Institute Publishes New Farmland Protection Guide
its Task Force, contact the League
'resident.
A new resource that should prove an invaluable tool for communities
ollowing the Board meeting, I
working on the issue of farmland protection is available through the
articipated in the first joint summit
Institute for Local Self Government. Written from the perspective of
f representatives from CSAC, the
local government, the Farmland Protection Action Guide outlines 24
eague and the California School
specific strategies to help California's communities curb the conversion
Boards Association to discuss the
of farmland. (151 pages, $20, Item #1187).
rowth issues in California. Over 40
articipants spent 1-1/2 days
)gether working to develop a joint
As you might expect, the Action Guide addresses the use of regulatory
ind use planning process at the
strategies, such as general plan elements, subdivision controls, buffer
)cal and regional level. The prime
strategies and mitigation fees to name a few. But the Action Guide
nportance of the event was the
also addresses the often overlooked of farm worker housing, regional
)int efforts in understanding our
planning, economic development, agricultural marketing and water
ommon issues and how we to need
supply. Additional implementation issues, such as developing funding
address them. As more progress
sources and public outreach are also addressed in a way that will
made in these areas, the League
provide a fresh perspective on this persistent problem.
rill keep you informed.
remember to mark your calendars
For more information about how to order the Action Guide, visit the
)r the Annual Conference in Long
Institute's web site at www.iisg.org or contact CityBooks at 658-8257.
each October 3- 5. The Board will
All proceeds help fund the Institute's land use program.
e discussing moving the annual
onference to Sacramento in the
pring to provide more input at the
The Mission of the League of California Cities is to restore and
,apitol. Stay tuned for the Board
protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to
ction on this matter.
enhance the quality of life for all Californians.
eaque of California Cities Page 5
la§
Leaqued
(dIffornii[
� �{
1400 K
tiacramc t,. (A Q
Betts Cities — A Better life
uut ,_ti un
Contents
president's Message ................ 1
mportant Numbers ................... 1
)irector's Report ...................... 2
?002 Policy Committee
Representatives ....................... 2
Nestern City Advertising .......... 2
.et the League Know! ............... 2
.egis!ative Alert: SB 910 .......... 3
.egislative Tracking
iystem..................................... 3
1.002 Department Officers ........ 3
,onference Calendar ............... 3
)evelopment Agreements ........ 4
'ubmit Newsletter Articles........ 4
.00AL Coalition ....................... 4
:thics Guide Now
►vailable..................................4
►nnual Conference Update ...... 5
'armland Protection
guide....................................... 5
.vague Direct Dial
lumbers
egislative
Iodine 916 658-8225
lain Number 916 658-8200
lain FAX 916 658-8240
ublications/
'itybooks (916) 658-8257
'onference
iformation (916) 658-8227
Message from the President
Linda Shahinian, Planning Commissioner, Culver City
Think outside the box. We've been hearing this admonition for so long,
it may have become trite, if not meaningless. Does a hackneyed
phrase reflect a useless concept?
This musing occurred to me as I read a cartoon of an office worker, just
fired, saying to his wife, "They told me I was thinking so far outside the
box, they'd prefer me to think outside the building." While amusing, the
underlying truth is daunting.
As planners, we are theoretically encouraged to be creative, to move
beyond the status quo into new areas of design and city building. But
the fact is, those ventures into change are often met with resistance,
and thinking outside the box becomes thinking inside the ballot box.
Initiatives to stop projdcts are showing up, and succeeding, more and
more. As the November elections near, we will see how cities cope
with this kind of public protest.
Whether the contentiousness makes it to the voting booth or stops at
City Hall, the good news is that the push and pull of ideas and opinions
will hopefully create a middle ground that gives some satisfaction to all
quarters. The key is to find the areas of commonality, and to convince
the populous of the truth that we are not the enemy. We all want safe,
beautiful, economically viable cities and must work to convince
residents, developers, businesses and even city councils of the
sincerity of that mission.
There is clearly no simple method for achieving consensus. It is a
sensitive balancing act that requires give and take in varying degrees,
depending on the project and the players. The planning and
community development departments and commissions are often
between a rock and a hard place in this reach for consensus - in trying
to think outside the box while some are trying to nail the box shut.
While frustrating, there is promise in a new generation of informed
citizens who have a sense of the breadth and complexity of land use
issues.
Continued on page 5
-ague of California Cities Page 1
Planning and Community Development Newsletter Summer 2002
0'002 Department Officers I Legislative Alert:910 On the Movel
President
As of this printing, SB 910, (Dunn) the housing element fines and
-inda Shahinian
penalties bill successfully stalled by local governments last summer, is
Manning Commissioner
starting to move again. Heavily amended on May 30`h, SB 910 passed
10708 Flaxton Street
out of the Assembly Local Government Committee on June 51h. At the
:,ulver City, CA 90230
committee hearing, the bill was discussed for more than an hour, with
310/837-2759; Fax: 310/837-4592
Senator Dunn championing the efforts that have been made to come to
indashahinian@mediaone.net
a consensus on housing element reform that includes penalities for
local
focal governments that are not zoning for adequate housing, and local
First Vice President
advocates stressing the fact that while many areas of the
�Jnce ng Mai
Manager
bil! have been agreed to by all sides, there are still a number of
Manning
Valencia Blvd., Suite 3000
provisions that we cannot support. Issues within the current version of
Santa
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
SB 910 that local governments cannot support are:
i61/255-4330; Fax: 661/259-$125
Enforcement: Although
1 ) 9 local governments have indicated a
ibertoni@santa-clarita.com
willingness to make concessions on enforcement to achieve an overall
package of reforms, the critical details on this issue remain unresolved.
'second Vice President
Local governments have advocated for a neutral third party review prior
Jay Ross
to the imposition of any fines. We have put forth various legal and
Manning Commissioner
administrative options to determine whether a city or county housing
10 S. First Street
element complies with the law, however, no agreement exists on the
'an Jose, CA 95113
details. We will continue to work diligently on this issue, however, any
i08/286-9800; Fax: 408/998-4790
final enforcement proposal must be viewed as treating local
oss@hopkinscarley.com
governments fairly without shifting the exiting burden of proof.
er and immediate Past
2) Implementation: Although local governments are willing to
continue exploring methods by which the state department of Housing
resid
'resident
and Community Development (HCD) can follow-up to ensure that local
anet Ruggiero
;ommunity Development Director
governments are making good -faith efforts to implement various
1237 Fountain Square Drive
programs included in their housing elements, we have serious
;itrus Heights, CA 95621
concerns with other proposals which would allow HCD to unilaterally
116/727-4731; Fax: 916/725-5799
rescind compliance throughout the entire 5 or 6 year life of the housing
-uggiero@ci.citrus-heights.ca.us
element for "any" actions undertaken by a city council or board of
supervisors, based upon concerns it may have with changes to other
.eague Staff
local laws and policies. This could potentially place local governments
kly Zimmermann
in a constant threat of non-compliance and carries with it the validity of
)olicy Analyst
the entire general plan.
400 K Street, Suite 400
'acramento, CA 95814
The League's Oppose, Unless Amended letter on SB 910 is
9ues updated Pp
16/658-8219; Fax: 916/658-8240
available on our Web site, www.cacities.org, under both "Legislative
immera@cacities.org
Tracking" and "Housing and Land Use." Please keep this bill on your
radar screen. If negotiations cannot be reached in the coming weeks,
�Ol'l�eet"et'ICL Calendar
we will be calling on cities for assistance in opposing this bill outright. If
you have any questions please contact Aly Zimmermann at 916/658-
2002 Annual Conference
8219 or zimmera@cacities.org.
October 2-5, 2002
Access the League's New Legislative Tracking System!
Long Beach
Access to the League's legislative tracking system is available for
Planners Institute
California city officials and staff. Go to the League's website,
March 20-22, 2003
www.cacities.org, under "legislative advocacy," and then "legislative
Hyatt San Diego Marina
tracking" to register or access the system. This system is where you'll
find sample letters and other valuable information on the League's
legislative priorities.
eague of California Cities Page 3
Planniino and Comrn.m!ty De,,ei0prnef-t I'siewsletter
Summer 2002
President's .Message,
2002 League Annual Confeirence Update
corTfinilled.
The League's Conference Planning Committee is trying to expand
I was rc;centiy at Nv i, ti see a triand
graduate with a vastin C
City
attendance at the League's annual conference to include more
Planning. i don", know if she aiid I
department heads. In the past, we have had good turnout from Council
hE;t clz;sE;matcc were ever actually
Members, City Managers, City Clerks and City Attorneys. However,
told to thirk outside the box, but I do
Planning and Community Development Directors, and other
know they were encouraged to
department heads have not shown much interest.
env Sion city building in new and
passionate ways, while respecting
In an attempt to increase attendance and widen the discussion, this
the hictor;c cultures that cities
year we are piannirg to focus on a broader range of topics including
embrace. I am hopeful that these
homeuand security, fiscal reform, building the public trust, quality of life
emerging pianners, whose
issues, growth -.no growth issues, school -city cooperation, local control
educational journeys spanned
panned two
and the role of cities in regional matters. Our hope is that keynote
centuries, will bring that expanse 0�
speakers will draw a cross section of participants, thus increasing the
knowledge to creating wcmderfu;
I opportunity for an inter -departmental discussion of issues.
cities — inside, r
out: -ide m alongside
the box!
As you review your budget for the upcoming fiscal year, please
Director's Report cortnuied.
consider attending the Annual Conference (scheduled for October 2-4
Long Beach.) The more participation we have, the wider the range of
The League and CSAC also formedin
"perspectives," which will make the meeting more useful for all of us.
a Regional Governance Trends
1-ask Forcc to study the possibl,3
The Planning and Community Development Department's
implernentat;on of recommendations
representative to the 2002 Annual Conference planning committee is
from the 'Speaker's Commission on
department past president Tom Sullivan, Community Development
Regioral;sm This was a
Director in Saratoga.
recommendation of the City
Managers Departme.it. If you are
interest:d in Knowing more about
Institute Publishes New Farmland Protection Guide
This Task Force, contact the League
President.
A new resource that should prove an invaluable tool for communities
Following the Board meeting, I
working on the issue of farmland protection is available through the
oartielpated in the first joint summit
Institute for Local Self Government. Written from the perspective of
of representatives from CSAC, the
local government, the Farmland Protection Action Guide outlines 24
League and the California School
specific strategies to help California's communities curb the conversion
Boards Association to discuss the
of farmland, (151 pages, $20, Item #1187).
growth issues in California. Over 40
participants spent 1-1/2 days
�ogether working to develop a joint
As you might expect, the Action Guide addresses the use of regulatory
and use planning process at the
strategies, such as general plan elements, subdivision controls, buffer
ocal and regional level. The prime
strategies and mitigation fees to name a few. But the Action Guide
mportance of the event was the
also addresses the often overlooked of farm worker housing, regional
oint efforts in understanding our
planning, economic development, agricultural marketing and water
,ommon issues and how we to need
supply. Additional implementatior issues, such as developing funding
:o address them. As more progress
sources and public outreach are also addressed in a way that will
s made in these areas, the League
provide a fresh perspective on this persistent problem.
ivill keep you informed.
Remember to mark your calendars
For more information about how to order the Action Guide, visit the
'or the Annual Conference in Long
Institute's web site at www.ilsg.org or contact CityBooks at 658-8257.
3each October 3- 5. The Board will
All proceeds help fund the Institute's land use program.
)e discussing moving the annual
-onference to Sacramento in the
spring to provide more input at the
The Mission of the League of California Cities is to restore and
:;apiltol. Stay tuned for the Board
protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to
action on this matter.
enhance the quality of life for all Californians.
-eague of California Cities Page 5