2002 09 24 PCPlanning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
A Special Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
SEPTEMBER 24, 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 2002-090
Beginning Minute Motion 2002-01 C
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
If. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for
public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on September 3, 2002.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
0
C
Item ................. CONTINUED - SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043,
AMENDMENT #2 AND SIGN APPLICATION 2002-
629
Applicant .......... Madison/P.T.M. La Quinta, LLC
Location ............ Northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway
111
Request ...... 1. Request to delete the Sign Program provisions from
the Specific Plan for Point Happy Commercial Center
2. Review of a Sign Program for Point Happy
Commercial Center
Action ............... Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002- ,
Item .................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-411,
SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-051 AMENDMENT #1 AND
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-007, AMENDMENT #1
Applicant ..........
Cameo Homes
Location ............
East side of Eisenhower Drive, north of Calle
Tampico and west of Avenida Bermudas
Request ........1.
Certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-411
Revised
2.
Amendment to the Specific Plan design guidelines for
a mixed land use development on 33 + acres,
including detachment of 12.72 acres for a future
public school; and
3.
Review of architectural and landscaping plans for a
200-unit apartment complex and two commercial
pads in multiple story buildings on 12.04 acres.
Action ...............
Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002- ,
Resolution 2002-
Item ................. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2002-073
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ............ City-wide
Request ............. Consideration of amending Section 9.60.030-Fences
and Walls, of the La Quinta Municipal Code to permit
split rail fencing in the front yard within residential
zones
Action ............... Resolution 2002-
PC/AGENDA
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ................. PUBLIC NUISANCE CITATION #6559
Applicant .......... Bill and Jan Turner
Location ............ 53-750 Avenida Obregon
Request ............. Appeal of a Public Nuisance Citation regarding the
violation of front/side yard setback, satellite dish
location, and construction without a permit
Action ............... Minute Motion 2002- ,
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on the City Council meeting of September 17, 2002
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting
to be held on October 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
September 3, 2002 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:09
p.m. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Robbins to lead the
flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler, Robert Tyler and Chairman Richard Butler. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City
Attorney Kathy Jenson, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal
Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planners Martin Magana,
and Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes
of July 23, 2002. Commissioner Robbins asked that Page 6, Item 8 be
corrected to show Commissioner Abels seconded the motion; Page 14,
Item 24, "...stated his concern..."; Page 14, Item #25 "Ms. Patricia
Johnson..."; Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 17, Item #41 be
changed to read, Vice chairman Tyler stated that if they were
considering the apartment complex by itself, it might be salvageable.
However, he cannot approve zoning that allows light industrial next to an
existing single family development. A storage unit might be an
acceptable "Good Neighbor", but a change to CP zoning designation
would allow construction of whatever use is allowed under the CP
zoning; it is not limited to a storage unit. He has strong concern about
the proposed circulation plan. The currently approved tentative tract map
for this site has only one access point onto Washington Street, at Darby
Road (re -aligned). The proposed project retains that access but adds two
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
more. He also has difficulty with increasing the housing density on an
additional 20 + acres at this one location. This would create a traffic
nightmare and the local schools would be more overloaded than they
already are now." There being no further corrections, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to approve the minutes as
corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1 Revised Specific Plan 2001-051
Amendment #1 and Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1: a
request of Cameo Homes and Landaq, Inc. for certification of a Revised
Environmental Assessment, an Amendment to the Specific Plan design
guidelines for a mixed land use development on 33 + acres including
detachment of 12.72 acres for a future public school, and review of
architectural and landscaping plans for a 200-unit apartment complex and
two commercial pads in multiple story buildings on 12 acres located on
the east side of Eisenhower Drive, north of Calle Tampico and west of
Avenida Bermudas.
1. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested
a continuance of the project.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to
continue the project to September 24, 2002. Unanimously
approved.
B. Conditional Use Permit 2002-071: a request of Wal-Mart Store #1805 for
consideration of a request to allow 55 metal containers for the temporary
storage of holiday merchandise from September 5, 2002 to January 30,
2002 on the north and west sides of the existing store located at 78-950
Highway 1 1 1, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins asked if the time frame was consistent
with previous years requests. Staff stated it was almost the
same.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if the first year request was for 35
containers, then the next 43, and now 55 containers. Staff stated
that was correct.
4. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Mickey Anderson, store manager, stated the
reason they were requesting additional time is to allow enough
time to get the trailers in place since they are delivered in groups
of ten. His needs for storage are growing as the City grows.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if this would be needed next year. Mr.
Anderson stated the anticipated opening date for the new Super
Wal Mart is January 4, 2004. They expect to need the outside
storage on the new facility as well.
6. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other
public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation
portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission
discussion.
7. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not like to hear the additional
storage will be needed at the new store. He would be voting
against the project unless there was a cap. It should be designed
so temporary structures are not needed.
8. Commissioner Robbins agreed. If all the stores were needing this
the City would look like a "railroad yard". He understands the
need, but cannot support the ever increasing need.
9. Commissioner Kirk stated the Commission has spent a lot of time
addressing the appearance of the rear of buildings and then to
allow this seems contradictory.
10. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant had ordered the
merchandise for the 55 containers. If the Commission did not
approve the 55 containers, what would they do? Mr. Anderson
stated he would have to seek off -site storage to accommodate the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
merchandise in Indio or Cathedral City. This store was built in
1992, and the business has grown and the building has not gotten
any bigger. Discussion followed regarding possible alternatives.
11. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-084 approving Conditional Use Permit 2002-071,
subject to the findings and conditions, as submitted.
Commissioners Abels/Tyler withdrew their motion.
12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-084 approving
Conditional Use Permit 2002-071, subject to the findings and
conditions as amended:
A. The duration would be September 15, 2002 to January 15,
2003
B. A total of 43 containers shall be allowed.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
C. Site Development Permit 2002-702 Amendment #1: a request of La
Quinta Congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses for review of development
plans for a second church hall on a 2.39 acre site located on the east
side of Dune Palms Road, between the Coachella Valley Storm Channel
and Westward Ho Drive
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if there were any changes to the
conditions from the last building. Staff stated nothing substantial.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the parking was adequate for both
buildings. Staff stated it was adequate.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
3. Chairman Butler stated his concern was not having any windows
and asked if there was any reason. Staff stated the applicant
could answer this question.
4. Commissioner Robbins asked if the side of the building facing the
retention basin was the north side. Staff stated yes it was.
5. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Allan Elkins, speaking for the applicant as the
project foreman, stated he was available to answer any questions.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a time frame for
construction. Mr. Elkins stated both buildings would be built
simultaneously.
7. Chairman Butler asked about the windows. Mr. Ekins stated there
were windows facing the parking lot and on the other sides it was
not appropriate.
8. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other
public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation
portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission
discussion.
9. Commissioner Robbins stated that with no articulation on the
north elevation, it is could be a negative precedent. No one knows
what will be constructed to the north and he would like to see
windows on the north side similar to the first building's west
elevation.
10. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-085 approving Site Development Permit 2002-
702 Amendment #1, subject to the findings and conditions, as
amended:
A. Condition added: Applicant to work with staff to add
articulation on the north elevation.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
D. Tentative Tract Map 30185; a request of TD Desert Development for
consideration of a request to subdivide approximately 3.62 acres into
seven single family residential lots, one open space lot, and a well site
located on the southwest corner of Cabrillo Way and Mission Drive West
within Rancho La Quinta.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk asked staff if the 3.62 acres were ever zoned
for park or community facility or otherwise in the master plan.
Staff stated not to his knowledge. The last amendment to the
map processed in 2000 showed the site subdivided into seven
lots.
3. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Patrick Odowd, representing the applicant,
stated he was available to answer any questions.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked if this site was always designated for
residential land use in the Specific Plan. Mr. Odowd stated yes.
Commissioner Kirk asked if there was ever any plans for a parksite
or tennis court on this parcel. Mr. Odowd stated that to his
knowledge no.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked why the lots were laid out at an angle
to the street. Mr. Odowd stated to give the lots more depth and
to allow a better view of the mountains. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated originally this area was designated
for the maintenance building and then as the Specific Plan was
amended it became residential.
6. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other
public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation
portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission
discussion.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
7. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-086 approving Tentative Tract Map 30185,
subject to the findings and conditions, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
E. Environmental Assessment 2002-452 Addendum Specific Plan 98-032
_Amendment #1 and Tentative Tract Map 30651: a request of
Winchester Development for certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact, remove Planning Area No. 3 from
the Quarry Retreat Specific Plan, and review of a subdivision of 74.78
acres into 28 residential and other amenity and common lots located
west of Madison Street, south of Quarry Lane.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff requested an addition
to Condition #50 requiring a 10 foot wide meandering
multipurpose trail that the developer would bond for and
completed with the Jefferson Street improvements.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the existing Specific Plan for the
Quarry included this parcel. Staff clarified there was no Specific
Plan for the Quarry. The Quarry Retreat is a different product type
they were proposing five years ago and is now called "Resort
Residential" under the Zoning Code and indicated on the map
where they were located. The Quarry Retreat allowed ± 20 resort
residential units and needed to be deleted out of the Specific Plan.
This development would be The Quarry Ranch. Commissioner
Tyler asked how some of the lots could be allowed to exceed the
three foot elevation differential for contiguous lots. Assistant City
Engineer Steve Speer stated a 5-foot deviation was currently being
allowed for lots not on the same street.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
3. Chairman Butler asked how this could be allowed. Staff clarified
how it was allowed in the Subdivision Ordinance under Section
13.24.050, Grading and Improvements and read the section. A
finding will need to be made stating the reason to allow the
deviation.
4. Chairman Butler asked how many holes of golf are planned. Staff
stated it was a question for the applicant.
5. Commissioner Robbins asked about Conditions 59-62 in regard to
the landscaping; was it the intent of staff that the golf course
comply with the Landscape Ordinance. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer stated it does not apply to the golf course.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if any portion of this development
encroach on the tow of the slope. Staff stated a future
application will be brought to the Planning Commission for
consideration that does encroach into the 20% slope. A specific
plan and parcel map to subdivide two additional parcels proposed
development above the 20% slope. Currently it has a golf cart
access to the golf course only.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked about the Mitigation Monitoring Report,
under Geology and Noise, the Checklist does not identify any
significant impacts. Was this an oversight or should the
Assessment have been changed to significant impacts. Staff
stated there was a soils study that recommended the building pads
be recompacted, so it is a matter of judgement as to whether or
not it is significant. It is an issue that was raised and does need
to be monitored. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated a lead
agency's legal ability to impose mitigation measures arises when
the affect is significant to begin with, so you are not required to
do mitigations when the affect is not significant and does not need
to be included in the mitigation monitoring plan, if it is less than
significant. You could add it as a condition of approval.
8. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Shaw, Winchester Development, explained
the lot configuration and reasoning for their request. The purpose
is to protect the Quarry boundaries from negative development.
He questioned Condition #15 and requested they only be required
to pay for one side of the street and not both.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
9. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other
public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation
portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission
discussion.
10. Commissioner Robbins stated he was generally in favor of the
project. He would like to add one condition that staff remove the
exemption in the Landscape Ordinance relative to the golf course
and add that the golf course shall comply with the annual
maximum applied water allowance that is in effect at the time the
landscaping plans are approved. Mr. Shaw stated he was not sure
what the ordinance stated so he did not know how to answer.
Commissioner Robbins explained the requirements. Mr. Shaw
stated he would review the Ordinance before the City Council
meeting. In regard to the number of holes, there are ten practice
holes.
11. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-087 recommending certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2002-452, as amended to the Mitigation Monitoring
Plan.
12. Commissioner Kirk asked if the issue of the grade differencial
should be added as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. City
Attorney Jenson stated that since the differential is more than
what is allowed by the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Ordinance
does provide the finding, but she would prefer it be a condition of
approval.
ROLL CALL,: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-088 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 98-032 Amendment #1, subject to the
findings and conditions, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commissioner Resolution 2002-089, subject to the
conditions as amended.
A. Condition added regarding a utility easement.
B. Condition added requiring the multipurpose trail.
C. Condition added requiring the golf course to comply with the
Landscaping Ordinance.
D. Finding: The pad differential is consistent with the Zoning Code.
F. Specific Plan Amendment 2000-043 Amendment #2 and Sian
Application 2002-629: a request of Madison/P.T.M La Quinta, L.L.C. for
consideration of a request to delete the Sign Program provisions from the
Specific Plan for Point Happy Commercial Center and review of a Sign
Program for Point Happy Commercial Center for the property located at
the northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111.
1. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to
continue this project to September 24, 2002. Unanimously
approved.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A Continued - Site Development Permit 2002-744; a request of Jai Nettimi
for compatibility review of a deck for a single family two story house
located at 79-390 Paseo del Rey.
1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Associate Planner
Martin Magaria presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler stated this issue should never have been
brought to the Planning Commission, but rather reviewed and
approved by the homeowners' association (HOA) for compatibility.
3. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the Zoning Code says it applies
to all second story additions. Commissioner Tyler stated this is
not a second story addition, but rather a deck to a house that
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
should only require a building permit. Community Development
Director stated that with the definition of "story" makes it
difficult.
4. Commissioner Robbins asked if they could make a determination
that a deck does not qualify as a second story and does not fall
under the compatibility review of the Zoning Code.
5. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Nettimi, the applicant, stated it is not a privacy
issue as he can see into his neighbors yards from his second story.
6. Chairman Butler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this
issue. Mr. Don Barowski, 79-391 Sierra Vista, asked staff to
verify that the adjacent neighbors were notified. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated staff had mailed a
notice to each of the five adjacent property owners. Mr. Barowski
stated there are five neighbors that are contiguous and he was not
notified. He heard about the issue and raised the issue with
several members of the HOA and they were opposed. His
property is catecorner to Mr. Nettimi's property. Staff stated the
HOA notified the three and staff notified all five.
7. Mr. Dan McGrath, 79-371 Sierra Vista, stated he is one lot to the
north and one lot to the west. One window on this two story
house faces into his backyard and several windows into his house.
He was not notified by Century Homes that there was a two story
option available under the Phase II development. It does impact
his family and his way of life, as well as his property values in a
negative way. He is opposed to the request.
8. Chairman Butler notified the Commission and public that he had
learned that he needed to abstain from voting on this project.
Vice Chairman Tyler chaired the meeting.
9. Mr. John Andrade, 79-381 Sierra Vista, stated he lived directly
behind the applicant, and his immediate response to the deck
when he heard of it was no response; now he believes this will
impact his home.
10. Mr. Nettimi, stated that when he bought his home he was told he
could build a deck and this was his intention. It was not his
intention to devalue anyones property.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 11
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
11. There being no further discussion, Vice Chairman Tyler closed the
public participation portion of the meeting and opened the meeting
for Commission discussion.
12. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that in her opinion this is not
a second story and the compatibility Section of the Code does not
apply.
13. Commissioner Robbins stated he believes this is a concern of the
HOA and not the Planning Commission. He remembers when this
development was approved there was a lot of discussion regarding
the two story homes and where they would be placed.
14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Abels making a determination that a
second story deck does not meet the definition of a second story
and does not require compatibility review by adoption of Minute
Motion 2002-014. Unanimously approved with Chairman Butler
abstaining.
Chairman Butler assumed the chair over the meeting.
B. Site Development Permit 2002-749; a request of Ponderosa Homes for
review of architectural plans for three new prototype residential units
located within Tract 29323, northwest of the corner of Fred Waring
Drive and Jefferson Street.
1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Associate Planner
Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the driveway portion would be
deleted where the third car garage would be changed to a
bedroom. Staff stated this was a question for the applicant.
3. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. David Hauck, senior project manager for the
applicant, stated he agrees with Commissioner Tyler's
recommendation.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
4. There being no questions of the applicant and no further public
comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion
of the meeting and opened the meeting for Commission
discussion.
5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to
adopt Minute Motion 2002-015, approving Site Development
Permit 2002-749, subject to the findings and conditions, as
modified.
A. Condition added requiring the driveway and curb area of
each house where the third car garage is converted to a
bedroom be deleted.
Unanimously approved.
B. Zoning Issues; a request of staff for review of split rail fencing.
1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if they are trying to address the
maintenance of the fence rather than trying to hold something in
or out of the yard. Is there any broader scope to the question.
Staff stated there are different alternatives to wood that are now
available and staff is looking for direction.
3. Commissioner Robbins asked if a property owner with a wood
front yard fence were to replace it, would he not be able to. Staff
stated if it was destroyed more than 50% it would have to
conform to the current Ordinance.
4. Mr. Jim McKinley 45-460 Coldbrook, stated they are already
established in the Del Rey development, but he is the only one that
has been ticketed.
5. Chairman Butler asked staff to address split rail fencing along with
construction materials for a future ordinance amendment.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners directing staff to schedule this for the Planning
Commission meeting of September 24, 2002. Unanimously
approved.
Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the August 8, 2002 City Council
meeting.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Robbins/Kirk to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held September 24, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. on September
3, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 14
PH #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, AMENDMENT NO. 2
SIGN PROGRAM 2002-629
REQUEST: 1) APPROVAL OF THE DELETION OF SIGN PROGRAM
PROVISIONS FROM THE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR POINT
HAPPY COMMERCIAL CENTER
2) APPROVAL OF A SIGN PROGRAM FOR POINT HAPPY
COMMERCIAL CENTER
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND
WASHINGTON STREET
APPLICANT: MADISON/ P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L. C.
REPRESENTATIVE:: RICK WILKERSON, MADISON/ P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L. C
PROPERTY MANAGER: MADISON/ P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L. C.
ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - (CC) COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL
SOUTH: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
WEST: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
Planning Commission Action:
At the applicant's request, the Planning Commission on September 3, 2002 meeting
continued this Public Hearing to September 24, 2002.
Property Description:
The project site, located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington
Street, consists of 7.834 acres. The project is bounded by the Whitewater
Stormwater Channel on the north, Washington Street on the east, Highway 1 1 1 on
the south, a restaurant on the west.
Applications Under Consideration:
The request is for approval to amend the "Point Happy Specific Plan", (Attachment
No. 2) by removing the sign program provisions from the Specific Plan and
approving a "stand alone" Planned Sign Program for the Commercial Center under
the Zoning Code (Section 9.160.090 D). This will allow future planned sign
program adjustments, requested by future tenets and the property manager, to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission as a business item, thus not requiring a
Specific Plan Amendment which necessitates a public hearing by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. A list of allowed signs remains in the Specific
Plan including a neon tubing letter as an addition to the currently approved
Specific Plan Sign Program. Also requested to be added to the Sign Program are
company logos in a variety of forms.
The proposed Sign Program (Attachment No. 2) allows each business to have a
wall sign within their store front width compatible with exterior building colors,
material, and finishes. Signs will be required to have individual illuminated letters
with a channel letter, a reverse channel, letter, and/or neon tubing. Freestanding
pads will be required to use letter sizes of 18" to a maximum of 24" in one line of
copy and "In -line shops" will be required to use letter sizes of 9" to a maximum of
16" in one line of copy. if double line copy is necessary for "In -line shops" and
freestanding pads the total height is not to exceed 25" or 10" character/letter
height, double line. Sign lengths are not to exceed 80% of the leasehold business
frontage width and/or 50 square feet. Non -illuminated awning and canopy signs
will be allowed with limitations on locations and size. The proposed Sign Program
also includes temporary signage which is consistent with Zoning Code
requirements, and includes provisions stricter than Code requirements. Individual
building signs are proposed to be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director.
_ 1 i_ � ►�.1J ' . ` � ll _
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2000-395) was certified by the City Council
for "Point Happy Specific Plan" (SP 2000-043) under Resolution No. 2000-47 on
May 16, 2000. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new
information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental
assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code 21166.
COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public
agencies on July 12, 2002, requesting comments returned by August 2, 2002.
r•�a�nc�
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on August
24, 2002. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of
the public hearing notice.
ANALYSIS AND ISSUES:
All findings can be made that the project is consistent with the goals and policies
of the La Quinta General Plan and Zoning Code. There are no issues.
W. • J I AL•. M•
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending approval
of Pont Happy Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 2; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , recommending approval of
the Point Happy Planned Sign Program 2002-629.
1. Point Happy Specific Plan, Amendment No. 2
2. Point Happy Planned Sign Program
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, Principal Planner
r � J
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DELETION OF
SIGN PROGRAM PROVISIONS FROM THE SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR THE COMMERCIAL CENTER AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111
CASE NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, AMENDMENT NO. 2
MADISON/P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 3' day of September, 2002 hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing
and continued said Public Hearing to the 24th day of September, 2002, to consider
deleting provisions of the Specific Plan relating to building signs. The project area is
located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, more
particularly described as:
PARCEL MAP 29736
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan 2000-043 has complied with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended),
pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council. The Community
Development Director has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2000-
395) was certified by the City Council for "Point Happy Specific Plan" (SP 2000-043)
under Resolution No. 2000-47 on May 16, 2000 and an Environmental Addendum
was certified on by the City Council for "Point Happy Specific Plan" (SP 2000-043,
Amendment No. 1) under Resolution No. 2002-58 on April 16, 2002, and that there
are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information which would trigger
the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Public
Resources Code 21166.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify
a recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan:
1 . That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and
policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated
Community Commercial which allows the uses proposed for the property.
2. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions
materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the
resulting changes will require Planning Commission review and approval of
future signs, which will ensure adequate review.
A:\PC RESO SP 2000-043, Amd. Yo.2.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Specific Plan 2000-043. Amendment No. 2
Madison/P.M.T. La Quinta, L. L C.
Adopted September 24, 2002
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Specific Plan
Amendment request 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 24th day of September, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, AMENDMENT NO. 2
SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
(the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding
to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit. The City shall have
sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall
obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Caltrans
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from
those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans,
applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the
plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits,
the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's
Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The
applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is
available for inspection at the project site.
3. This development shall be subject to the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development
Impact Fee program in effect at the time of permit approval.
A:\PC COA SP 2000-043, AMD. No. 2 .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 2
September 24, 2002
PROPERTY RIGHTS
4. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for construction or proper functioning
of the proposed development.
5. The applicant may be required by Caltrans to furnish additional Highway 111 right of
way to accommodate the proposed bus turnout and dedicated right -turn -in lane. If
so, the right of way shall be deeded to the City in fee simple.
6. If the applicant cannot obtain permission from CVWD for location of the bikepath
(required below) within the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall
grant an easement across the north end of this property for that purpose.
7. The applicant shall dedicate or deed cross -access easements to all private lots or
parcels existing or created on this property. The easements shall cover all parking
and circulation areas and routes within the development.
8. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows:
A. Highway 111 - 50 feet.
B. Washington Street - 20 feet.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
9. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility Vines and structures.
10. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets from all frontage
except access points described herein.
11. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate,
from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction,
permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur.
12. Prior to placement of any privately -owned buildings or other costly structures in the
City's drainage easement along Washington Street, the applicant shall obtain an
encroachment permit for that purpose. The permit will require that in the event the
City finds it necessary to construct, reconstruct or maintain facilities therein, the
applicant shall indemnify the City from expenses exceeding those which would have
been incurred with hardscape or landscaping.
A:\PC COA SP 2000-043, AMD. No. 2 .wpd ' ' �` 7
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 2
September 24, 2002
.. •MY I kTj ra Oyd Wem►
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24"
x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets &
Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for
Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have
signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until
they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths,
entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include
irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading"
plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
14. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements
of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire
standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
15. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans for any public street improvements on
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard
AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the
applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted
to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans.
A:\PC COA SP 2000-043, AMD. No. 2 .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 2
September 24, 2002
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
16. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map
and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required
to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to
reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are
obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future
construction by others, or a combination of these methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City
after the date of approval of the original conditions of approval for this property, the
Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or building
permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements.
17. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an
executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations
required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map, or issuance of a
certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security
provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing
structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
18. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement
costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with
the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not
listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved
by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable
improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for
final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that
the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the
development.
19. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals
(e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements
A:\PC COA SP 2000-043, AMD. No. 2 .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 2
September 24, 2002
(e.g., access drives, traffic signal improvements & perimeter landscaping) shall be
constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer.
20. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement,
the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building
inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call
upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
21. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary
geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified
engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils
report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist.
22. 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.
22. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall
submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance
with Chapter 6.16, LCIMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable
to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the
permit.
23. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water
erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with
other erosion and wind control measures soil stabilizing binders approved by the
Community Development and Public Works Departments.
24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad,
the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference
between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot
number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
A:\PC COA SP 2000-043, AMD. No. 2 .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 2
September 24, 2002
FD•, 'Q
25. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the
Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the
costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which
may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution
prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise
from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City
prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding
on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land
within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated
or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the
City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall
make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations.
26. If the applicant does not discharge stormwater to the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel, stormwater shall be retained on -site and disposed of in facilities approved
by the City Engineer.
27. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in facilities approved by the
City Engineer.
UTILITIES
28. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and
telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
29. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed
utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt
from this requirement.
30. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in
existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration
requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide
certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
A:\PC COA SP 2000-043, AMD. No. 2 .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 2
September 24, 2002
31. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall
conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS AND BIKEPATH
1) Highway 1 1 1 - Complete construction of north side of the street.
Construct eight -foot sidewalk/bikepath. Modify traffic signal, median,
traffic signs, and traffic markings at the west access drive to accommodate
a fourth leg on the intersection.
2) Washington Street (Major Arterial) - Construct eight -foot sidewalk/bike
path. Modify traffic signal, median, traffic signs, and traffic markings at
the north access drive to accommodate a fourth leg on the intersection.
If a hotel use is selected as described in Alternative Use #2, the a applicant
shall construct a right turn lane for south bound traffic from Washington
Street onto Highway 1 1 1, including necessary modifications to the existing
traffic signal, curbs and gutters, traffic signs and traffic markings. The
design of the right turn lane shall be subject to Caltrans and the City
Engineer's approval.
Additional right of way may be required to accommodate the approved
right turn lane design and shall be dedicated to the City and the State as
necessary.
3) Bike path- Pay pro-rata share of Bike Path adjacent to project site. Prorate
share shall not exceed $30 per lineal foot of 8-foot wide PCC bike path.
32. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading;
traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets
and sidewalks).
33. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC,
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the
City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall
be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
A:\PC COA SP 2000-043, AMD. No. 2 .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 2
September 24, 2002
34. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure
(20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading
(including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or
approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
35. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time
of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The
submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure.
For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six
months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming
that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not
schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved.
36. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Highway 111
1) Full -access drive at existing traffic signal at the southwest corner of this
property.
2) Right-in/Right-out drive centered approximately 435 feet east of the
centerline cf the westerly drive.
B. Washington Street
1) Full -access drive at existing traffic signal at the northeast corner of this
property.
LANDSCAPING
37. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in landscape setbacks and in on -
site areas as designated in the landscape plan for this Specific Plan.
38. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
A:\PC COA SP 2000-043, AMD. No. 2 .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 2
September 24, 2002
The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan
checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the
City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City
Engineer.
39. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or
spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
40. The applicant shall provide an improved bus turnout with a City approved Bus Shelter
design on Highway 111 as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City
Engineer and Community Development Director.
The applicant shall provide an improved bus turnout with a City approved Bus Shelter
design on Washington Street between the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel and
Washington Street, if needed by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer
and Community Development Director.
The applicant shall install electric power connection to provide electricity to bus
shelter on Highway 111. The electric power may be connected to an existing circuit
owned by the City if there is one conveniently available in the vicinity, or at
applicant's expense request IID to install a new electric meter to power the circuit.
The City will accept the electric meter and power circuit when completed.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
41. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
42. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers,
surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction
supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings.
43. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing
procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as
A:\PC COA SP 2000-043, AMD. No. 2 .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 2
September 24, 2002
evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications
and applicable regulations.
44. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all improvements constructed within City or Caltrans' right of way.
Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying
to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image
files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions.
45. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -
site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The
applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from
this responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
a AD ••
46. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction
inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes
application for plan checking and permits.
RLOWNWINg Am
48. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flows shall be constructed
in accordance with the appropriate sections of the water district, subject to the
approval by the Riverside County Fire Department.
49. Automatic fire sprinklers providing required fire flows shall be constructed in
accordance with La Quinta City Ordinance 8.08.090.
50. All interior fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed
width and ab unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. Any portion of an
exterior wall of the first story of any building shall be located within 150 feet from
apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
building.
A:\PC COA SP 2000-043, AMD. No. 2 .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2000-043, Amendment No. 2
September 24, 2002
MISCEL—LA
51. Prior to issuance of a Site Development Permit , the final Conditions of Approval shall
be incorporated in the Final Specific Plan document. Applicant shall work with staff
to correct internal document inconsistencies prior to final publication of five copies
of the Specific Plan document.
52. Prohibit Date Palms trees in high use activity locations including pedestrian corridors
and courtyards.
53. Allow a street name change to "Point Happy Drive" on the east side of the property
on Washington Street into the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center; a street name
change to "Point Happy Drive" at the signal on Highway 1 1 1 at the south driveway
into the property shall be allowed only after obtaining the express written permission
(and presented to the City) from the La Quinta Plaza Shopping Center owners (the
shopping center on the south side of Highway 1 1 1.
54. Within 90 days, applicant shall complete the approved revised bus shelter design plan
for the Highway 1 1 1 bus shelter that is limited to additional sidewalk paving behind
the shelter for transit user access, a landscaping plan (consistent with the Highway
111 Design Guidelines) that includes at least three additional shade trees and boulders
appropriately placed for safety, and a color sample that matches the buildings in the
Point Happy commercial center to be used to re -paint the bus shelter.
A:\PC COA SP 2000-043, AMD. No. 2 .wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PLANNED SIGN
PROGRAM FOR THE COMMERCIAL CENTER AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND
HIGHWAY 111
CASE NO. SIGN PROGRAM 2002-629
MADISON/P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the day of 3`d September, 2002 hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing,
and continued said public hearing to the 2,Vh day of September, 2002, to consider a
Planned Sign Program for Point Happy Commercial Center. The project area is
located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, more
particularly described as:
PARCEL MAP 29736
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan 2000-043 has complied with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended),
pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council. The Community
Development Director has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2000-
395) was certified by the City Council for "Point Happy Specific Plan" (SP 2000-043)
under Resolution No. 2000-47 on May 16, 2000 and an Environmental Addendum
was certified on by the City Council for "Point Happy Specific Plan" (SP 2000-043,
Amendment No. 1) under Resolution No. 2002-58 on April 16, 2002, and that there
are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information which would trigger
the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment pursuant to Public
Resources Code 21166.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering alU
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify
a recommendation for approval of said Sign Program:
1 . That the proposed Sign Program is consistent with the goals and policies of the
La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Community
Commercial which allows the uses and associated signs proposed for the
properties.
A:\PC RESO Sign Program 2002-629.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Sign Program 2002-629
Madison/P.M.T. La Quinta, L. L C.
Adopted September 24, 2002
Page 2
2. That the proposed Sign Program is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Code
(Section 9.160.090) in that the property is designated Community Commercial
with more than three planned signs for proposed for the properties.
3. That the proposed Sign Program is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Code
(Section 9.160.090 E) in that sign adjustments for additional area, additional
number, alternative placements, and alternative sign types can be granted by
the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Sign Program
request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 20 day of September, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
t�
L
PH #B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 3,
2002)
CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-41 1 REVISED,
SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-051 AMENDMENT #1, AND VILLAGE
USE PERMIT 2001-007 AMENDMENT #1 - VISTA
MONTANA
APPLICANT/
DEVELOPER: CAMEO HOMES (VICTOR MAHONY)
REQUESTS: 1. CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2001-41 1 REVISED;
2. AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR A MIXED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ON
33 ± ACRES, INCLUDING DETACHMENT OF 12.72 ACRES
FOR A FUTURE PUBLIC SCHOOL; AND
3. REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS
FOR A 200-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND TWO
COMMERCIAL PADS IN MULTIPLE STORY BUILDINGS ON
12.04 ACRES.
LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF EISENHOWER DRIVE, NORTH OF CALLE
TAMPICO AND WEST OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS
PROPERTY
OWNERS: CAMEO HOMES AND LANDAQ, INC.
ARCHITECT: KTGY GROUP, INC.
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: FORREST K. HAAG, ASLA, INC.
ENGINEER: M.D.S. CONSULTING (CHRIS J. BERGH, L.S.)
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
1h
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED REVISIONS TO
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-41 1 PURSUANT
TO THE SUBMISSION OF TRAFFIC AND HYDROLOGY
STUDIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REQUEST. BASED
UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE
A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED.
LAND USES:
NORTH: EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL (GOLF COURSE
FAIRWAY) AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION HACIENDA'S @
LA QUINTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BEYOND
SOUTH: ACROSS CALLE TAMPICO, COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL USES, AND SCATTERED VACANT LOTS IN
THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
EAST: ACROSS AVENIDA BERMUDAS, EXISTING AUGIE'S MEAT
MARKET AND FUTURE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL
PROJECT PER SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050 AND VILLAGE
USE PERMIT 2001-012 (SANTA ROSA PLAZA)
WEST: ACROSS EISENHOWER DRIVE, EXISTING FLOOD
CONTROL CHANNEL AND GOLF COURSE FAIRWAYS
BACKGROUND:
The 33-acre site is bounded on the south by Calle Tampico, on the west by
Eisenhower Drive and on the east by Avenida Bermudas. To the north is the La Quinta
Evacuation Channel, a drainage corridor that is also used for golf course fairway usage.
Portions of the site are developed as addressed in the next section of the report.
Property History
On January 10, 2001, a public hearing was held to review an application by KSL
Development Corporation to divide 33.1 acres into four parcels under Tentative Parcel
Map 29886. The Community Development Director approved the request, subject to
conditions. Recordation of the subdivision map occurred on June 29, 2001, based on
adoption of City Council Resolution 2001-46.
On March 6, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolutions 2001-16 through 2001-20
approving the "Vista Montana Specific Plan" and other affiliated development
applications which allowed development of a 33-acre site at the northeast corner of
Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive with 227 residential units (a maximum of 365
guest rooms), retail commercial up to 20,000 sq. ft., office space up to 20,600 sq.
ft., a 40,000 sq. ft. distribution center for the La Quinta Resort Hotel, and employee
parking for 630 cars (Attachment 1). The density of the residential project was 6.8
dwelling units per acre and houses ranged in size from 750 square feet to 1,400
square feet (Plans 1 through 4). Under the Plan, residential condominium buildings
were 37'-0" high and commercial buildings were 22'-0" high, excluding architectural
projections. Buildings within the development were to use a Mediterranean design
motif incorporating smooth trowel stucco finish for exterior walls, tile roofs, multi -pane
windows, arches and wrought iron balconies.
On January 18, 2001, and June 21, 2001, the City's Historic Preservation
Commission reviewed Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Reports
(Vista Montana Development) for the 33-acre site, previously known as the "Hunt Date
Garden." Based on this information, Minute Motions 2001-002 and 2001 -011 were
adopted requiring site work to be stopped if cultural materials were discovered during
construction.
On February 7, 2001, the City's Architecture and Landscape Review Committee
recommended approval of Village Use Permit 2001-007 by adoption of Minute Motion
2001-006, subject to the following condition: "Prior to issuance of a building permit,
the office building elevations shall include the depth of the window insets and design
treatment as well as the texture of the wall to be similar to the residential component."
The Planning Commission approved Resolution 2001-155 on December 11, 2001
approving a General Plan Consistency Finding to vacate portions of Avenida Bermudas
to assist development of the Vista Montana project. City Council Resolution 2002-03
finalized this street vacation request on January 15, 2002.
Since approval of the Vista Montana Specific Plan, KSL Land Corporation has built an
office building of 17,891 square feet and 94 stall parking lot on 2.6 acres located at
the northwest corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas (50-905 Avenida
Bermudas). To the north of this facility, KSL constructed a 288 vehicle parking lot and
a 1.4-acre retention basin on portions of a 6.5 acre parcel (i.e., Parcel 4 of PM
29886).
On August 20, 2002, the Community Development Director approved Tentative Parcel
Map 30721 which proposed the subdivision of 29.82 acres into four lots within
Specific Plan 2001-051. Parcel 1 is 12.74 acres and being set aside for use as a
future public school site (Attachment 2). Parcels 2 through 4 are to be developed with
commercial and residential land uses. This land division request was submitted to
supplement the proposed amendments to SP 2001-051 and VUP 2001-007 that are
addressed in the next section of this report.
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Changes proposed by the developer for the Vista Montana Specific Plan and Village
Use Permit (Attachment 3) are:
1. Residential Component (Planning Area #2 on 10.31 acres) - La Quinta Village
Apartments
A multi -family component of 200 units is proposed for the northwest corner of the
project area on Parcel 3 of Tentative Parcel Map 30721 located approximately 630
feet north of Calle Tampico and 150 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. Two story
building complexes are planned oriented around common open space and parking
areas. Five unit types ranging from 670 square feet (one bedroom) to 1,177 square
feet (three bedrooms) are proposed. On -site parking is a combination of open and
covered spaces taking access from a 28-foot wide private two-way driveway aisle.
A one story recreation building of 2,694± square feet is located on the west side of
the project with open space courtyard and amenities on the east (e.g., a swimming
pool and spa, fountain, etc.).
2. Commercial Component (Planning Area #1 on 1.73 acres)
Two commercial building sites are being proposed to the west of the multi -family
component with frontage on Eisenhower Drive. Plan exhibits conceptually show two
story buildings that range up to 33'-0" high with a combined floor area of 12,000
square feet setback 32 feet from Eisenhower Drive. 90 open parking spaces encircle
each building while a 48'-0" wide driveway separates each building site. This primary
driveway is designed for right-in/right-out and left -in traffic movements whereas the
southernly-most driveway is gated to restrict access to emergency vehicle use only
pursuant to the developer's Technical Site Plan (Revision #2) received on September
16, 2002 (Attachment 4). This site plan supercedes access provisions outlined in the
Specific Plan document.
3. School Site (Desert Sands Unified School District)
Property at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive is being
considered for a new public school to accommodate 750 elementary students.
Therefore, the applicant and property owners have requested that this 12.74 acre area
be removed from the Specific Plan document since it will owned by a public agency.
SPECIFIC PLAN OVERVIEW:
The revised Specific Plan provides guidelines and standards for development of the
proposed Planning Areas are similar in context to the original plan. Changes requested
under this new document are:
a
1. Allow garage parking which was not permitted for the original resort residential
units;
2. Base residential density is calculated using Planning Areas #1 and #2, and
assuming a density bonus for affordable units*;
3. Providing one bedroom units with less than 750 square feet;
4. Change the parking provisions from one space per bedroom to 2.3 per unit; and
5. Reduce two-way driveway aisle widths in some instances to 24'-0" between
covered parking areas; and
6. Provide covered parking for 25% vs. 30% of the commercial parking stalls.
* The Zoning Code specifies that the ultimate decision on density shall rest
with the Planning Commission unless final action by the City Council is required.
Medium High and High Density residential development standards of the City's Zoning
Ordinance were used as guidelines for development of the apartment complex as the
Village Commercial District does not contain an in-depth list of residential development
standards.
VILLAGE USE PERMIT:
The various components of the project have been designed in the same architectural
style described by the applicant as "La Quinta Heritage," featuring a smooth stucco
finish, concrete roof tile, wood and wrought iron accents, and other ornamental
features.
Apartments
Buildings are typically in north/south and east/west orientations, facing common areas
measuring 10' wide and larger. Due to the layout of the units and limited use of
attached parking areas, the streetscape varies with the possibility of any of the four
sides of the structure facing a particular way. The dwelling unit mix is 46 one
bedroom units, 108 two bedroom units, and 46 three bedroom units. Access gating
is planned to separate residential parking areas from commercial parking facilities.
The proposed buildings will be architecturally similar to the existing KSL Resort office
building on Calle Tampico through the use of varied roof and window designs and
other ornamental features.
Commercial Pad Sites
The two commercial buildings to be constructed on Eisenhower Drive will use
architectural features similar to the apartment complex. Eisenhower Drive access will
be shared with the apartment complex.
Landscaping
A conceptual landscaping site plan has been submitted showing general tree and shrub
locations. Included is a plant pallette indicating species to be used. The retention
basin, which measures 160'-0" wide by 315'-0" long, has the capability to provide
recreation opportunities for residential and commercial uses in the master planned
development.
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) reviewed this request
at its meeting of August 7, 2002, and adopted Minute Motion 2002-032,
recommending approval of the architectural plans and landscaping plans for Planning
Areas #1 and #2 (Attachment 5). issues raised by the ALRC were: 1) A detailed
landscape plan shall be submitted to them before working drawings are prepared; 2)
A solid masonry wall shall be built on south and east sides of the apartment project;
3) Examine the size and placement of trees and shrubs to ensure growth potential; 4)
People spaces need to be enlarged to encourage passive recreation opportunities for
apartment residents; 5) Additional recreation facilities should be required; and 6) Vines
and decomposed granite shall be used in the perimeter planters because the width of
the planters is narrow and not conducive to planting shrubs and trees. These design
issues are addressed in Village Use Permit Condition of Approval #69.
Public Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on August
22, 2002, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project
boundaries by the Community Development Department on August 13, 2002. To
date, no correspondence has been received. Any comments received after this writing
will be handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency Review: The request was sent out for comment, and any pertinent
comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
Citywide General Plan Update
On March 20, 2002, the City Council adopted an update to the City's General Plan
which removed the Image Corridor designation from the site's south and west frontage
streets (Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive, respectively). This designation had
previously required a maximum building height of 22'0" within 150 feet of the
property line. Under the Plan, Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico are designated
corridors for on -street golf cart paths (8'-0" wide striped lane next to the curb) which
will be implemented in the coming years for the Village and surrounding areas.
Village Commercial parcels allow mixed land use projects and the General Plan Land
Use Element states that: "Medium High Density and High Density residential land uses
may also be appropriate under this designation." Density ranges for these two
categories are up to sixteen dwelling units per acre.
Specific Plan Documents
Specific plans are an effective tool for the implementation of general plan policies and
priorities as defined under Government Code § 65450 et seq. Residential densities
may be transferred within the specific plan to assist development opportunities and/or
conserve environmental resources.
Village Commercial Zoning District
Chapter 9.65 of the Zoning Code sets forth the requirements to develop a project in
the city. The pretext of this District is to promote "year-round development" while
ensuring pedestrian accessibility and maintaining historic architectural compatibility
with surrounding areas. Developments in this District may be residential or
commercial, or both. The developer is proposing commercial development and a 200-
unit residential development.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Access - During consideration of the original development applications, site
access provisions were established between each planning area. Based on the
new land use plans, changes have been proposed whereby each development
activity is a stand alone entity with the exception of common access between
Planning Areas #1 and #2. See Village Use Permit Condition of Approval #43
for traffic access requirements. Development activity on the school site will be
evaluated further by the Desert Sand Unified School District once they acquire
the parcel and determine the placement of play areas, buildings and parking
facilities.
2. Land Use Density - Regarding site density provisions for the proposed apartment
complex, the City`s General Plan allows residential uses up to a maximum of 16
units per acre in the Village Commercial District. This density limit can be
exceeded if affordable housing units are proposed in the project. The City can
also elect to make other site concessions to insure that the development costs
are reduced, such as requiring smaller housing unit sizes, less parking, etc.
Specific Plan Condition of Approval #16 sets forth the requirements to allow a
density bonus for this project.
Staff has spoken with the developer about the possibility that the commercial
site may involve live/work facilities. In order to accommodate this feature, staff
has proposed a provision that allows the Community Development Director to
consider upstairs residential uses for Planning Area #1. See Specific Plan
Condition of Approval #16.
3. Storm Water Retention - The retention basin to the east of the apartment
complex is designed for a 100-year storm and is capable of storing 6.05 acre-
feet. Village Use Permit Condition of Approval #26 requires: "The applicant
shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC,
Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site
during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall
extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be
either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off."
Storm water handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
report for the "La Quinta Village Apartment." Nuisance water shall be disposed
of in an approved manner.
Information from the Coachella Valley Water District indicates that the site is
protected from regional storm water flows by a system of channels and dikes,
and "may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare
instances." See Specific Plan Conditions of Approval #26 through #31.
4. Planning Areas - As this is an amendment request, all properties in the Specific
Plan shall be defined as Planning Areas. Specific Plan Condition of Approval
#14 addresses this requirement.
5. Recreation Amenities - Since the August ALRC meeting, the developer has
enlarged the swimming pool behind the recreation building from approximately
350 square feet to a minimum surface area of 1,000 square feet. Staff
supports the developer's request because placement of a second pool on the
east side of the project would only create additional maintenance and safety
problems for the residential complex.
6. Residential Unit Parking Provisions - The City's Off -Street Parking Ordinance
specifies a parking ratio of 2.5 spaces/unit for the apartment complex, whereas
the developer is requesting a ratio of 2.3 spaces/unit or 460 parking spaces.
Covered parking spaces account for 46% of the total number of on -site stalls.
Under the existing Specific Plan requirement of one parking space per bedroom,
only 400 spaces are required. Staff recommends each dwelling unit have 2.3
parking spaces pursuant to Specific Plan Condition of Approval #16 with at
least one covered space per dwelling. This design parameter is consistent with
other existing projects in the City, such as the Villa Cortina (116 units) and
Aventine (200 units) projects which have approximately 2.7 to 2.0 spaces per
unit, respectively. The City's recent approval of a 149 unit apartment complex
on Avenue 52 permitted a parking ratio of 2.3. Existing and planned apartment
facilities use carports and garages to provide shade cover for tenant vehicles.
7. Dwelling Unit Sizes - The smallest dwelling unit size is 670 square feet, or 23%
of the total number of units planned. It is anticipated that these units would be
provided to individuals that may not be able to pay for the larger units and
encourages a mix of different income groups within the same project. For
comparison purposes, Villa Cortina units are 750 square feet (68% of total) and
larger, and Aventine units are 792 square feet (36% of total) and larger. Within
the City, non -senior apartment units in newly built projects typically range in
size from 750 sq. ft. to 1,228 sq. ft. Each project mentioned above includes
affordable units with the Villa Cortina being exclusively income restricted or
100% affordable. Staff supports the development proposal, as presented, in
that the range of unit sizes are similar to other apartment projects and design
flexibility is allowed in the Village Commercial District.
8. Specific Plan Document - The Specific Plan provides guidelines and standards
for development of the proposed project(s) pertaining to land use, circulation,
access, infrastructure, and development regulations, etc. Pursuant to General
Plan Land Use Policy 4, "density transfers may occur in Specific Plans when
common area amenities and open space are provided." Policy 2 further states:
"The City shall maintain commercial development standards including setbacks,
height, pad elevations and other design and performance standards which
assure a high quality of development." As amended, SP 2001-051 provides
implementation of the City's General Plan by providing flexible development
standards for the mixed land use project.
9. Architectural Design - The developer is using the architectural elements of the
La Quinta Resort for exterior surfaces to complement the existing commercial
structure on the site, consistent in form to the initial document and in
compliance with the Village Commercial requirements. Building shapes, as
designed, are compatible in design to the future Embassy Suites Hotel project
to the east. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Community
Development and Building and Safety Departments.
10. Comments from the Desert Sands Unified School District - The District's letter
of July 15, 2002, states: "All actions toward residential development will
potentially result in an impact on our school system. School overcrowding is
a District -wide concern of the Desert Sands Unified School District. The
District's ability to meet the educational needs of the public with new schools
has been seriously impaired in recent years by local, state and federal budget
cuts that have had a devastating impact on the financing of new schools. As
you are aware, there is a school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all
new development at the time building permits are issued." Village Use Permit
Condition of Approval #64 addresses this development requirement. On
September 13, 2002, the Community Development Department received a copy
of a letter from the District to Mr. Pat Brown concerning the school site and
development of the apartment complex (Attachment 6).
11. Infrastructure Improvements - Off -site infrastructure improvements exist on the
perimeter of the 33-acre development area, including raised landscape median
on Calle Tampico. Eisenhower Drive, a public thoroughfare, needs to be
widened to four traffic lanes (two per direction of travel) and include curb and
gutter improvements and landscaped median as required by the City's General
Plan Circulation Element provisions. Street widening will also necessitate that
the bridge over the La Quinta Evacuation Channel be widened to accommodate
projected vehicle trip demand based on Citywide growth forecasts. Conditions
are recommended to comply with these City design standards.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The City's General Plan encourages varied housing product types and assumes that
planned communities may include affordable units in high density developments. By
providing a mixed land use development, this in -fill urban project will assure an active
downtown center with residential uses being an active part of the Village environment.
Project development of privately -owned parcels is slated to occur in the next two
years.
The required findings for the Environmental Assessment per Municipal Code Section
9.250.020, Specific Plan per Section 9.240.010, and Village Use Permit per Section
9.65.40 to recommend approval of these applications to the City Council can be made
as noted in the attached resolutions. Conditions of Approval are recommended for the
Specific Plan and Village Use Permit to ensure the required findings can be made.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council certification of EA 2001-41 1 (Revised) for Specific Plan 2001-051
Amendment #1 and Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1;
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, subject to
conditions; and
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, subject to
conditions.
I]
Attachments:
1. Approved Specific Plan 2001-051 Site Plan
2. Tentative Parcel Map 30721
3. Concept Master Plan Exhibit
4. Technical Site Plan (Revision #2) dated 9-16-02
5. August 7, 2002 ALRC Minutes (Excerpt)
6. Letter from DSUSD to Mr. Pat Brown dated 9-1 1-02
:r
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 REVISED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2001-411 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN
2001-051 AMENDMENT #1 AND VILLAGE USE PERMIT
2001-007 AMENDMENT #1
CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-411, REVISED
APPLICANT: CAMEO HOMES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 3d and 24th days of September, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearings
to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1 (Revised) for Specific Plan 2001-051
Amendment #1 and Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1 ("Proposed Project")
located at the northeastern corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico, more
particularly described as follows:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 773-022-014 and 773-022-032
Parcels 1-4 of Parcel Map 29886; Portion N % of Section 1, T6S, R6E, SBBM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 61h day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider certification
of Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1 for Vista Montana (i.e., General Plan
Amendment 2001-075, Zone Change 2001-067, Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use
Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 30043), and on a 5-0 vote,
adopted Resolution 2001-16, requiring compliance with mitigation measures during
on -site construction work; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 271h day of February, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1 for Vista Montana (i.e., General Plan
Amendment 2001-075, Zone Change 2001-067, Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use
Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 30043) located at the northeastern
corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico, and unanimously recommended
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for
Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1 under Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
017; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment (EA) has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970," as amended (City Council Resolution 83-68), in that the Community
Development Department has prepared a Revised Environmental Assessment for EA
2001-41 1, determining that although the proposed Project could have a significant
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
EA 2001-411 Revised for Vista Montafia, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 2
adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case
because appropriate mitigation measures are being required consistent with the prior
assessment as certified by the City Council on March 6, 2001, by adoption of
Resolution 2001-16; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Revised Environmental
Assessment was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office on August 8,
2002, for Vista Montana by the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public
hearing notice in the Desert Sun Newspaper on August 22, 2002, for the September
3, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public
Notice Procedure) of the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to
all property owners within 500 feet of the site by the Community Development
Department on August 13, 2002. To date, no comments have been received from
adjacent property owners; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 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
WHEREAS, the applicant has prepared traffic and hydrology studies for
the new project to supplement earlier studies that were evaluated by the City Council
on March 6, 2001; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, as
follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted as the
findings of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 2: The Planning Commission finds that the revised Environmental
Assessment was prepared and processed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines and the
City's implementation procedures, and that mitigation measures identified in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the Proposed Project and
that these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where clearly
no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project.
SECTION 3: No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the Proposed Project will be undertaken, which will require major
modifications or revisions to the Environmental Assessment, due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the
previously identified significant effects.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
EA 2001-411 Revised for Vista Montana, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 3
SECTION 4: No new information of substantial importance which was not known, and
could not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the
Environmental Assessment was adopted, has become available which shows any of
the bases described in CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3), for requiring an Environmental
Impact Report.
SECTION 5: Based on these findings and the EA Addendum, the City has determined
that no Environmental Impact Report is required or appropriate under Public Resources
Code § 21166, and that an Addendum is sufficient to make the prior Environmental
Assessment apply to the Proposed Project.
SECTION 6: The Proposed Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
§general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified.
SECTION 7: The Proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants, or animals, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, or prehistory.
SECTION 8: There is no evidence before the City that the Proposed Project will have
the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources, or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends, as the site has been used for farming activities since the late 1940's
and the site's date palm grove was removed in 1999.
SECTION 9: The Proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no
significant effects on environmental factors have been identified.
SECTION 10: The Proposed Project will not result in impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the Proposed Project.
SECTION 11: The Proposed 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 12: The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed revised
Environmental Assessment, underlying Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
comments received thereon.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
EA 2001-411 Revised for Vista Montana, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 4
SECTION 13: The EA Addendum reflects the independent judgment and analysis of
the Planning Commission.
SECTION 14: The location of the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the Planning Commission decision is based, is the La Quinta
City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman, Community
Development Director.
SECTION 15: Based upon the Environmental Assessment and the entire record of
proceedings, the Proposed Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as
that term is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2.
SECTION 16: The Planning Commission has on the basis of substantial evidence,
rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of
Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 17: The revisions to EA 2001-41 1 are hereby recommended to the City
Council for certification.
SECTION 18: 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 241h day of September, 2002, by the vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
,I
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
EA 2001-411 Revised for Vista Montana, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 5
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Specific Plan 2001-051, Amendment No. 1, Village Use
Permit 2001-007, Amendment No. 1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cameo Homes
20 Corporate Plaza
Newport Beach, CA 92660
6. General Plan Designation: Village Commercial
7. Zoning: Village Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment changes the proposed land uses for a
Specific Plan approved by the City in 2001. The site is a total of 32 net acres.
The previous approval allowed 227 residential units on the westerly 22 acres,
20,000 square feet of retail commercial space on 1.68 acres, 20,600 square
feet of office commercial space on 2.57 acres, and a distribution center and
employee parking lot for the La Quinta Resort on 5.79 acres. Since approval of
the Specific Plan, a portion of the employee parking lot (94 of the possible 630
allowed spaces) and a 17,891 square foot office building have been
constructed.
The applicant proposes to amend the Specific Plan to reduce the residential site
to 10.3 acres, with a total of 200 units (on the northwestern portion of the
site); to allow for a future school site on the southwestern 12 acres; to delete
the 1.68 acre retail commercial site on Calle Tampico; to allow 15,000 square
feet of retail commercial land uses on 1 .7 acres on the western end of the
property; and to maintain the distribution center and parking lot approval on the
5.79 acre parcel on the northeastern portion of the site. The approved and
constructed office building site is currently built out.
PAGreg T\CameoEA41 1 Chklist(Revised).wpd I !
1 �
' The Village Use Permit would allow the construction of 200 apartments on 10.3
acres, and the parking areas on the 1.7 acre commercial site. The apartment
complex also includes parking, a common recreation building, one swimming
pool and two tennis courts.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: La Quinta Evacuation Channel, golf course at Duna La Quinta
South: Calle Tampico, generally vacant Village Commercial lands
East: Vacant Village Commercial lands, recently approved for hotel and
commercial development
West: Eisenhower Drive, golf course
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
1►rTir.
PAGreg T\CameoEA41 1 Chklist(Revised).wpd
2 G
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 Hazards and Hazardous Public Services
Materials
Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings
Geology and Soils Population and Housing
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
L0
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.
6
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0
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.
107
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further . equired.
t.
Signati#e J Date
P:\Gr101gJ\CameoEA41 1 ChklistlRevised►.wpd _ 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page
or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
PAGreg T\CameoEA411 Chklist(Revised).wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit 3.6)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Site topography, TTM 30651)
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)
J. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (General
Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (No ag. Land in proximity to
project site)
II. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
ro
KI
X
,GreS T\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd
V.
M
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Project Description)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01)
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? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/011,
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?((LSA, letter report, 1/17/01)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or hmpede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (LSA, letter
report, 1/17/01)
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? (LSA, letter report,
1/17/01)
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 and Testing Report," CRM Tech,
1 /8/2001)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)?("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing
Report," CRM Tech, 1 /8/2001)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey and
Testing Report," CRM Tech, 1/8/2001)
X
X
X
X
X
X
P9
X
:\Greg T\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevised►.wpd
/I. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ("Geotechnical Investigation..."
Sladden Engineering, July 2002)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.4)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit III-17)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit III-17)
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 EIR, Exhibit
III-17)
1II. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
Greg T1CameoEA411 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R.
X
X
X
VIII.
X.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use
map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? ("Preliminary Hydrology
and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2002)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site? ("Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS
Consulting, July 2002)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? ("Preliminary
Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2002)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
("Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting,
July 2002)
0 Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit
6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description)
X
X
P
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
\Greg T\CameoEA411 Chklist(Revised).wpd
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p.
74 ff.)
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.)
:I. 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,"
LSA, 1/16/01)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Residential project -- no
ground borne vibration)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA, 1 / 16/01)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan
land use map)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan land use map)
X
X
M
M
V
X
X
X
M
:II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for X
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
Greg T\CameoEA411 Chklist(Revised).wpd
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)
(III. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
KIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application
Materials)
KV. 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)? ("Traffic
Impact Analysis," Endo Engineering, 1/16/01 & 7/18/02)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?("Traffic Impact Analysis," Endo
Engineering, 1/16/01 & 7/18/02)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (No air traffic involved in project)
91
e
E
X
X
li
X
//
X
\Greg T\CameoEA411 ChUst(Revised).wpd
10
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (VUP site plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (VUP site plan)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (VUP site plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (VUP site plan)
(VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan
MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p.
58 ff.)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
KVII. 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)?
X
X
X
X
X
X
R.
X
S
\Greg T\CameoEA411Chklist(Revised).wpd
11 :�
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X
indirectly?
KVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
The original technical studies and Initial Study, prepared and adopted in 2001 for Specific Plan 2001-051, were used in
this review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
OURCES:
faster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
'reneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
'reneral Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
CAQMD CEQA Handbook.
'ity of La Quinta Municipal Code
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report," prepared by CRM Tech, January 8, 2001.
Vista Montana Village Use Permit Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, January 16, 2001.
La Quinta Village Apartments.... Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, July, 2002.
,etter Report regarding biological resources prepared by LSA, January 17, 2001.
Vista Montana Development Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA, January 16, 2001.
Preliminary Hydrology Report," prepared by MDS Consulting, July, 2002.
\Greg T\CameoEA411ChklistlRevised►.wpd
12 v��
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-411 - Cameo Homes (Revised)
I. a) & c)
The intersection of Eisenhower and Calle Tampico is designated for Primary
Gateway Treatment, and the intersection of Calle Tampico and Avenida
Bermudas is designated a Secondary Gateway Treatment. This designation
requires that special landscaping, building heights and building setbacks be
incorporated into project design. The previously approved Specific Plan
exceeded the building height limitation, and a mitigation measure had been
required. The Specific Plan Amendment has modified the building height for the
residential component to conform to these limitations. No mitigation measure
is needed to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
I. b) The project site is currently vacant. No significant outcroppings or other
aesthetic features occur on the site.
I. d) The proposed project will occur on a currently vacant parcel which does not
generate any light, and will therefore represent an increase in light levels for the
area. The project will, however, be required to meet the City's standards for
outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed downward and
contained within the project site. These standards will mitigate the potential
impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level.
II. a)-c)
The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to
Williamson Act contracts.
III. a) The previously approved project would have resulted in 227 residential units,
20,000 square feet of retail commercial development, 20,600 of commercial
office development, a 40,000 square foot distribution center, and an employee
parking lot. The traffic study prepared for the proposed project estimated that
the project at buildout would generate 4,370 trips'. The table below illustrates
the vehicular emissions which would have been generated by the project trips
at buildout.
Running) Exhaust Emissions - Approved Specific Plan
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brake Tires
s
45 mph 215.12 9.65 38.59 -- 0.96 0.96
Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, January, 2001.
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411Add (Revised)-wpd 1
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100
150
Based on 4,370 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using
EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic
light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for
assistance in determining the significance of a project.
The revised project would result in 200 apartment units, a future school site on
12 acres, 12,000 square feet of retail commercial land uses on 1.7 acres, and
to a 40,000 square foot distribution center and 630 parking spaces for
employees. The approved and constructed office building site is currently built
out. These land uses have the potential to generate 7,312 daily trips2. These
trips could generate the following level of pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions - Proposed Amended Specific Plan
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
45 mph 359.9 16.14 64.5 -- 1.61 1.61
5 7
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
*
Based on 7,312 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using
EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes
catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD
for assistance in determining the significance of a project.
Although the revised project will result in increased emissions, the revised
project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving emissions,
as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in
determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to chemical
pollution are not expected to be significant.
III. b) The proposed project will not result in any stationary source air quality
violations, because residential and commercial land uses are proposed, which
will not generate stationary source emissions.
2 Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, January, 2001 ("Vista Montana Traffic
Impact Analysis"), and July 2002 ("La Quinta Village Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis".
ell
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411Add(Revised).wpd 2 4 -
III. c) & d)
The construction of the revised project will have the potential to generate dust,
which could impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley is a
severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or
smaller). The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of
PM 10. These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the
proposed project. The contractors for all projects on the site will be required to
submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity,
and to submit the Plan to both the City and SCAQMD. In addition, the potential
impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping shall be installed with
the first phase of development. Any portion of the site which is graded
and not immediately built upon shall be stabilized with either chemical
stabilizers or natural ground cover, subject to approval by the City
Engineer.
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.
PAGreg T\CamecEA411Add(Revised).wpd 3
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the implementation
of the Coachella Valley PM 10 Management Plan 2002, the impacts from
particulate matter to air quality from buildout will not be significant.
III. e) The construction of homes and retail commercial development will not result in
objectionable odors, because the permitted land uses within each of the
planning areas do no generate such odors.
IV) a)-f)
A biological survey was conducted for the original project'. The survey found
that the site provides poor habitat due to previous disturbances on the site.
Although common species were found at the time of the survey, no threatened
species are expected to occur on the site. No mitigation measures are
necessary. Since the revised project will be substantially similar to the original
project in terms of types of construction, the impacts of the revised project are
also expected to be less than significant.
V. a), b) c) & d)
A cultural resource survey and testing program was conducted for the subject
property4. The survey and testing found that no resources occur on the site.
The report further finds that it is possible that buried artifacts could be
encountered during the construction process. In order to mitigate this potential
impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential
archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time
as a qualified archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended
mitigation measures. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit
to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a
written report on all activities on the site.
VI. a) i), ii) & iv)
The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. In order to mitigate and protect the City from this
hazard, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated
construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the
preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the
submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that
3 Letter report prepared by LSA, January, 2001.
4 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report, prepared by CRM Tech,
January, 2001.
PAGreg T\CameoEA411Add(Revised).wpd 4 7
impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. This
mitigation will be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The project site is not located adjacent to a hillside, and will not be subject to
landslides.
VI. b) The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area. As discussed above, the soils
on the proposed site are loose silty sand. Sandy soils must be properly
compacted prior to construction to assure long-term stability. The City's
standards for site preparation shall be adhered to, as required by the City
Engineer. In order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site,
the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed
site, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City
Engineer, a detailed, site specific soil study, which shall include
recommendations designed for the specific structure(s) being
constructed.
VI. c)-e)
The soils on the site are not expansive, and support the development proposed.
The soils on the site may be subject to caving during excavation, but this
potential impact will be mitigated by the geologist in the above -required
geotechnical analysis. The potential impacts associated with geology are less
than significant.
VII. a)-h)
Residential and commercial land uses will not generate any unregulated
hazardous material. The site is not located within an airport land use plan. The
site is not located within a wildland fire area. Emergency response will be
implemented in accordance with the City's Emergency Response Plan, in
cooperation with the County of Riverside.
VIII. a), c),d) & e)
The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on -
site. This requirement includes the installation of "water cleaning" devices when
necessary to ensure that no contaminants are introduced into the storm water
system. This requirement will reduce the potential for violation of a water
quality standard to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
All development adds to demand for groundwater. Domestic water is provided
by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a
number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The project will be required to
retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into
the ground. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411Add (Revised).wpd 5 '7 -�
standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures. Finally, the proposed project
will be required to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving
landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that
landscaping plans are water -efficient. These mitigation measures will reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. c)-e)
The proposed project, through the construction of buildings and parking lots,
will create impermeable surfaces, which will change drainage patterns in a rain
event. The project site is located in an AO Flood Zone. The project will,be
required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100 year storm on -
site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm.
The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the
City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level.
VIII. f) & g)
The proposed project is located in an AO flood zone. The City Engineer will
require that all structures on the site are constructed above the potential flood
level in this zone. This standard will serve to mitigate potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
IX. a)-c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will be integrated into an existing
country club development. The project is consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning designations for the project site. No impacts to land use and planning
will result from construction of 200 single family homes.
X.a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
XI. a) & c)
A noise impact analysis was prepared for the proposed projects. Noise impacts
exceeding the City's standards will occur during construction activities. At
buildout, however, the proposed project will meet the City's current exterior
noise standard for sensitive receptors. Construction mitigation measures are
offered below. These mitigation measures will ensure that impacts from noise
are reduced to less than significant levels.
1. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the
La Quinta Municipal Code.
5 Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA, January, 2001.
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411Add(Revised).wpd 6
2. On -site generators, if required, shall be located in the northern portion of
the site.
XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment
and activities. Existing homes occur to the north, west and south of the site.
Homes are considered sensitive receptors to noise, and the construction at the
site could have a negative impact. In order to reduce these potential impacts,
the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any
occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers
and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors)
shall be located as far away from existing homes as possible.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The revised project will be constructed on currently vacant land, and will
provide a mix of residential and commercial development. The site has the
potential to employ some of the residents within either the commercial retail
area, or at the school. No impacts to population and housing are expected.
XIII. a)
Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services.
The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department,
under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property and
sales tax which will help offset the costs of added police and fire services.
All homes within the proposed project boundary will be required to pay the
state -mandated school fees to mitigate potential impacts to schools.
To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, each project within the
tract map area 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.
PAGreg T\CameoEA41 1 Add(Revised).wpd 7 ? --
XIV. a) & b)
The buildout of the revised project will result in an increase in population which
will have a need for recreational facilities. The project site will include a
clubhouse, pool, and tennis courts for residents' recreation. The generation of
property tax, and the General Plan policies in place to ensure that standards for
parkland acquisition are followed by the City as development occurs, will
mitigate potential impacts to these facilities to a less than significant level.
XV. a) & b)
Traffic analysis were prepared for the proposed project and the revised projects.
The analysis found that surrounding intersections will operate at acceptable
levels of service, with or without the proposed project; that minor alterations
to lane geometries will be required to accommodate the project, and are listed
below under mitigation measures. Both analysis found that signalization would
not be necessary at Eisenhower and Calle Tampico with implementation of
either the original or the revised project. The study for the revised project,
however, did not include any of the uses currently constructed on the site, and
potential expansion of these uses, as permitted in the Specific Plan. Specifically,
the study did not include the office building currently on the southeastern corner
of the site, or the potential 40,000 square foot distribution center and 630
parking spaces allowed on the east side of the site. By combining the two
studies, it was determined that the revised project will generate 7,312 daily
trips, while the original project would have generated 4,370 daily trips. Because
of the increase in trips, and the high concentration of these trips during the
morning peak hour, when the future school will also have a significant impact,
it is likely that the intersection delay at Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico will
increase to an unacceptable level. Since this assumes buildout of the 630
parking spaces (only 94 such spaces are currently built), which have the highest
potential impact to AM peak traffic, should the parking not be constructed, the
traffic signal may not be needed immediately. In order to assure that the
impacts to traffic and circulation from buildout of the revised project are not
significant, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to any additional site plan or Village Use Permit on this site, the
applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that
all of the components of the Specific Plan land area have been
considered in a traffic signal analysis. That analysis shall also include
recommendations on thresholds for the construction of the traffic signal
at the corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive.
6 Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, January, 2001 and La Quinta Village
Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis, July 2002.
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411Add(Revised).wpd 8
The July 2002 traffic study also included mitigation measures to assure that
impacts of the project were less than significant. The following mitigation
measures shall be implemented:
1. Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico will be fully improved to their
General Plan half -widths adjacent to the project site.
2. All project exits will be STOP sign controlled.
3. The project proponent will contribute his fair share to the signalization of
Eisenhower and Calle Tampico.
4. The project proponent shall provide lane geometries as depicted in Figure
VI-2 of the Traffic Analysis, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5. The project proponent will participate in the City's Impact Fee program.
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential
impacts to the circulation system to a less than significant level.
XV. d)
The project proposes a right -in, right -out access onto Calle Tampico, between
Avenida Bermudas and the primary site access. The distance between these
drives may not be sufficient to allow for safe ingress and egress. In order to
ensure that this potential impact is mitigated, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented:
XV. f)
1. The City shall monitor development proposals for the school site, and
shall participate in the public comment process to assure that driveways
accessing the school are at safe distances.
The commercial retail component of both the original and the revised project
include the potential for restaurant land uses. The parking on the retail portion
of the site, however, has been calculated for general retail use, which is much
less stringent than restaurant use. Should large portions of the retail square
footage be dedicated to restaurant use, the site would have insufficient parking.
In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall
be implemented:
1. Restaurant use within the Commercial Retail component of the proposed
project shall be limited to 5,000 square feet gross floor area.
P:\Greg T\CameoEA41 1 Add (Revised).wpd 9 j
} I
XV. c), e), g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the project does not
create any hazardous design features. The map provides for an emergency
access point in addition to project access. Alternative transportation in the form
of trails and public transportation will be implemented based on General Plan
policies and programs.
XVI. a)-f)
Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer will be required
to pay connection and service fees for each of the utilities, which are designed
to incorporate future needs and facilities. These fees will eliminate the potential
impacts associated with utilities at the site.
P:\Greg T\CameoEA41 1 Add (Revised). wpd 10 7 '
N
M
O
N
N
O
M
c�
O
N
N
O
r,
N
O
0
N
M
ii
0
0
N
�a
>z .+
0 6
N
a�
a �
w
adEl o
x
0
U
o
�O
z
z
U
W
E-+
d
A
U�
QA
a�
U
w
ox
UU
U
°
Q
U
cd
�,
o
b
Q
n
° °
Q
U v�
b
b
bA
end
cad
•�
O
O
O
41O
O
O
p
0
zCO
En
U
U
=
U
U
CA
cn
a o
O M C5
w
O
vi O on an
Q
v�
U Q
>>i
zzcc
Q
w
ado
°
on
bn
on
to
-R
w
b
E b
U !:) U
U
U
m
U
on
U Q m
rA
b
z
O
a
o a
a
W
o
o
Fa
cl
a N
O
O
0
N_
a
'a
N
> b
bp
rn
CA
o
�
b
b
a
cd T
�;
U
y
v
�„y
A
a
GQ
Q
y
a
0
U
O :n
a cn
a
3
0
0
0
E
ca
m
3
a
W
F
d'
A
U�
QA
a�
�W
ox
UU
w
W
b cd
U cd
y„
O
�
U
CZ
o
cn
U a
bb
rr
O
bA
.Ei
Q
oz
�
as
a
Zo
z
Q
U �m
O
O
W
�
U
N
.14
U
►�
U
to =s
F
O o
U
� ``.
>
U y
d y
F
F
d
d
A
A
U�
U�
Ox
Ox
UU
UU
C4
o 0
U
U
En
U
U
w
0
•U •U
�
Z
•U
cn .O
cn
U U U
O
bA bA
oz
o�
wo
as
�o
zz
zz
O 0
�,
a�
DO
U
3
E •
rn
b
Eo
F
®
U
F
U
tad acz
W
r
U U
Fit
n
Cd
L:
ri
Wc�
rr�
ti o .�
0
z
C w
ro
x
0
rG O
W
Q
A
U0
dA
a�
�W
O�
U
CA
�
U
'ils,
a
a
a
a
�
own
ao
•�
Cd
O
>+
O
O
�
a
q
OCAV
O
O En O
O(n
taq
�
O pn
O
O�
O
O�
•�
O �"
o
0
�O
a
Q
oz
N
Q
Q
EiCd
z
d,
3
°
H �a
°
y
4'
w
o vi
vi
-ca
U
0
o
9b
O
..�.,
z
M
0 E
u o
�
��
o
W
d)
DEC'
U
v�
w F
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN GUIDELINES
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A MIXED LAND
USE DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE
TAMPICO AND AVENIDA BERMUDAS
CASE NUMBER: SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-051 AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: CAMEO HOMES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 3d and 241h days of September, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearings for
the Vista Montana project for review of a Specific Plan Amendment approving design
guidelines and development standards for Planning Areas #1 and #2 consisting
commercial pads and 200 multiple family dwelling units on 12.04 acres, and
detachment of 12.74 acres for a public school at the northwest corner of Calle
Tampico and Avenida Bermudas, more particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 773-022-014 and 773-022-032
Parcels 1-4 of Parcel Map 29886; Portion N % of Section 1, T6S, R6E, SBBM
WHEREAS, this development application has generated the following
actions:
WHEREAS, on July 8, 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
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt revisions
to EA 2001-41 1 in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 22, 2002, and further
caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk on August 8, 2002, in
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed public hearing notices to all property owners
within 500 feet of the project site on August 13, 2002, pursuant to Section
9.200.1 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. All written correspondence is on file with the
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received comment letters
on the development request 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/or
recommended conditions; and
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 -
Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee for the
City of La Quinta did, on the 7tn day of August, 2002, recommend approval of the
proposed mixed land use project on 12.04 acres (Planning Areas #1 and #2 of SP
2001-051 Amendment #1) by adoption of Minute Motion 2002-032, subject to
conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, previous site development actions are described below:
WHEREAS, site grading to remove a date palm grove occurred in 1999;
and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2001, and June 21, 2001, the City's Historic
Preservation Commission reviewed Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and
Testing Reports (Vista Montana Development) for the 33 ± acre site, previously known
as the "Hunt Date Garden." Based on this information, Minute Motions 2001-002 and
-01 1 were adopted requiring site work to be stopped if cultural material is discovered
during construction activities; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2001, the City's Architecture and Landscape
Review Committee recommended approval of Village Use Permit 2001-007 by
adoption of Minute Motion 2001-006, subject to the following condition: "Prior to
issuance of a building permit, the office building elevations shall include the depth of
the window insets and design treatment as well as the texture of the wall to be similar
to the residential component"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 6t' day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for the Vista Montana
project for review of a Specific Plan approving design guidelines and development
standards for a commercial/office, distribution center and 227 whole ownership single
family dwellings with the leasing potential of 365 guest rooms at the northeast corner
of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico, and by a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution 2001-
18 for SP 2001-051; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 2001-155 on
December 11, 2001 approving a General Plan Consistency Finding to vacate portions
of Avenida Bermudas to assist development of the Vista Montana project. City
Council Resolution 2002-03 finalized this street vacation request on January 15,
2002; and
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2001, Tentative Parcel Map 29886 was recorded
with the County of Riverside establishing four development parcels on 32.5 acres
within the boundaries of Specific Plan 2001-051, based on City Council Resolution
2001-46; and
W
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 - —
Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 3
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2002, the Community Development Director
approved Tentative Parcel Map 30721 to subdivision 29.82 acres into four
development parcels in conformance with the proposed amendments being addressed
herein. Final map processing is ongoing.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1 (Revised), and all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did
recommend to the City Council the following mandatory findings approving said
Specific Plan Amendment:
1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La
Quinta General Plan, the Land Use Map for the General Plan and supports the
development of the proposed project, as conditioned. It is anticipated that
affordable housing units will be included in Planning Areas #1 and #2, and that
live/work units may also be constructed depending upon market factors and
contractual arrangements with the La Quinta Redeveiopment Agency. Removal
of 12.74 acres within the project for development of a public school does not
adversely hinder development of the remaining privately held parcels.
2. The proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance and
the Village Design Guidelines in that it provides standards for the proposed land
uses.
3. The Specific Plan, subject to conditions, will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the mixed
use development allowed under the Specific Plan is compatible with existing
uses and surrounding zoning, and development standards and infrastructure
proposed in the Specific Plan will ensure high quality development.
4. Development of the proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the parcel on
which it is proposed, and surrounding land uses, as conditioned.
NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED by the Planing Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the Planning Commission decision is based is the La Quinta City Hall,
Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman,
Community Development Director;
3
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 -
Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 4
3. That it does hereby require compliance with the Conditions of Approval for the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment;
4. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment
2001 -411 (Revised) assessed the environmental concerns of this Specific Plan
Amendment; and
5. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan
2001-051 Amendment #1 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and
subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planing Commission held on this 24t' day of September, 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman -
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-051 AMENDMENT #1, CAMEO HOMES
SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
GENERAL
1. All changes to the Specific Plan which are also included in the Village Use
Permit shall be made to the latter to ensure consistency. The project proponent
shall submit amended final documents within 30 days of City Council approval
of the Specific Plan and Village Use Permit and/or prior to issuance of a grading
permit, whichever occurs first. Ten copies of the final Plan with Conditions of
Approval in the appendix shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department. Included in the filing shall be a copy of the Specific Plan document
on diskette in WordPerfect format.
2. The applicant/developer agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City
of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim,
action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this
project. 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.
3. The Specific Plan, and any Parcel Map submitted thereunder, shall comply with
the requirements and standards of Government Code § 66410 through
66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web site
at www.la-quinta.org.
4. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1. Avenida Bermudas (Collector) - 44 foot right of way, from
centerline up to the point of the street vacation pursuant to City
Council Resolution 2002-03. Vacated areas shall be compatible
with the Santa Rosa Plaza development located on the east side
of Avenida Bermudas.
2. Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial) - 50 foot half of 100 foot right of
way.
®'
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 -
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 2
3. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - 50 foot half of 100 foot right
of way.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
Residential Entry Drive (off Eisenhower Drive): Minimum 48 feet in width
(measured from back of curb to back of curb) within the right of way.
Residential: 31-foot minimum width back of curb to back of curb. On -
street parking is prohibited and provisions shall be made for adequate off-
street parking for residents and visitors. The CC&R's shall contain
language requiring the Homeowner's Association to provide for ongoing
enforcement of the restrictions.
C. CULS DE SAC
For culs de sac use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A
(offset) with 39.5-foot radius, or larger, or specific design as approved
by the City Engineer. For non-standard cuts de sac, right of way
dedication shall be as required by the City Engineer.
5. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as
follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is
approved):
A. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - 20-feet
B. Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial) - 20-feet
C. Avenida Bermudas - 10-feet
The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
6. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all
proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5
kv are exempt from this requirement.
L
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 - —
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, Cameo [domes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 3
7. The applicant sh0 install the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements
shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1. Calle Tampico (Primary Arterial) - Construct modification to raised
median to include a dedicated left turn lane to the site from
eastbound Calle Tampico @ Avenida Mendoza.
Applicant shall bear the cost of roadway improvements on the
outer twenty (20) feet of the roadway.
Eisenhower Drive (Major Arterial) - Construct 38-foot half of 76-
foot improvement (travel width, excluding curbs) plus 8 ft.
meandering sidewalk. Applicant shal0 construct the full raised
center median. Center median shall include turning pocket for left
turn for southbound Eisenhower Drive. Applicant to design
improvement to compliment the alignment of the bridge.
In lieu of constructing the permanent raised median, the applicant
shall install a 6-inch curb berm on pavement that delineates an
interim median lay out. The lay out shall be defined during the
design of the street improvements, and take into account the
unwidened bridge and the turning movement restriction.
Applicant shall bear the cost of roadway improvements on the
outer twenty (20) feet of the roadway. The cost of the median
modifications shall be reimbursed from the Development Impact
Fee fund in an amount not to exceed the budgeted amount.
2. Avenida Bermudas (Collector) - Reconstruct the northwest corner
of Avenida Bermudas and Calle Tampico and install new curb at
32 feet west of centerline, widening Avenida Bermudas for 100
feet north of the curb return. Provide 15:1 taper from 32 feet to
20 feet. Provide additional lane on the west side of centerline to
provide dedicated left turn lane and through/right turn lane.
Provide additional paving as necessary on the east side of the
centerline, if no paving exists, to provide for a total of two 14 foot
travel lanes.
,4;
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 -
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 4
B. PRIVATE STREETS -
1. On -site streets:
a. Project Entry Streets: Construct minimum 48 foot full width
improvements (measured from back of curb to back of curb)
within the right of way.
2. All on street parking is prohibited and the applicant shall be
required to provide for the perpetual enforcement of the restriction
by the Homeowners' Association.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the
City Engineer.
MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING
8. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of
all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks.
The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly
released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
9. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots, levees and park 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.
10. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
The applicant sha01 submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan
checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by
the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the
City Engineer.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 -
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 5
11. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn
or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
12. Landscape plans, which shows plant size, location, berming and walls shall be
submitted to the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. Street trees shall have a
minimum 1 .5-inch caliper and be 10' tall once planted. Palm trees shall have
a minimum brown trunk height of 8'-0". Parking lot trees shall have a 1.0-inch
caliper and be 8'-0" tall once planted. Other related trees shall not have a
caliper of less than 0.75-inches. All landscaping plans shall conform to the
City's Water Efficiency Ordinance (Chapter 8.13).
13. The landscaping plan shall include all frontages on City streets, and shall be
installed as part of the first phase of construction on the project site. Integrated
into the landscape plan shall include a grove of Date Palms (18' high and taller)
and plaque to memorialize the agricultural history of the site.
MISCELLANEOUS
14. Development areas for SP 2001-051 are defined as follows:
Planning Area #1 - Office/Commercial (1.73 acres)
Planning Area #2 - Residential/Retention Basin (10.31 acres)
Planning Area #3 - Existing Office Development (2.68 acres)
Existing Resort Hotel Off -site Parking lot (5.04 acres)
Planning Area #4 - Future Public School (12.74 acres)
32.5 acres (total)
Special Note: No on -site development standards are specified for Planning Unit
#4 as this property will be developed with a public school, subject to the
requires of the State of California and Desert Sand Unified School District.
Regarding continued development in Planning Area #3, any new development
projects shall require approval of a Village Use Permit by the Planning
Commission. Furthermore, any applicable conditions of City Council Resolution
2001-18 shall be met unless otherwise defined hereon.
15. Buildings shall not exceed a height of 35 feet. Architectural features may
extend up to 40 feet, subject to approval by the Community Development
Director. Building features higher than 40'-0" shall be approved by the Planning
Commission.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 - —
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 6
16. The maximum residential density for Planning Areas #1 and #2 is 16 dwelling
units per acre, unless affordable units are offered. An Affordable Agreement
shall be approved by the City's Redevelopment Agency and recorded against the
property for a term of not less than 55 years outlining the percentage of units
within the development that are income restricted not to exceed a site allocation
of 200 housing units. Additional live/work residential units may be located in
Planning Area #1, subject to approval by the Community Development Director.
Each residential dwelling unit shall have one covered parking space while open
parking spaces shall be commonly shared. A residential parking ratio of 2.3 per
unit shall be maintained. Minimum liveable square per apartment unit shall be
670 square feet and larger.
17. 30% of office/commercial parking areas shall be covered by trellis structures.
Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review
and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
18. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Specific Plan and Village Use Permit
documents shall be amended to show the location of all trash enclosures on the
site. The plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department
for review and approval.
19. A master signage program shall be submitted for the proposed project, subject
to Village Use Permit review, prior to the issuance of building permits. All
signage on the site shall conform to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
20. Specific Plan 2001-051 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or
mitigation measures for the following related approvals:
• Environmental Assessment 2001 -411 Revised
• Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1
In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of
these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine
precedence.
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.
r-�
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 -
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, Cameo [•comes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 7
21. Minor changes, as determined by the Community Development Director to be
consistent with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan, may be approved.
Examples include modifications to landscaping materials and/or design, parking
and circulation arrangements not involving reductions in required standards
beyond those identified in the Specific Plan, minor site, building area or other
revisions necessary due to changes in technical plan aspects such as drainage,
street improvements, grading, etc. Such changes may be approved on a staff -
level basis and shall not constitute a requirement to amend the Specific Plan.
Consideration for any modifications shall be requested in writing to the Director
and submitted with appropriate graphic and/or textual documentation in order
to make a determination on the request.
22. Buildings that have been planned under a Village Use Permit application do not
require a separate Site Development Permit application in order to be built.
23. Perimeter wall heights for the apartment complex shall not exceed 7'-0".
24. Bicycle racks shall be installed for commercial uses. The use of loop and ribbon
bars are encouraged.
25. Parking requirements set forth in Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Ordinance shall
be meet, unless otherwise allowed by the conditions noted herein. Two-way
parking driveway aisles for the residential component of the Plan may be 24
feet wide as noted on the Technical Site Plan (Revision #2) exhibit. Parking lot
light fixtures shale not exceed 18'-0" in overall height as measured from
adjacent paved surfaces.
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
26. The project proponent shall install suitable facilities to prohibit public access to
the La Quinta Evacuation Channel.
27. The project proponent shall obtain an encroachment permit from the District
prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation
Channel. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvements, drainage
inlets, landscaping and roadways.
28. This project shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 55 and 82 of the
District for sanitation service.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 -
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 8
29. All Bureau of Reclamation facilities on the subject property shall be abandoned
prior to issuance of building permits on the site.
30. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the
District for review.
31. This area is within Improvement District #1 of the District for irrigation water
service. Water from the Coachella Canal is available and shall be used for green
belt irrigation purposes.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT
CHANGES TO A MIXED LAND USE PROJECT ON
APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS AND
CALLE TAMPICO - VISTA MONTANA
CASE NUMBER: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-007 AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: CAMEO HOMES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 3d and 24t' days of September, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearings for
CAMEO HOMES for review of changes to a mixed land use development on 33 ± acres
located on the northwest corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas, more
particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 773-022-014 and 773-022-032
Parcels 1-4 of Parcel Map 29886; Portion N %2 of Section 1, T6S, R6E, SBBM
WHEREAS, this development application has generated the following
actions:
WHEREAS, on July 8, 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
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee for the
City of La Quinta did, on the 7t' day of August, 2002, recommend approval of the
proposed mixed land use project on 12.04 acres (Planning Areas #1 and #2 of SP
2001-051 Amendment #1) by adoption of Minute Motion 2002-032, subject to
conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt revisions
to EA 2001-41 1 in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 22, 2002, and further
caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk on August 8, 2002, in
accordance with Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed public hearing notices to all property owners
within 500 feet of the project site by the Community Development Department on
August 13, 2002, pursuant to Section 9.200.110 of the Zoning Ordinance. All
written correspondence is on file with the Community Development Department; and
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 2
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received comment letters
on the development request 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/or
recommended conditions; and
WHEREAS, prior actions by the City on the site are as follows:
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2001, and June 21, 2001, the City's Historic
Preservation Commission reviewed Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and
Testing Reports (Vista Montana Development) for the 33-acre site, previously known
as the "Hunt Date Garden." Based on this information, Minute Motions 2001-002 and
-01 1 were adopted requiring site work to be stopped if cultural material is discovered
during construction activities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 6Ih day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for KSL Development
Corporation for review of development plans for residential guest rooms and a 20,600
sq. ft. office building on a portion of a 33-acre site located on the northeast corner of
Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico, and after deliberation, adopted Resolution 2001-
19 for VUP 2001-007, approving the request on a 5-0 vote; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 2001-155 on
December 11, 2001 approving a General Plan Consistency Finding to vacate portions
of Avenida Bermudas to assist development of the Vista Montana project. City
Council Resolution 2002-03 finalized this street vacation request on January 15,
2002; and
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2001, Tentative Parcel Map 29886 was recorded
with the County of Riverside establishing four development parcels on 32.5 acres
within the boundaries of Specific Plan 2001-051, based on City Council Resolution
2001-46; and
WHEREAS, since approval of the Vista Montana development, KSL Land
Corporation has built an office building of 17,891 square feet on Calle Tampico and
employee parking lot for 94 vehicles with access to Avenida Bermudas, and to the
north of this facility -is an additional 285 vehicle parking lot for the La Quinta Resort
and Club and 1 .4-acre retention basin on Parcels 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 29886.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 3
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2002, the Community Development Director
approved Tentative Parcel Map 30721 to subdivision 29.82 acres into four
development parcels in conformance with the proposed amendments being addressed
herein. Final map processing is ongoing.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did recommend to the City Council mandatory findings approving
said Village Use Permit Amendment:
1. The proposed Village Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan goals,
policies and programs relating to the Village Commercial land use designation,
and supports resort residential and commercial opportunities for the residents
and visitors to the Cove and historic downtown.
2. The proposed Village Use Permit is consistent with the standards of Specific
Plan 2001-051 (Amendment #1), which establishes development standards for
the project.
3. The proposed Village Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding
development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements, as
conditioned.
4. The proposed Village Use Permit complies with the architectural design
standards for Specific Plan 2001-051 (Amendment #1), and implements the
high quality standards called for in that document.
5. The proposed Village Use Permit is consistent with the landscaping standards
and palette in Specific Plan 2001-051 (Amendment #1).
NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the Planning Commission decision is based is the La Quinta City Hall,
Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 4
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman,
Community Development Director;
3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment
2001-41 1 Revised assessed the environmental concerns of this Village Use
Permit Amendment; and
4. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Village Use
Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution,
and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; and
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 24th day of September, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-007 AMENDMENT #1, CAMEO HOMES
SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Village Use
Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the
necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of
improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting the improvement plans for City approval.
3. This Village Use Permit application shall run concurrently with the Conditions
of Approval for Specific Plan 2001-051 . Phased site improvements shall be
addressed during review of any Precise Grading Plan application.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater
Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water),
LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources
Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of
land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, the Permitee shall be
required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 2
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 Site Development
Permit.
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 Practice ("BMPs"), 8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC:
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading,
pursuant to this project.
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire
duration of project constructioiq until all improvements are completed and
accepted by the City.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer,
those easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction
and/or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall
include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services, and for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction
of essential improvements.
6. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
left turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans.
i� �
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 3
7. The perimeter setback requirements are addressed and approved under Specific
Plan 2001-051, Resolution No. 2001-18.
8. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, park lands, and
common areas shown on the plan.
9. Direct vehicular access to Eisenhower Drive from any portion of the site from
frontage along Eisenhower Drive is restricted, except for those access points
identified on the site plan for this project, or as otherwise conditioned in these
conditions of approval.
10. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, ingress/egress, or other
encroachments will occur.
11. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property between the date of approval of this Site
Development Permit and the date of final acceptance of the on and off -site
improvements for this Site Development Permit, unless such easement is
approved by the City Engineer.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed
to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
12. 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.
13. 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.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 4
A.
Perimeter Landscape Plan:
1 "
= 20'
Horizontal
B.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan:
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
C.
On -Site Precise Grading Plan:
1 "
= 30'
Horizontal
D.
Site Development Plans:
1 "
= 30'
Horizontal
E.
Site Utility Plan:
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs &
gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA
requirements; and show the existing street improvements out to at least the
center lines of adjacent existing streets.
"Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including
but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm
drainage systems.
"Rough Grading" plans shall include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of
Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of
cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
14. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the
applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction
notes from the City.
15. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete,
approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City
Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may
be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order
to reflect the as -built conditions.
M
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 5
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD
format, or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City
Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENT
Improvement security agreement is set forth under the Conditions of Approval for
Parcel Map 30721.
GRADING
16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
17. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
18. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer, and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC.
D. Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Best Management Plans.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an -engineering geologist.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit.
19. 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
�,6
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 6
other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control
Plan.
20. Grading within perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating
terrain and shall conform to LQMC 9.60.240(F). The maximum slope shall not
exceed 4:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, and shall not exceed 8:1
in the first 6 feet adjacent to the curb in the right of way.
21. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot
from the building pads in adjacent developments.
22. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the pads 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.
23. 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 Technical Site Plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed
grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
24. 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.
25. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 (Flood Hazard Regulations),
LQMC. Since it is located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 7
Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all
floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-
year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95 % Proctor Density as required
in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to
issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall
furnish elevation certifications, as required by FEMA, that the above conditions
have been met.
DRAINAGE
"Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report
for La Quinta Village Apartment. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved
manner."
26. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on
site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall
extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be
either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off.
27. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two
inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the
applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise.
28. Ornamental metal fencing, a minimum height of 5'-0", shall be constructed
around the 1.15-acre retention basin. Pedestrian gates shall be equipped with
self -closing hardware and deadbolt lockset to ensure safety and restrict access
to project residents and guests.
29. For on -site common retention basins, the basin depth shall not exceed 11 feet
for 40,000 SF basin size according to Engineering Bulletin 97-03 Amendment
#1.
30. 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.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 8
31. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
32. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received
and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief
route.
33. Property must continue to accept off -site drainage from Eisenhower Drive.
UTILITIES
34. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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
Public Street improvements shall be constructed as required by the Conditions of
Approval for Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment No. 1.
C
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 9
38. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to
ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements.
39. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design
procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall
be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.00" c.a.b.
40. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete.
The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include
recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation
test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current
production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix
designs are approved.
41. In lieu of constructing the permanent raised median, the applicant shall install
a 6" AC curb berm on pavement that delineates an interim median lay out. Lay
out shall be defined during the design of the street improvements and take into
account the unwidened bridge and the turning movement restriction.
PARKING LOTS AND ACCESS POINTS
42. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking).
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, dedicated turn
lanes and other features shown on the approved Technical Site Plans, may
require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer.
43. General access points on Eisenhower Drive shall be limited to the following:
A. Primary Entry
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 10
1. Only right turn in, right turn out and left turn in are allowed. Left
turn out movement is prohibited.
2. Construct minimum 48 foot full width improvements, measured
back of curb to back of curb within the right of way at the entry.
B. Emergency access shall be gated in accordance with the Fire Department
regulations.
44. 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.
45. 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 and parking areas
shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
46. Corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #805,
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
CONSTRUCTION
47. 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
48. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development
Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC.
49. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots, levees, and park areas.
6
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 11
50. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, levees, and park areas shall be signed and stamped by a
licensed landscape architect.
The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant
shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
51. 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.
52. Only incidental storm water will be permitted to be retained in the landscape
setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-
way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section
9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
53. Once the trees have been delivered to the site for installation, a field inspection
by the Community Development Department is required before planting to
insure they meet minimum size and caliper requirements noted in approved
plans. All trees shall be double staked or guyed to prevent damage from
seasonal winds.
54. Integrated into the landscape plan shall include a grove of Date Palms and
plaque to memorialize the agricultural history of the site.
55. The landscaping plan shall include all frontages on City streets, and shall be
installed as part of the first phase of construction on the project site.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
56. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 12
57. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such
other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with
which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate
construction supervision.
58. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements,
sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program,
but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction
materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and
other applicable regulations.
59. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by
the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or
"As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant
shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City,
revised to reflect the as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
60. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
61. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access
drives, and sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
62. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City
for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall
be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and
permits.
63. 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).
0
•
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 13
64. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall spay school mitigation fees
to the Desert Sands Unified School District based on the State imposed fee in
effect at that time. The school facilities' fee shall be established by Resolution
(i.e., State of California School Facilities Financing Act).
MISCELLANEOUS
65. Prior to building permit issuance, trash and recycling areas for the project shall
be approved by the Community Development Department. The plan will be
reviewed for acceptability by applicable trash company prior to review by the
Community Development Department.
66. The proposed signs shall be compatible with the architectural theme of the
project in regard to quality, color, size, placement, and configuration. Additional
sign components are:
A. Residential Component - Only one freestanding monument sign of 24
square feet (double -sided) is allowed on Eisenhower Drive, provided
indirect uplighting is used and the sign does not exceed a maximum
height of 6'-0". Exposed sign surfaces, other than sign graphics, shall
be stuccoed.
B. Commercial Component - One individual channel letter sign per tenant
space not exceeding 30 square feet (i.e., one square foot of sign per
linear foot of frontage, up to a maximum of 30 square feet). If lit signs
are required, only indirect or backlit reverse channel letter signs are
permitted. Signs made be constructed using wood or metal, unless
painted directly on walls and windows. Logos and decorative accents
are permitted as a part of the tenant signs. Second story tenants,
greater than 2,000 sq. ft., are permitted a wall sign with a maximum size
of 25 square feet.
One freestanding monument sign of 30 square feet (double -sided) is
allowed per street frontage or development parcel, provided indirect
uplighting is used and the sign does not exceed a maximum height of 8'-
0". Exposed sign surfaces, other than sign letters, shall be stuccoed.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 14
C. Colors, copy style and layout are not specified, but subject to individual
approval by the owner prior to City approval.
D. Permanent signs may be approved by the Community Development
Department, unless referred to the Planning Commission (Business Item).
67. Office building elevations shall include inset windows (e.g., 12-inches and
greater).
68. All changes to the Specific Plan which are also included in the Village Use
Permit shall be made to the latter to ensure consistency. The project proponent
shall submit amended documents within 30 days of City Council approval of the
Specific Plan and Village Use Permit.
69. Additional site development requirements are:
A. To buffer noise from adjacent uses, a solid masonry wall shall be
constructed on the south and east sides of the apartment complex.
Pilaster spacing shall be approximately 60' on center, unless otherwise
approved by the Community Development Director.
B. Vines and decomposed granite shall be used in the perimeter planters
(i.e., south and east only) of the apartment complex in -lieu of shrubs and
trees.
C. Pedestrian sidewalks and BBQ areas shall be added throughout the
apartment complex project. The surface area of the swimming pool shall
not be less than 1,000 square feet.
D. Trees within the apartment complex shall be placed so they have
adequate room to grow (a minimum 10'-0" by 10'-0" area). Parking lot
trees shall be placed in minimum six-foot wide planters and be a
minimum height of ten feet once installed. Bubblers shall be used to
irrigate trees,
E. A concept landscaping plan, which shows plant size, location, berming
and walls shall be submitted to the Architecture and Landscape Review
Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits
(1 " = 20' scale) .
•
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 15
70. Minor amendments to the development plans shall be subject to approval by the
Community Development Director.
71. Security lighting plans shall be approved by the Community Development
Department Director prior to issuance of building permits.
72. A centralized mailbox delivery system shall be used for the project pursuant to
any requirements of the U.S. Postal Service.
73. Oversized vehicles, recreational vehicles and trailers shall be prohibited in open
or carport spaces. Parking restrictions shall be enforced by the property owner
and/or manager.
74. VUP 2001-007 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation
measures for the following related approvals:
• Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1 Revised
• Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1
In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of
these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine
precedence.
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.
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.
75. Approved super fire hydrants, shall be spaced every 330 feet and shall be
located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the
building as measured along vehicular travel ways.
f
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 16
76. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the
side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
77. Fire Department connections shall be not less than 15 feet nor more than 50
feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the street side of the buildings.
78. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 3000
g.p.m. and the actual fire flow from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 1500
g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure.
79. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run
concurrent with the City plan check.
80. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, fdc, etc.) shall be
submitted to the 'Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building
permit.
81. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or
larger to be fully sprinkled (NFPA 13 Standard). Sprinkler plans will need to be
submitted to the Fire Department.
82. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
83. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of
the 1" floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel.
84. Any commercial operation that produces grease-ladden vapors will require a
hood/duct system for fire protection (i.e., restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.).
85. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for
approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and/or signs. Streets shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide with a height
of 13'-6" clear and unobstructed.
86. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial suite.
87. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code.
7 1]
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 17
88. 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.
89. 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.
90. The minimum dimension for access roads is 20 feet clear and unobstructed
width and a minimum clearance of 13'-6" in height.
PUBLIC SAFETY
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. All questions regarding the meaning of
following conditions should be addressed to Senior Deputy Andy Gerrard at (760) 863-
8950.
91. Illuminated directory signs shall be installed within the apartment complex to
identify building locations and unit numbers (e.g., 5' high by 4' wide @ 20 sq.
ft.). A protective Plexiglas cover shall be installed over each directory sign to
discourage vandalism of sign elements. Signs shall be positioned so they are
visible from main vehicular or pedestrian access points. An emergency phone
number shall also be posted on each sign.
92. Each individual building and unit shall be clearly marked with the appropriate
building number and address. The placement of building and unit numbers shall
be positioned so as to be easily viewed from vehicular and pedestrian pathways
throughout the complex. Main building numbers shall be a minimum height of
12-inches and internally illuminated.
93. Security lighting shall be provided throughout the master planned development.
The lighting shall have sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to
,�x
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1, Cameo Homes
Adopted: September 24, 2002
Page 18
make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises form
a least 25 feet away during the hours of darkness and provide a safe and secure
environment for all persons, property, and vehicles.
94. No Trespassing/Loitering signs shall be posted at the entrance of parking lots
and located in other appropriate places. Signs must be at least 2' high by 1,
wide (two sq. ft.) in overall size with white background and black 2" lettering.
All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per
22658(a) California Vehicle Code to assist in removal of vehicles at the property
owner's/manager's request.
95. Pedestrian and vehicular access gates shall be installed for the apartment
complex. Dual switch KNOX devices (Model 3503) shall be installed to assist
emergency personnel.
96. Common use facility rooms such as conference, laundry, TV rooms, etc., shall
have doors that lock and contain transparent material for surveillance (e.g.,
windows, etc.).
97. Dwelling front doors shall have wide -angled peepholes installed.
98. Convex mirrors shall be installed at stairwell landings if. the stairwells do not
have in -line sight.
99. If elevators are planned, elevator shafts and cabs shall be transparent to allow
occupants to be visible. Convex mirrors shall be installed in each elevator cab.
100. Graffiti resistant paint should be applied to building and fence surfaces.
ATTACHMENTS
O
A
m
COJ
•
F
s m
2
s
v tD �
N
V
N%
N
N
b
O
o
O
z
01
�
'1$il+
R F
C�irT�
O
� •
,p1��
0AWN
�. Attachment 2
ppp
r
O
1N n
m
�g m
a�� a0
"� m,
3� m
>"
=m�7 "
c
m
o
Z
D
��
r
3N�
D
m�
Im
'r,
m
mA
r
$� �� N
�cL
D
0
z
PP
v
0
�� ^�
o y
m
fyy+g
I I 1�9Z(-
m
z
gqa
oat
o�
A 30
co
�
i
N
D
7z°o
SPp
Z
C
'
ooR
/
,po 11
7
�-
Yyy .
g1�n�
N
�
z
N
F, 3
D
-r-X—
E
�v
0
M
r
z
p
1TNE PARCEL. MAP NO.
2.4.1 PROPOSED LA QUINTA VILLAGE APARTMENTS
MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE Attachment 3
The Master Plan for the La Quinta Village Apartments Specific Plan and Village Use Permit
reflects the development goal of providing upscale homesites capitalizing on views to
adjacent mountains and distant golf facilities as well as an environment of connected
greenbelt elements while providing adjacent sites for commercial development sites
complementing the residential plan and the La Quinta community at large. The Concept
Master Plan Diagram (below) is provided in map pocket 1 of this document.
W
(Future School Site)
N.A.P.
W
n
52Y
CALLS
'_i51Q
y�
La Quinta Village Apartments Specific Plan and Village Use Permit
WIr-f
_ `tqI
PARCEL 2
N.A.P.
b
CONCEPT MASTER PLAN DIAGRAM
2.5
7
I
_ _ F
c�' � i gar
1 �u _ "po
=To�,
s
Attachment 5
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
August 7, 2002
10:00 a.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting cf the Arc ural and Landscaping Commi ee was called
to order at 10:06 a. Associate Planner Greg Tr I who led the
flag salute.
B. Committee ers present: Bill Bobbitt David Thoms. It was
moved a econded by Commissio obbitt/Thoms to excu
Comm' ember Cunningham. U ously approved.
C. S resent: Management An
Trousdell and Wallace
wver.
II. "LIC COMMENT: None.
II CONFIRMATION OF TrH
ENDA:
A. Staffjre
mittee that
at thof the applicant.
IV. CONSENTAR: '
ebbie Powell, Associa nners
and Executive SqgWry Betty
the agenda had been pulled
A. W asked if there wer changes to the Minutes of July 3, 2002.
Commissioner Thoms d some minor changes. There being no further
corrections, it wa oved and seconded by Committee Members
Bobbitt/Thoms to approve the Minutes as corrected.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment # 1 and Village Use Permit 2001-
007. Amendment #1; a request of Cameo Homes for review of
architectural and landscaping plans for a multi -storied 200 unit apartment
complex and two commercial buildings on 12 acres in a Village
Commercial District located north of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower
Drive.
G AWPDOCS\ARLC\8-7-02. Wpd I
r
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
August 7, 2002
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell gave an explanation of the
project and introduced Mr. Forrest Haag, landscape architect, and
Mr. Keith Labus, KTGY Group, architect for the project, who gave
presentations on the project.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what had happened to the
previous Vista Montana project. Mr. Haag stated Desert Sands
Unified School District had purchased 12 acres of the site for a
school which caused a change in the master plan.
3. Committee Member Thoms asked if the stucco was to be smooth.
Mr. Haag stated smooth trowel was anticipated, but had not yet
been determined.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what material would be used to
construct the parking structure. Mr. Haag stated wood with
structural steel and glu-lams. Committee Member Bobbitt
suggested paralams be used instead and asked if the land use was
appropriate. Staff stated the Specific Plan would have to be
amended, but apartments are allowed on the site. Mr. Haag
stated that in the Village area of the City, this type of use is
encouraged to create vibrance to sustain the commercially planned
developments.
5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the height of the buildings in
the Village Commercial district. Staff stated it is 35 feet.
6. Committee Member Thorns stated the buildings are packed onto
the site with only one "people place". There needs to be another
kind of recreational area. Mr. Haag stated there is a reservoir east
of the project that will be a green belt with a potential for some
kind of court.
7. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed there should be some
additional recreational area on the site.
8. Committee Member Thoms asked what material would be used for
the ground cover. Mr. Haag explained turf and shrubs with a
decomposed granite trail connecting the buildings, common area,
and parking areas. In regard to the recreational areas, it is hard to
justify having two swimming pools with only 200 units.
G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\8-7-02.wpd 2
V
09-12%02 THU 10:06 F.AX 949 760 9728 RGC COURTHONES 1002
b*P-ii-cuuz Malpm From-0 S U S b FACILITIES 76o-T71-86r:Z T-448 p.001/001 P-807
.. _. .
Attachment 6
y�rtiEp
e��tlll� �s Desert Sands Unified School District
� c
�.+ra,w�'�'�""ia�a• sR 47-M Done PWm X*W TA Qah►Ue, G=53
MOW
r 0laart MQLLi +I►
i+i l Facilities Sersieft (760) 7714515 FAX (760) 771-8522
Board of Education
John Bexat
rma A. Godecke
J M Kaodyker
SWAWrqw
D
Any
Tom
September 11, 2002
Mr. Pat Brown
Vice President, Construction
RGC CourtHomes
101 Shipyard Way, Ste. G
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Brown:
ECEWE
SEP 13 2002
It has been a pleasure for the Desert Sands Untied School District to work
cooperatively on our pmojetis. The District's new elementary school at the corner
of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive and the development of the proposed
multi -family housing project north of the school will be assets to the City of La
Quinta.
Sincerely,
04W OA*
Peggy Reyes
Director
Facilities Services
09-12-02 19:06 RECEIVED FRQM:949 769 9728 P.82
S 4-
0
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
August 7, 2002
9. Committee Member Thorns reviewed the plans noting there is
space on the site that could be developed for open space and he
will recommending a secondary people space be added.
10. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he would like to see the final
plant palette be brought back to the Committee. Mr. Haag asked
if the final plan could come back to the ALRC. Staff stated they
could.
11. Committee Member Thorns asked that between the peripheral wall
and the parking spaces their is a nuisance area that should consist
of a decomposed granite and the wall be a solid wall for sound
attenuation.
12. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that if trees are to be added on
the perimeter, the applicant should provide enough room to allow
the tree to grow. Mr. Haag explained what they had proposed.
13. Committee Member Thorns stated that if they planted a
substantial tree instead of two or three smaller ones, it can work
better. He asked what the commercial uses would be. Mr. Haag
stated the vision is retail on the first floor and residential on the
second floor. Committee Member Thorns stated his concern that
there wasn't much visibility from the street.
14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion
2002-033 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2001-
007, subject to the conditions as submitted and amended:
A. Secondary people spaces be added within the units.
B. The south and east side walls be a solid wall with
decomposed granite material between the parking spaces
and the perimeter wall.
C. The final planting concept drawings be brought back to the
ALRC identifying the plant sizes and location at a 1 " = 20'
scale.
Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2001-702 Amendment #1; a request of La
Quinta Congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses for review of architectural
plans for a second church building located on the east side of Dune
G AWPDOCS\ARLC\8-7-02.wpd 3
PH #C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2002-073
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND
CHAPTER 9.60, SECTION 9.60.030- FENCES AND WALLS, OF
THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, TO PERMIT SPLIT RAIL
FENCING IN THE FRONT YARD WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
BACKGROUND:
CITY-WIDE
CITY OF LA QUINTA
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 9.60
IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.6, SECTION 21080 OF
THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUTES, AND SECTION 15268,
MINISTERIAL PROJECTS, OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
On September 3, 2002 staff requested direction from the Planning Commission
regarding whether or not to allow split rail fencing in the front yards. Following
discussion, the Commission directed staff to prepare revisions to the Zoning Code
allowing split rail fencing.
Current regulations prohibit wood fencing in the front yard. With the exception of
those fences that were constructed prior to the existing regulations, front yard fencing
must consist of wrought iron, tubular steel, block, masonry or a combination of the
two.
Historically, split rail fencing has been constructed of wood. Recently, however a
plastic/vinyl material, some with treated wood inside, has become available.
Homes with existing wood split rail fencing can be found in residential areas of the
City. Some have the traditional wood post, others use brick, or block columns for the
rail supports.
StfRpt-ZCA-073
Staff is recommending that a wood, two split rail fencing with either wood, brick, or
block columns at a maximum height of 4 feet for the columns and 3 feet for the top
rail, be allowed. Staff has drafted the attached Resolution for your considersation.
Public Notice
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 13, 2002.
No comments have been received to date.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Zone Code Amendment can be
made, and are noted in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2001-073.
StfRpt-ZCA-073
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL, AMENDING CHAPTER 9.60, SECTION
9.60.030- FENCES AND WALLS, OF THE LA QUINTA
MUNICIPAL CODE, TO PERMIT SPLIT RAIL FENCING IN
THE FRONT YARD WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
CASE NO.: ZCA 2002-073
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 24th day of September, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to amend
Section 9.60.030 of the Municipal Code, to allow split two rail wood fencing in the
front yard within residential zones; and
WHEREAS, the text amendment is exempt pursuant to Chapter 2.6,
Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act
statutes, and Section 15268, Ministerial Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending
approval of said Zoning Code Amendment:
1. The proposed text changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the La
Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and
surrounding development and land use designations, ensuring land use
compatibility.
2. The proposed text changes will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare, as they have been designed to be compatible with surrounding
development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements.
3. The proposed text changes supports the orderly development of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case.
P:\Jerry\PC Reso-ZCA073-SplitRailFencing. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Zoning Code Amendment 2002-073
Adopted: September 24, 2002
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Zoning Code Amendment
is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Chapter 2.6, Section 21080 of the Public
Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes, and
Section 15268, Ministerial Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines.
3. That it does recommend approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2002-073 to the
City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and contained in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 24th day of September, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Jerry\PC Reso-ZCA073-SplitRailFencing.wpd
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 9.60.030 FENCES AND WALLS.
E. Fence Construction and Materials. All fencing in...
1. Wood Fencing.
a. Except for gates, split two rail fencing , and equestrian fencing regulated...
tbl.
E.1.d. Split Rail Fencing. Split two rail wood fencing with wood, brick, or block
columns with a maximum height of 4 feet for the columns and 3 feet for the top rail
may be used in the front yard or along the front property lines.
P:\Jerry\PC Reso-ZCA073-SplitRailFencing.wpd
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
°�� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta Planning Commission will hold
a PUBLIC HEARING on September 24, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall
Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California on the following item:
ITEM: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2002-073
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
REQUEST: AMENDING SECTION 9.60.030-FENCES AND WALLS, OF THE LA
QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, TO PERMIT SPLIT RAIL FENCING IN
THE FRONT YARD WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
LOCATION: CITY-WIDE
The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the Section
to be amended is exempt pursuant to Section 15268, Ministerial Projects, of the
CEQA Guidelines,
Any person may submit written comments on this case to the Community
Development Department prior to the Hearing and/or may appear and be heard in
support of or opposition to the Amendment at the time of the Hearing. If you
challenge the decision of this case in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues that you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department at, or prior to,
the Public Hearing. The proposed file(s) may be viewed by the public Monday through
Friday 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development Department, La
Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. The public comment
period starts from the date of this notice and continues through the City Council Public
Hearing on October 15, 2002.
In the City's efforts to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans With
Disabilities Act Of 1990, the Community Development Department requires that any
person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodations) in
order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the Community
Development Department a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
PUBLISH 1 /8 PAGE DISPLAY AD ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2002
G:\WPDOCS\HearingNotices\ZCA072Twostory.wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
4. There being no questions of the plicant and no further public
comment, Chairma/de
the public participation portion
of the meeting the meeting for Commission
discussion.
5. It was moved anCommissioners Tyler/Abels to
adopt Minute Mo, approving Site Development
Permit 2002-749e findings and conditions, as
modified.
A. Conditioyf added requiring the driveway and curb area of
each use where the third car garage is converted to a
bedr m be deleted.
approved.
B. Zoning Issues; a request of staff for review of split rail fencing.
1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if they are trying to address the
maintenance of the fence rather than trying to hold something in
or out of the yard. Is there any broader scope to the question.
Staff stated there are different alternatives to wood that are now
availl able and staff is Ilook:1ng for directivii.
3. Commissioner Robbins asked if a property owner with a wood
front yard fence were to replace it, would he not be able to. Staff
stated if it was destroyed more than 50% it would have to
conform to the current Ordinance.
4. Mr. Jim McKinley 45-460 Coldbrook, stated they are already
established in the Del Rey development, but he is the only one that
has been ticketed.
5. Chairman Butler asked staff to address split rail fencing along with
construction materials for a future ordinance amendment.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wrpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
September 3, 2002
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners directing staff to schedule this for the Planning
Commission meeting of September 24, 2002. Unanimously
approved.
VIII. gORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
IX. CONWISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Co missioner Tyler gave a report on the August 8, 2002 City Council
meet g.
X. ADJOURNMEN
There being no further b iness, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Robbins/Kirk to adjourn this Iguklarmeeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Co'sion to be held September 24, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Co ission was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. on September
3, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-3-02.wpd 14
f
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 4
, 2002
f O PUBLIC♦ •
REQUEST: APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE CITATION REGARDING THE
VIOLATION OF FRONT/SIDE YARD SETBACK, SATELLITE DISH
LOCATION, AND CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT.
APPLICANT: BILL AND JAN TURNER
On July 23, 2002, staff asked for direction from the Planning Commission in regard
to a potential Code Amendment to permit temporary shade structures. It was the
decision of the Commission that no action be taken to amend the Code (Attachment
1).
Based on the Planning Commission's action, Code Compliance Officer Don Whelchel
cited the above applicant for various Code violations (Attachment 2) on August 8,
2002. The Sections cited in the violation are contained in Attachment 3.
The property owners, Bill and Jan Turner filed a Letter of Appeal (Attachment 4)
pursuant to Section 1 1.72.050.F (Attachment 5).
In order to provide further clarity, staff will prepare a Code Amendment to better
define such uses, and there permitted locations.
1. Adopt Minute Motion 2002-_, upholding Citation #6559 as a Public Nuisance,
and direct staff to prepare a Zoning Code Amendment to clarify such uses and
there permitted locations.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Minutes for July 23, 2002 (excerpts)
2. Case file information w/ pictures
3. Code Sections regarding Garages and Carports and Satellite Dish and
Other Antennas
4. Letter of Appeal
5. Code Section regarding Abatement of Public Nuisances
P:\Jerry\PC rept-codeVio1-ShdStr.wpd
s 11
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2002
47. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning -Commission
Resolution 2002-083 recommending certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2002-454, subject to the findings, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abets and Kirk. NOES:
Commissioner Robbins and Vide Chairman Tyler. ABSENT:
Chairman Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
48. There being a tie vote, the motion dies. No further action was
taken.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A Continued Site Development Permit 2002-744; a request of Jai Nettimi
for compatibility review of a deck for a single family two story house
located at 79-390 Paseo del Rey.
1. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there was a motion to continue Site
Development Permit 2002-744, as requested. It was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to continue Site
Development Permit 2002-744 to September 3, 2002, as
requested. Unanimously approved.
B. Zoning Issues; a request of staff for review of Shade Structures, Gas
Stations, and Drive Thrus.
1. Vice Chairman Tyler asked for the staff report. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk stated they support leaving the
Zoning Code as it is written for shade structures.
3. Staff asked if the Commission wanted to limit the number of gas
stations and fast thru restaurants in the City. Staff is not
requesting the prohibition of a restaurants, but rather the drive
thru.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd 19
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2002
4. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not the City could adopt
such an action. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated
the Planning Commission can amend the Zoning Code and make
a recommendation that allowing these uses is not good planning.
5. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this to a future meeting,
directing staff to prepare an analysis as to how many gas stations
and drive thrus there are and where they are located in La Quinta
and potential locations. Unanimously approved.
1
Vlll. CYRRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
A.Commissioners discussed the
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. No report was given on the City Council meeting of July 16, 2002.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
5
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a special
meeting of the Plann"Ing Commission to be held September 3, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. on July 23, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd 20
PH. (760)7777000
City of La Quinta FAX. (760)777-7011
78-495 Calle Tampico - La Quintaq California 92253 TDD: (760)777-1227
we# 6559
---- ----------------------- 7
1-te- Reported lReceiv I ed By .—.Flow Received - Complaint
8/9/2002 I Don Whelchel Self -initiated Founded
leation
IVEWAY
IN Address
t-155-001 53750 AVENIDA OBREGON
lReporting Party Address
;porting Party Name Phone
IELCHEL----- -17017 !LQCC N/A
?scription----
-ARGE METAL FABRICATED SHADE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN ERECTED IN THE DRIVEWAY WITHIN THE SET BACK AREA BOTH FROM
E FRONT AND THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINES. ADDITIONALLY, A LARGE SATELLITE DISH HAS BEEN ERECTED TOO HIGH AND TOO
OSE TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IN THE REAR YARD AND IS VISABLE FROM THE ROADWAY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
r)de,v Violated
'ode#_Description
'60,060 81 iCARPORT MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, MEASURED FROM THE OBVIOUS PROPERTY
-ILINE (NOT INCLUDING EASEMENTS) SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 30 FEET IN AN RVL ZONE. ALL OTHER ZONES
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET UNLESS IN VIOLATION OF ANY OTHER APPLICABLE CODES OR ALLOWED BY
SPECIAL PERMIT.
. . .. ...... --- -- -
.60.080 SATELLITE DISH/ANTENNAS--SPECIFIC USES REQUIRED.
.01.060 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED; A MISDEMEANOR.
fficer Assigned Date Closed Approved By
:)n Whelchel
fiursday, September 19, 2002
Page I of 7
se# 6559
eats
ate !Day ction Taken -- - -- -- - --- --- - -- --- - -- -
?scription
!/2002 Friday Case Initiated
)RING ROUTINE PATROL, I NOTED A LARGE SHADE STRUCTURE HAD BEEN ERECTED OVER 3/4 OF THE DRIVEWAY AND A LARGE
�TELLITE DISH IN THE REAR YARD WHICH WAS VISABLE TO THE ROADWAY DUE TO ITS SIZE AND HEIGHT.
IE VIOLATIONS WERE DOCUMENTED WITH PICTURES WITH NO CONTACT ATTEMPTED AT THIS TIME.
i/2002 Monday Follow-up
PHONE CALL WAS MADE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BILL AND JAN TURNER. I SPOKE WITH MRS. TURNER ABOUT THE
OLA-IONS AND REQUESTED A MEETING WITH HER AND HER HUSBAND TO EXPLAIN THE VIOLATIONS AND DISCUSS A REMEDY.
WAS AGREED UPON TO MEET AT THE RESIDENCE ON FRIDAY, 8-9-2002 AT 9:00 A.M.
)/2002 Friday Follow-up
iE MEETING TOOK PLACE ON SCHEDULE AND THE VIOLATIONS WERE DISCUSSED. MR. TURNER REQUESTED THAT THE
OLATIONS BE FORMALLY ABATED SO HE COULD EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO AN APPEAL.
ADVISED MR. TURNER THAT I WOULD BE SENDING HIM A FORMAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AND HE SHOULD BE RECEIVING IT,
A CERTIFIED MAIL, DURING THE WEEK OF 8-12-2002.
13/2002 Tuesday Follow-up
CERTIFIED NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE WAS MAILED ON THIS DATE, DESCRIBING ALL VIOLATIONS THE CORRECTIONS
_QUIRED AND THE APPEAL PROCESS.
22/2002 Thursday Follow-up
1E CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT WAS RECEIVED BACK AND SIGNED FOR BY JAN TURNER ON 8-21-2002 INDICATED THAT THE
DTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE HAD BEEN LEGALLY SERVED ON THE PROPERTY OWNER OF RECORD.
2812002 Wednesday Follow-up
PHONE CALL WAS RECEIVED FROM THE RESIDENT, JAN TURNER, ADVISING THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC
UISANCE AND SHE ADVISED THAT SHE HAS PREPARED AN APPEAL AND WILL BE SUBMITTING SAME TO THE CITY CLERK, PER
EQUIREMENTS, BY, NO LATER THAN THE END OF THE WORK DAY ON THURSDAY, 8-29-2002.
28/2002 Wednesday Follow-up
FOLLOW UP AT THE PROPERTY WAS DONE 70 DETERMINE EXACT DIMINSIONS OF THE STRUCTURE AND DISTANCES FROM
ROPERTY AND CURB LINES.
. WAS FOUND THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS 20' FEET DEEP (DISTANCE FROM THE CLOSEST PORTION TO THE GARAGE TO THE
TREET) IS 20' (FEET). THE WIDTH OF THE STRUCTURE FRON THE OUTSIDE EDGE OF THE SUPPORT POLES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE
RIVEWAY IS 25' (FEET). THIS MAKES THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE AT 500 SQUARE FEET.
HE DISTANCE FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IS 12" (1 FOOT), AND THE DISTANCE FROM THE FACE OF THE CURB TO THE FACE
,F THE SUPPORT POLE IS 11' 6" (ELEVEN FEET -SIX INCHES).
HESE DISTANCES ARE PICTORILY DOCUMENTED IN THE ATTACHMENTS SECTION.
fficer Assigned
m Whelchel
iursday, September 19, 2002
Date Closed
Approved By —_
i
i
Page 2 of 7
7 7
,77, ,
�, � �� �
"��
y,w ,.,��::� .�«:,� � _ ,
All,
c
9.60.060 Garages and carports.
A. Height. The maximum structure height shall be fourteen feet for a detached carport and seventeen feet
for a detached garage, except that garages may be up to twenty-eight feet in height if a second dwelling unit
complying with the provisions of Section 9.60.090 is located above the garage.
B. Setbacks.
1. In the RVL district, the minimum garage or carport setback shall be thirty feet. In all other residential
districts, the minimum setback for front -entry type garages or carports shall be twenty-five feet if a standard
"pivot" type garage door is used, twenty feet if a "roll -up" type garage door is used, and twenty feet for a
carport. For side -entry type garages, the minimum garage setback shall be twenty feet in the RVL district and
fifteen feet in all other residential districts.
2. When alleys, private streets or common driveways at the rear of a lot are provided specifically as
vehicular access to garages and carports and when separate access and circulation systems are provided for
pedestrians, guests and emergency vehicles, garages and carports may be placed up to a minimum of five feet
from such alley, private street or common driveway.
C. Lot Coverage Maximums. The placement of a garage or carport on a lot shall not result in violation of
the lot coverage maximums set forth in Section 9.50.030. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
9.60.080 Satellite dish and other antennas.
A. Purpose. Satellite dish and other antennas consistent with the design and location provisions of this
section shall be permitted as accessory structures within any residential district.
B. Permitted Commercial Antennas. Commercial television, radio, microwave, communication towers, and
related facilities are permitted as principal uses in all districts subject to approval of a conditional use permit and
conformance with the requirements of Chapter 9.170 (Communication Towers and Equipment). Satellite dish
and other antennas are permitted as accessory structures in nonresidential districts in accordance with Section
9.100.070.
C. Permitted Noncommercial Antennas. Noncommercial privately owned television and/or radio antennas
shall be contained entirely within a building except for: (1) satellite dish antennas and other antennas which
cannot function when completely enclosed by a building; and (2) amateur radio antennas used by operators
licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, pursuant to 47 CFR Section 97). Such permitted
outdoor antennas shall comply with the following design standards and requirements:
1. Number. No more than one satellite dish and one amateur radio antenna shall be permitted per lot.
2. Height and Diameter. Satellite dish antennas shall not exceed eight feet in height measured from adjacent
grade or finish floor and shall be no more than eight feet in diameter. Amateur radio antennas shall not exceed
the maximum building height for the district as specified in Section 9.50.030.
3. Ground -Mounted Antennas.
a. Location. All ground -mounted antennas shall be located within the rear yard or may be located within an
interior side yard if not within the required side yard setback. Such antennas are prohibited from exterior street
side yards unless not visible from the street. All antennas over six feet in height shall be set back a minimum of
ten feet from all property lines.
b. Screening. Ground -mounted satellite dish antennas shall be screened from view, including views from
adjacent yards, by landscaping or decorative structures (trellis, arbor, fence, etc.). The -dish antenna shall be a
single color that blends with its surroundings (e.g., off-white, dark green, brown, gray or black).
c. Disguised Antennas. An antenna which has the appearance of typical backyard furniture or equipment
(e.g., satellite dish antenna manufactured to have the appearance of a patio umbrella) is not required to comply
with the preceding location and screening standards but shall comply with height and size limits. Such an
antenna may be placed on any patio or deck.
4. Building -Mounted Antennas. Roof -top and other building -mounted antennas are prohibited in all
residential districts if over twenty-four inches in diameter unless completely screened from horizontal view via a
parapet wall or other feature which is integrated into the architecture of the building. (Ord. 299 § I (part),1997;
Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
8.01.060 Permits required.
Section 301.1 of the Uniform Administrative Code, 1994 Edition, shall be revised to read as follows:
Permits Required. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge,
alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure, including a swimming
pool, spa or hot tub, or make any installation, alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building
service equipment, including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title, except
as specified in Section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate
permit for each building, structure or service equipment from the Building Official.
(Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 114 § I (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § 1 (part),
1985)
August 27, 2002
Attn: City Clerk
City of La Quinta Planning Commission
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca 92253
Pale 1 of 4
ATTACHMENTI
Letter of Appeal — Complaint #6559 "NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE"
To Whom It May Concern:
Please consider this letter of appeal for the citation issued on our canopy. My husband
and I have stopped any further improvements to our property until this has been resolved.
We are disappointed and confused with the term "public nuisance" itself since the shade
has so many benefits and absolutely no negatives. Neighbors are even stopping to
compliment us on it. The temperatures in our garage were over 114^ but since the canopy
was in place the temp is less than mid 90^s. Our money was invested and, more
importantly, our time to obtain a better shade and protection for our vehicles. Some
shades seen in the cove are not the quality nor have the longevity we needed. Our
decision was greatly influenced by canopies used in the La Quinta Park, pool, bike trails
and La Quinta Car Wash. Clear sight was taken into consideration since we are on a
comer lot. This impressive canopy is not permanent but sturdy and anchored for safety
however is not attached to our house. It has no abstract colors or markings even though I
understand the City considers the extreme "high profile" house colors are freedom of
expression. The color of blue was chosen to match as closely as possible to the trim of our
house (white w/ blue trim). We simply wanted to find an attractive way to have shade for
our vehicles and perhaps even discourage unwelcome vandals/ thieves. (My car has been
vandalized twice in three weeks. The first time the officer said nothing could be done and
he filed no report!) The Sun Bus comes down our street so the shade protects the privacy
of our vehicles and their contents. We plan to park all of our vehicles in the driveway,
under the shade and off of the street. Our neighbors are in complete support and we
contacted them before purchasing the canopy. Their signatures are attached.
After living in La Quinta for over twelve years, I am disappointed to find we have lost
more freedoms to additional property easements and even more again for another 20 feet
of setbacks. I heard stories of restricted colors for houses and limits on number of trees in
front yards. This stirs my concern since it seems I no longer actually own any of my so-
called property and I am sure this info will trigger the concerns of many other cove
residents. My house (2100sf) is on a corner lot of less than 6400sf with two sides
requiring 12 ft easements and the 20ft setbacks (these easements and setbacks have
changed substantially since my purchase in 1991). The side yard easement of 4.5ft
(should be 5ft?) and the rear of 10ft, I have nothing left. This may be true of most single
La Quinta cove lots although easements vary by the street you live on!! All cove lots
seem smaller than the minimum of 7200sf as listed in the codes so property taxes are
being paid on property they cannot utilize and enjoy. It seems hard to believe these
changes were made without realizing the impact on the cove residents. Is it possible to
consider the cove being "grand -fathered in", were we overlooked at the time or simply not
even considered?
Page 2 of4
As for the satellite dish, it is very surprising to hear any concern over something that
has been in the same place since 1992. It was acceptable to the building inspector when
our remodel was in progress so the eave has been built around the satellite pole.
We moved to La Quinta in 1990 from Texas. We visited many of the Coachella Valley
cities but were constantly pulled back to La Quinta. We liked the individuality concept
and mixture of people of La Quinta Cove. It was a conscious decision to buy out of the
gated communities and away from the homeowner associations. Our primary expectations
are that we remain in control of some our freedoms and know our property should be one
of them.
My husband and I did not want nor expect a battle with the City of La Quinta over this
beautiful canopy or satellite dish. Our understanding of earlier codes was that the canopy
could not be attached permanently to the house and could not infringe on the easements or
obstruct traffic visibility at the comer. The plan and desire was to enhance our home, not
devaluate it so please know that we will continue the grounds improvement and check the
code restrictions for any future work after this citation has been resolved. We would like
to appeal the City of La Quinta's decision and respectfully request to be allowed to keep
the canopy and satellite as is. Per the code inspector, Don Whelchel, the easements are for
future sidewalks or utility needs so we offer to move/reposition the canopy at our expense
should any sidewalks or utility needs ever become a reality.
Our desire is to resolve this matter as quickly and calmly as possible. Please contact us
should you have any questions and we are anxiously waiting your decision.
Yours truly,
01
Bill Turner & Jan Turner
53-750 Avenida Obregon
La Quinta, Ca 92253
Bill's office# 760.564.6686
Jan's cell# 760.250.90�56
Fx# 760.771.4746
M
Page 3 of 4
51-6 �/- 7,S .
r�L T
__-----
i .��
_ �
� � �L � ��
f
11.72.050 Abatement of public nuisances.
A. ' Dangerous Buildings. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings shall apply and
preempt the provisions of this chapter whenever the public nuisance to be abated constitutes a dangerous building
as defined in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.
B. Notice of Public Nuisance. Upon determination that a public nuisance exists a notice shall be issued
to the property owner. The notice shall read "Notice of Public Nuisance," in letters not less than one inch
in height. The notice shall direct abatement of the nuisance, identify the nuisance by referring to this chapter,
and contain a general description of the property sufficient to identify the location of the public nuisance.
C. Service. The notice of public nuisance may be served by one of the following methods:
1. Personal service; or
2. Certified mail; or
3. Posting the notice at a conspicuous place on the premises where the nuisance is located or at the abutting
public right-of-way in addition to personal service or notice by certified mail.
D. Time to Abate. Public nuisances shall be abated by the property owner no more than twenty-one days
from the date of personal service or mailing the notice of public nuisance. If a public nuisance constitutes
an immediate fire hazard, within five days of personal service or mailing the notice of public nuisance.
E. Summary Abatement. Whenever a public nuisance exists which constitutes an emergency present-
ing imminent danger to life or serious injury to persons or property, an authorized representative of the city
may order without notice or judicial action the immediate abatement of the public nuisance.
F. Appeal Procedure. Within ten days from the date of personal service or mailing the notice of public
nuisance the property owner may appeal the determination that a public nuisance exists to the planning commission.
The appeal shall be in writing and filed with the city clerk. At a regular meeting not more than thirty days
thereafter the planning commission shall proceed to hear and pass upon the appeal. The planning commission's
decision may be appealed within ten days of the decision by written request to the city clerk. The city council
shall hear the appeal at a regular meeting not more than thirty days from the date of request.
G. FaiIure to Abate. If a public nuisance is not voluntarily abated after notification the following shall
apply:
1. Prosecution. Failure to abate shall constitute an infraction pursuant to Section 1.01.200 of this code
which provides for prosecution as misdemeanor upon committing three infractions.
2. City to Abate. The city may cause the public nuisance to be abated. The manner of abatement and
costs incurred by the city to abate the public nuisance shall be reported to the city council by the community
safety director immediately following abatement.
3. Judicial Action. The city may commence a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to cause
abatement of the public nuisance. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs may be collected by the city in any
action to abate a public nuisance. (Ord 160 § 1 (part), 1989)