1998 05 12 PC"top, T
CF�f OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quints City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
May 12, 1998
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 98-022
Beginning Minute Motion 98-005
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing.
Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes for April 28, 1998
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A.
13
C.
Continued Item ......... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-616 ANI
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-036
Applicant ................ A & S Engineering for Shell Oil Company
Location ................. Northwest comer of Adams Street and Highway 111
Request .................. 1. Approval of a Site Development Permit to allov
construction of a 2,615 square foot service station/food mar
and a 900 square foot car wash; and
2. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the service statioi
and car wash.
Action .................... Resolution 98- and Resolution 98-
Item ..................... ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-057 AND GENERAI
PLAN AMENDMENT 98-056
Applicant ............... City of La Quinta
Location ................ City-wide in the Hillside Conservation Overlay
Request ................. To amend Chapter 9.140-Hillside Conservation Regulations an(
related General Plan Amendment
Action ................... Resolution 98- , Resolution 98- , and Resolution 98-
Continued Item ......... VILLAGE ON THE GREEN - ENVIRONMENTAI
ASSESSMENT 97-349, SPECIFIC PLAN 97-031
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-055, TENTATIVI
TRACT 28601, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97
618
Applicant ............... Catellus Residential Group/La Quinta Redevelopment Agenc.
Location ................ Northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 48
Request ................. Recommendation to the City Council for certification of a a
Initial Study/EIR Addendum, Specific Plan, General Pla,
Amendment, Tentative Tract, and Site Development Permit fo
a 34.4 acre, 86 single family residential lot subdivision, an
118 senior apartments with recreational amenities on 12 acres
and reduction of private street widths from the General Pla
required 36-feet to 28- and 32-feet. The project is affordabl
from very low through moderate income levels.
Action .................. Resolution 98-_, Resolution 98-_, Resolution 98-
Resolution 98-_, Resolution 98-
Item ...................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-622
Applicant ................ Citrus Development, LLC (Alicante on the Citrus)
Location ................. Within Citrus Course Subdivision on the north side of 52'
Avenue, west of Jefferson Street on Centrino and Ligo
Request .................. Compatibility approval of new 4, 084 square foot residenti,
plan prototype
Action .................. Resolution 98-
PC/AGENDA
E. Item ......................
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (ANNUAL REVIEW)
Applicant ................
KSL Desert Resorts, Incorporated
Location .................
Northeast corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street and to the
south of PGA West, on the west side of Madison Street
Request ..................
Approval of a second Annual Review for a master planner
community of 880 single family houses and golf course
fairways on 220 acres pursuant to Condition #7 of City Counci
Resolution 91-105.
Request ................
Resolution 98-_
F. Item .......................
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28522
Applicant ................
KSL Land Corporation/The Woodard Group
Location .................
The east side of Riviera and approximately 350 feet north of th
future Hermitage abutting the existing Tom Weiskopf Gol
Course
Request ..................
Recommendation for approval of the subdivision of 14.46 acre
into 18 estate single family and other common or street lot
within the boundaries of Specific Plan 83-002 (Amendment #3
and Specific Plan 90-017
Action ....................
Resolution 98-
G. Item ...................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-620 ANI
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-356
Applicant ................ KSL Desert Resorts, Inc.
Location ................. 78-752 Avenue 52 (northeast corner of Calle Rondo ani
Avenida Nuestra)
Request .................. Certification of an Environmental Assessment and approval ti
add a golf maintenance building (2,660 square feet) and othe
miscellaneous facilities to the existing Citrus Country Clu'.
Maintenance Facility
Action .................... Resolution 98-_ and Resolution 98-_
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Continued Item ........... SIGN PERMIT 98-418
Applicant .................... DGI Signs, Incorporated (Mr. Skip Berg)
Location ...................... 78-611 Highway 111 (southwest corner of Highway 111 an
Simon Drive)
Request ....................... Approval of a planned sign program for Simon :Motor
Automotive Dealership
Action ......................... Applicant has withdrawn the application
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commission report on the City Council meetings of May 5, 1998.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
April 14, 1998
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by
Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Gardner
Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard and Chairman Butler.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Leslie Mouriquand and Wallace
Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of March 10, 1998.
Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 2, Item B.2. the tanks were "would be installed
horizontally"; Page 4, Item 14 the reference to the word "daylight" was questioned.
Commissioner Kirk reaffirmed this was correct; Page 5, Item 16. needed to have the
word "`RV' added to how many storage units would be left after redesign"; Page 6,
Item 29 at the end of the first sentence add, "from the fuel island"; Page 8 Item 44.e.,
should state "plans are not approved at this time". Chairman Butler asked if there
were any other changes to the Minutes of March 10, 1998. There being no other
changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the
minutes as amended. Unanimously approved.
B. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the minutes of March 24, 1998.
Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 8, Item 6 be corrected to read, "Commissioner
Kirk stated he did not agree, but noted that exclusive communities like La Quinta
tend to have stricter requirements. There being no other corrections, it was moved
and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to approve the minutes as corrected.
Unanimously approved.
C. Department Report: None.
PC-4-14-98
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Environmental Assessment 98-355 and Conditional Use Permit 98-039 a request of
Kathryn Carlson, DVM for consideration of a conditional use permit and
environmental assessment for the proposed adaptive reuse of a historic structure as
a small -animal veterinary clinic with accessory residence in The Village Park Zoning
District.
Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand 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 what days the clinic would be open. The applicant, Kathryn
Carlson, stated it would be open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday and 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday. Commissioner Tyler asked if the
perimeter chain link fence would remain and be grandfathered. Staff stated
the fence is nonconforming and the applicant intended to plant a screening -
type vine that would grow to cover the fence. Commissioner Tyler stated the
Noise issue contained in the Environmental Assessment (EA) did not address
the issue of barking dogs. Although the proposed clinic is not located in a
residential area, the EA should have addressed it.
3. Commissioner Seaton asked if the alleyway behind the clinic, served any
other businesses and whether or not there would be any traffic problems in
the future. Staff stated there are other properties that back up to the alleyway,
but the Public Works Department should address any potential traffic
problems. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the alleyway would be
improved at some point in the future and the traffic from this use would not
be a negative impact.
4. Commissioner Woodard stated he too was concerned with the chain link
fence, but did not want to see a hardship placed on the applicant as approval
of this project was in the interest of the City. He then asked about the trash
enclosure; would it be a block wall. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio
stated yes, and as it was new construction, the trash enclosure would be
stuccoed to match the entry wall and not the historic building. Commissioner
Woodard stated that in regard to the sign, he would agree with the graphics
on the street address. Staff stated their objection was that the sign should be
for identification and not advertising.
PC-4-14-98 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
5. Commissioner Abels asked what impacts the proposed changes to the Village
Specific Plan would have on this project. Staff stated the proposed project
is recommended for approval as it does comply with the current zoning for
the Village.
6. Commissioner Gardner stated he would like to commend whoever started the
idea of saving the lumber yard and asked if the sign would be visible from the
street. Staff stated it would be installed at an angle to be visible as you travel
down the street. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify how the
rehabilitation work was to be done prior to the issuance of a building permit
under the Summary of Mitigation Measures. Staff stated that the seismic
retrofit work was being required to be done prior to any other tenant
improvements. The condition could be reworded to require both
improvements done concurrently.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked if the hanging sign would include the street
number and name. Staff stated they were uncertain as to whether or not the
street name was included in the sign. Commissioner Kirk stated he too liked
the graphics on the sign and suggested the graphic not depict the use of the
building. He questioned the "Regional Environmental Setting"issue in the
EA as it stated the median home price as $112,000. This appears to be very
low. Staff would check into it.
8. Chairman Butler asked if there would be any security lighting? Staff stated
the existing wall lights would be replaced, but no additional lighting would
be installed.
9. Commissioner Abels commended the applicant on her proposed business and
stated this is a use he would like to see in the Village area.
10. Chainnan Butler closed the public comment portion of the hearing and
opened the discussion to the Commission.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planing Commission Resolution 98-011
certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for
Environmental Assessment 98-355, subject to the mitigation measures
contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None.
PC-4-14-98 3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Gardner/Tyler moved to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 98-012, approving Conditional Use Permit
98-039, subject to the amended conditions as follows:
a. The trash enclosure and entry stucco walls shall be compatible, but
not match the stucco of the historic structures.
b. The hanging address sign to be approved as presented by the
applicant (delete Condition #4).
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
B. Tentative Tract 26855, First Time Extension; a request of Sumbad and Sharron
Kanlian for a recommendation to certify an amended environmental assessment and
approval of a first time extension for a tract map which creates 73 single family lots
on 23+ acres in the Low Density Residential Zone on the east side of Jefferson Street
approximately 660 feet south of 50t" Avenue.
Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff stated they would like the following added to the
Conditions of Approval: Condition #14 requires the applicant to obtain an
easement from the property owner to the south for shared street access. Staff
is asking for this to be done within 90-days of the approval of the first time
extension. Condition #23.A., staff is requesting to add to the end of the
condition: "if access is ultimately acquired at Pomelo". Condition #71
correct to read "a two and half foot berm". Condition #74.B., remove the last
sentence. Condition #75.F., needs to be deleted as it is already in another
condition.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Kirk thanked staff for drawing attention to the condition changes. In regard
to Condition #14, he asked if this was normal. Staff stated they had placed
similar conditions on tracts to be sure that issues of concern are addressed.
3. Commissioner Gardner questioned Condition #23.a., as to whether or not
another street would be added later on. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated
the ultimate plan is for the access street into the Citrus Course to have a full
turn and ultimately a signal. Unfortunately, the ten acres are not a part of
either tract, but is the key to this access of the two tracts being. It is just a
plan for the future when the ten acres are developed. Commissioner Gardner
asked who would pay the costs for the improvements. Staff stated it would
PC-4-14-98 4
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
be shared by all the developments at this location. Commissioner Gardner
asked why staff was asking for the deletion of the requirement regarding the
shading of glass. Staff stated it is a requirement of Title 24 and it is
redundant to have it in the conditions.
4. Commissioner Woodard asked the location of the Reese Ranch and what it
was zoned. Staff stated it was zoned RL with the Equestrian Overlay (EO).
Commissioner Woodard asked what properties have the EO and how long
have the adjacent properties been zoned RL. Staff stated the area was zoned
RL when it was annexed into the City. Commissioner Woodard stated the
RL zoning has been known for ten years. Staff stated that since the
annexation in 1991. Commissioner Woodard stated this tract is dependent
upon the access through the ten acre parcel, but there is no guarantee when,
or if the ten acres will be developed. Therefore, there is only one way in and
out. Is this acceptable to the Fire Marshall? Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated a condition had been placed on the tract that the second access must be
provided before the 41 S` home is built. This is based upon the Fire
Department's recommendation. Commissioner Woodard asked why Lots 1
and 73 were restricted to one story. Staff stated the condition is based on the
General Plan requirement for Jefferson Street. Commissioner Woodard
asked that Condition #74.0 be changed to have the design guidelines
approved by the Planning Commission. Staff pointed out this condition
refers to the CC&R's and Section "A" refers to the design guidelines. Staff
suggested modifying Conditions "C" to read "the applicant shall establish
within the CC & R's Site Development Standards and Design Standards as
approved by the Planning Commission." Commissioner Woodard asked that
Condition 455 also be changed to require approval by the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Woodard asked if Lot I had been designated as
open space? Staff stated it was. Commissioner Woodard asked if this would
be maintained by the homeowners' association and if this was true of Lot G.
Staff stated it was a retention basin.
5. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to explain the emergency exit. Staff stated
the emergency access will enter into the tract to the south and go west to
Jefferson Street.
6. Commissioner Woodard asked why this tract was not required to have an
emergency access. Staff stated he was allowed to build no more than 40
houses until the second access is provided.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked who owned the ten acres. Staff stated they did not
know at this time. Commissioner Tyler stated that in his opinion there are
potential problems if these two tracts are not built at the same time. He did
not understand the reason for the urgency for the easement. Senior Engineer
PC-4-14-98 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
Steve Speer stated they initially were not going to bring it to the Commission
until it was obtained and only changed it to allow them 90-days to keep from
holding up the time extension. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify
which School District was affected with this tract. Staff stated it is Coachella
Unified School District. Commissioner Woodard stated the EA requires an
eight foot wall or berm, but it is not clear if it is to be around the entire
perimeter or only on Jefferson Street. Staff stated it would only be on
Jefferson Street. Commissioner Tyler asked that this be clarified.
Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify what the percentage breakdown of
the signal improvements would be on each tract. He then asked if this was
the same for the bus turnout. Staff stated they do not bond for bus turnouts.
Commissioner Tyler stated the location of the bus shelter needs to be clarified
as whether it is to be on the east or west side of Jefferson Street. He stated
the entry lots were unusual and there appears to be a need for a greater
setbacks.
8. Commissioner Woodard asked the City Attorney to identify what changes the
Commission could make on an extension request. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated the applicant could be required to comply with the current
Code requirements. Traditionally, the City has not made major changes on
a time extension request. Commissioner Woodard asked if this plan had to
come back for landscaping, etc., approval. Staff stated it is currently
conditioned for staff s approval. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the
Planning Commission could require this condition to be changed to require
the landscaping plans be approved by the Commission. Commissioner
Woodard asked if the Commission could require Lots 1 and 73 to come back
to the Commission. Staff stated that landscaping requirements for entries is
not included in the Zoning Code at this time and cannot be placed on this
tract as a condition. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they could not
require changes that are not currently contained in the Zoning Code.
Discussion followed as to what changes were within the Commission's
purview.
9. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not all the proposed conditions
were contained in the current Zoning Code. Staff stated some of the
condition changes are proposed changes to the Zoning Code. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated that in order to have a legal basis to uphold the
condition, all conditions should be based on the existing Zoning Code. This
is the City's authority to uphold conditions. Commissioner Kirk asked if
conditions could be established if they were consistent with General Plan
Policies. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that everything should be
consistent with the General Plan. The reason there are explicit zoning
requirements is to provide a certainty to the development community as to
what is required. Discussion followed.
PC-4-14-98 6
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
10. Commissioner Woodard asked if a tract map is submitted, is there a.
requirement in the present Zoning Code stating what the landscaping should
be or where a wall should be located.
11. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #79 be added requiring that Lots
A of this tract and Lot C of the adjoining tract have the same name. In
addition, with the impact of Proposition 218 on the Lighting and Landscaping
District, it has been a new policy to have the perimeter landscaping be the
responsibility of the developer or HOA. This condition needs to be added.
Is there a condition for bicycle and/or equestrian path. Staff stated there was
a condition.
12. Chairman Butler stated that if there are conditions on these tracts that are not
consistent with what was approved originally, then the Commission is
approving something they are not allowed to do, according to the City
Attorney. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that as long as the applicant
has no objection with the conditions, then they can become a final part of the
tract. Chairman Butler asked the City Attorney to clarify if she was saying
they cannot approve what has been recommended by staff. If this is true, it
is a real dilemma. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she was unaware
staff was making these changes as a regular basis. In the past, the applicant
has not objected to the conditions and after a certain period of time, if the
applicant does not challenge them, they become defensible. Chairman Butler
stated that when this tract comes back in a year for another extension, the new
Code requirements could be imposed. The City Attorney stated that was true.
13. Commissioner Abels asked that in view of this discussion, could a condition
be placed on the tract to require the landscaping to be upgraded at the
entrances? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Commission could
impose the condition as long as they know that if a challenge is made, the
condition is indefensible
14. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission
on this project. Mr. Sumbad Kanlian, applicant, stated the entrance is
designed as other tracts with landscaping and a wall.
15. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant if he would accept all the
conditions as they are currently placed on the tract by staff. Mr. Kanlian
stated he would prefer to leave it as it is. Commissioner Woodard stated that
in accepting the conditions as they are recommended, it can be a hardship on
the developer. Mr. Kanlian stated this is a problem that the developer would
have to contend with. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant would
object to having the conditions placed on the tract regarding the entrance.
PC-4-14-98 7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
16. Commissioner Kirk stated the potential condition may be a condition that the
developer would not want as it would add another level of complexity. Mr.
Kanlian stated he would not want to put any conditions on the project that
might jeopardize the sale of the tract.
17. There being no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public
comment portion of the hearing and opened it up for Commission discussion.
18. Chairman Butler asked if the concerns raised by the Reese's letter regarding
the water access would be an issue of concern. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated this development cannot shut off the water
supply to an adjacent farming operation.
19. Commissioner Woodard asked where the water access was located. Staff
stated that it was a series of underground water pipes that transition the water
to the different properties. It is staff s understanding that CV WD would ask
that conditions be placed on the tract that would not interfere with their
irrigation pipes.
20. Commissioner Kirk stated the discretionary issue is still confusing and asked
if the City Attorney read the conditions prior to being submitted to the
Commission. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she does not have the
time to read all the conditions. She only gets involved with staff s concerns
when questioned. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the Commission wants
to add conditions, they should review them in light of what is contained in the
Zoning Code. He suggested the Commission continue this to have staff
review the conditions in light of this discussion.
21. Commissioner Gardner stated there appears to be several issues that need to
be discussed and maybe this should be continued until they are resolved. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they could continue this if there are
conditions they feel need to be reviewed. Should the Commission decide to
continue this item for a length of time that length of time must be reasonable
to the issues that are raised.
22. Commissioner Kirk stated he needed clarification from staff. Is the applicant
under any time pressure to have this approved at this meeting. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated that if the reason for continuing is to allow staff time
to review the Commission's concerns, then it was justifiable.
23. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the Commission to
identify their concerns. Chairman Butler stated their concern was
recommending approval of conditions that are not contained in the "Zoning
Code. Staff stated some of the conditions are based on mitigation measures
that were raised in the Environmental Assessment.
PC-4-14-98 8
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
24. Commissioner Gardner asked if based on the comments made, are the
conditions defensible. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in order to
answer that, each condition would have to be reviewed.
25. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell suggested a condition be added requiring the
tract to comply with the landscaping requirements contained in the Zoning
Code before a grading permit is issued. Discussion followed.
26. Commissioner Woodard moved to continue this item to allow staff time to
review the conditions in light of the Zoning Code. Following discussion, the
motion was withdrawn. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell suggested Condition
#60 be modified to read "Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant
shall comply with the Zoning Code requirements enforced at that time
relating to landscaping and entryways and shall submit that plan to the
Planning Commission for approval." This allows the Planning Commission
the last opportunity to review the plan and make changes.
27. Commissioner Woodard stated his objection was the two entry lots that are
oversized and the space to accommodate the entryway and access to the lots
is very restricted.
28. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Woodard/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
98-013 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for Amended Environmental Assessment 91-194.
29. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Addendum be given a number and date.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 98-014, approving Tentative Tract Map
26855, Time Extension #l, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval.
a. Condition #23.a.: amended to include, "if access is ultimately
acquired at Pomelo", and reduce the percentage of street
improvements to 13.9%.
b. Condition #60. Add, "Prior to final map approval the applicant shall
submit landscaping drawings in conformance with the current Zoning
Code.
PC-4-14-98 9
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
C. Condition #74.a.: "The Design Guidelines shall be reviewed and
approved by Planning Commission prior to final map.
d. Condition #74.b.: Remove that portion referring to "architectural
design shall provide shading of glass areas from the south, east, and
west exposures."
e. Condition #74.c.: The applicant shall establish within the CC&R'S
Site Development Standards and Design Standards as approved by
the Planning Commission.
f. Condition #79: "Lot A and C of each tract shall have the same street
name.
g. Condition #75.f. shall be removed.
h. Condition #71. The height of the berm shall be 2.5 feet.
i. Condition #5: Change to reference Coachella Valley Unified School
District.
31. Commissioner Kirk stated he would be voting against the project only
because it is still unknown to him what is discretionary and what is not in
regard to what the Commission is able to approve. He would like to request
staff bring back to the Planning Commission what conditions are rooted in
the Zoning Code and which are not. Commissioner Seaton stated she too
would like to see this.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Seaton.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
32. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to address Commissioners Kirks
concerns. Staff asked if the request was specifically for this tract. Chairman
Butler stated yes.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m.
C. Tentative Tract 26718, First Time Extension; a request of Walter Hansch for a
recommendation to certify an amended environmental impact and approval of a first
time extension to create 125 single family lots on 40+ acres in the Low Density
Residential Zone on the east side of Jefferson Street approximately 1650 feet south
of 50`' Avenue.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff noted the conditions would be modified the same as the
previous tract.
PC-4-14-98 10
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
2. Commissioner Tyler noted that Condition #70 should be changed to reference
lot numbers 116-125 to be consistent. Condition #81 should reference the
property to the north.
3. Commissioner Seaton asked for clarification on Lot L. Staff stated it was a
retention basin.
4. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to hear the applicant address the
issue of the conditions raised on the previous tract.
5. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Walter Hansch, applicant, stated he did not understand the
question.
6. Commissioner Kirk clarified for Mr. Hansch that there were conditions that
staff had recommended that he may not have to comply with and asked if he
was aware of this. Mr. Hansch stated he would agree with the same
conditions as those placed on Tentative Tract 26855.
7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public
comment portion of the hearing and opened it for Commission discussion.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-
015 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for Amended Environmental Assessment 91-193.
9. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Addendum be given a number and date.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 98-016, approving Tentative Tract Map
26718, Time Extension #l, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval.
a. Condition #23.a.: amended to include, "if access is ultimately
acquired at Pomelo", and change the percentage of street
improvements to 24.1 %.
b. Condition #60. Add, "Prior to final map approval the applicant shall
submit landscaping drawings in conformance with the current Zoning
Code.
PC-4-14-98 11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
C. Condition #74.a.: "The Design Guidelines shall be reviewed and
approved by Planning Commission prior to final map.
d. Condition #74.b.: Remove that portion referring to "architectural
design shall provide shading of glass areas from the south, east, and
west exposures."
e. Condition #74.c.: The applicant shall establish within the CC&R'S
Site Development Standards and Design Standards as approved by
the Planning Commission.
f. Condition #79: "Lot A and C of each tract shall have the same street
name.
g. Condition #75.f. shall be removed.
h. Condition #71. The height of the berm shall be 2.5 feet.
i. Condition #5: Change to reference Coachella Valley Unified School
District.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Seaton.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. moved on the EA Unanimously
approved.
D. Site Development Permit 98-621; a request of Peters -Hover Company for a
compatibility review approval to allow six new prototype plans for the Citrus
Country Club in compliance with the adopted Specific Plan and Tracts 24890-6 and
28719 on portions of Liga, Pomo, Cetrino, Cidra, and Baya Streets.
Commissioner Gardner excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest
and withdrew from the dias.
2. 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.
3. Commissioner Steward stated that if the guest suite on Plan 3 is a bedroom
the house would then be a 4 bedroom house with a two car garage. Staff
stated a condition had been placed on the tract that any houses with the guest
suite must provide a three car garage. Commissioner Woodard asked that an
additional condition be placed on the tract requiring those elevations to come
back to the Commission. Commissioner Woodard stated that at least half of
the existing homes were Mediterranean. The remainder were contemporary
to something else. Staff stated they would modify the condition.
Commissioner Woodard stated that in the staff report under Compatibility
PC-4-14-98 12
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
Review, it mentions "To accentuate the street views of the houses, roof lines
are varied by using hip and gable design elements and standard 4:12 roof
trusses." In his opinion he did not see much variation in the plans. The
Citrus is a custom home project and now a tract is being proposed with
production homes.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Planning Commission could address the
location of the house on the lot. Staff stated Condition #7 requires the
variation in setbacks. Commissioner Kirk stated that the narrow lots and 3-
car garages could create a wall of development along the street fronts. Are
there any other treatments or greater setback variations to accommodate this?
Staff stated only if the applicant wanted to bring it back and offer a
modification. Discussion followed regarding the guest house orientation.
5. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment regarding this
issue. There being none, the public comment portion of the public hearing
was closed and opened for Commission discussion.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #9 be amended to have the last
word changed to "all garage bays." Other than this, it is a nice design.
7. Commissioner Seaton also commended the applicant on his presentation.
8. Commissioner Woodard stated that on Product A, Plan 1 the variation of the
facade on the home is excellent, but it has the same elevation/roof line. All
the Plan 1 rear elevations are the same. Product B has the same
elevation/facade with the same problem on the rear of the house. On the
units with the guest suite, the developer should vary the location of the suite
so it is not one continuous row down the street. Plan C, the front elevation
and facades are again wonderful, the roof and rear are the same. The roof's
should be modified and the homes with the guest suite varied and the
elevations be required to be brought back to the Commission on all homes
with three car garages.
9. Chairman Butler asked if the suggested changes were required to the roof
lines would create a new truss arrangement. Commissioner Woodard stated
it would require a redesign. Chairman Butler asked if the Commission could
make the suggested changes if the applicant was not present. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated the Commission has the right to impose any
conditions it believes are warranted. The applicant can appeal the
Commission's decision to the City Council if they do not agree with the
Commission.
PC-4-14-98 13
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
10. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with the direction of the Commission
regarding design review on what faces the street; but how far should the
Commission go in regards to redesign of the entire house. Chairman Butler
stated that what the Commission is trying to accomplish is to cause more
imagination in what is developed in the City; to eliminate square boxes from
being developed in the City.
11. Commissioner Tyler questioned this redesign as the tract had already been
approved have the same rear elevations. Commissioner Woodard stated that
on the site plan, all the homes would have the same setback and the guest
suite at the same position causing a streetscape of walls. Discussion followed
regarding how elevations could be changed.
12. Commissioner Abels stated it was important to upgrade the projects as they
come before the Commission.
13. Commissioner Kirk stated he would rather have these issues addressed in the
Zoning Code than based on personal appeal. He was concerned about the
developer having to go back and redesign a project when this is a
compatibility review. In his opinion, the proposed elevations are no worse
or better than the existing homes. In that regard, this proposed design is
compatible. They may not be compatible with the custom homes. It should
be the purpose of the City/Commission to provide developers with guidelines
of what is expected of them when they propose their project.
14. Commissioner Woodard asked for legal counsels opinion in regard to
compatibility and changing the design. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated they should be reviewing the design for what is compatible with the
existing built out subdivision. Staff has indicated that this area has always
been intended to be tract homes. Therefore, it would appear the relevant
comparison would be to the tract homes. Commissioner Woodard questioned
whether they could address the issues of variability. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated that if the existing does not, then no.
15. Chairman Butler stated that in order to address this problem, it would have
to be addressed in the Zoning Code.
16. Commissioner Tyler stated they are again trying to address issues that are not
contained in the Zoning Code.
17. Commissioner Woodard asked if they could- require a percentage of the
homes be varied. City Attorney Dawn Honey stated that if it is based on the
existing units.
13G4-14-98 14
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
18. Commissioner Tyler stated that when Tract 28719 was before the
Commission for approval, it was another problem. This tract is an
improvement over that. The impact on the existing homes, whether custom
or tract, these are isolated streets and the homes will not be side by side.
They will either be separated by streets or a golf fairway.
19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Woodard/Abels to continue this item to allow staff an
opportunity to present to the Commission, examples of other existing houses
in the vicinity, to review these prototypes against, for compatibility.
20. Commissioner Kirk asked if the five development standards raised under
Compatibility Review contained in the staff report, were the only
development standards that can be considered under a compatibility review,
or are they selected. Staff stated that development standards were used to
make the findings for approval. Commissioner Kirk stated it would help if
staff would provide the Commission with pictures and/or examples of what
they are to be compatible with.
21. There being no other discussion, it was moved and seconded to continue Site
Development Permit 98-621 to April 28, 1998. Unanimously approved.
Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission.
E. Environmental Assessment 98-353, Repeal of Specific Plan 87-009, Village at La
Quinta, Zoning Code Amendment 98-060, Change of Zone 98-085, and Design,
Review Guidelines; a request of the City for consideration and recommendation to
the City Council to Repeal the Village at La Quinta Specific Plan, and replace it with
Design Review Guidelines and revised "Village Commercial" Zoning text. Rezoning
of the "Village Residential" area east of Desert Club Drive from Village Residential
to Low Density Residential.
Chairman Butler open the public hearing and asked if there was any public
comment.
2. Mr. Don Gittleson, Prelude Development Company, stated his purpose in
speaking regarding this issue was to clarify the zoning of the four acre parcel
of land east of Desert Club Drive. He would like to request the four acres fall
into the Village Commercial Zoning.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked for the current zoning. Staff stated it is low
density and staff is not proposing any additional area be added to the Village
Commercial. Mr. Gettleson stated this is his point, if you look at the map, it
should be included.
PC-4-14-98 15
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
4. Commissioner Woodard asked that the Commissioners review the Village
area and visualize what they would like it to look like. It is going to be
difficult and the Commission should have a clear idea.
5. There being no further comment, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Woodard/Kirk to continue this item to April 28, 1998.
F. Zoning Code Amendment 97-061; a request of the City for consideration of
miscellaneous amendments to Title 9-Zoning Code of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for public comment.
2. There being no public comment, it
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continu
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS.
e
A. Commissioner Tyler asked if the sign being built by Family Heritage Church had a
sign permit. Staff stated they had been issued a sign permit. He then informed the
Commission and staff he would not be at the next meeting and would not be able to
attend the next City Council meeting
B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of April 7, 1998. He
suggested copies of the goals which were reviewed by the Council be distributed to
the Commission.
C. Commissioner Seaton encouraged the Commissioners to attend "The Second Annual
Day of Discussion -The Future of the Coachella Valley". Commissioners were to
inform staff if they were wanting to attend.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held on April 28, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission
was adjourned at 10:07 P.M. on April 14, 1998.
PC-4-14-98 16
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MAY 12,1998 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 28, 1998)
CASE NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-036
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-616
REQUEST: I. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
SERVICE STATION AND CAR WASH
2. APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,615
SQUARE FOOT SERVICE STATION/FOOD MART ANDA 900
SQUARE FOOT CAR WASH
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND
HIGHWAY I I I
APPLICANT: A&S ENGINEERING
REPRESENTATIVE: A&S ENGINEERING
PROPERTY OWNER: SHELL OIL COMPANY
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (M/RC)
SURROUNDING
ZONINGILAND USE: NORTH:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / THE LUBE SHOP
SOUTH:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / VACANT LAND
EAST:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / VACANT LAND
WEST:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / LA QUINTA CAR
WASH
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW_
Property Description
The irregularly shaped 1.12 acre property, located at the northwest corner of Highway I I 1 and
Adams Street is vacant with off -site street improvements in place on Adams Street and Highway 1 11.
The site is a portion of the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center which contains Wal-Mart and
Albertsons.
Applications Under Consideration
The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a Shell Oil Company service
station and Food Mart, with a drive -through Car Wash on 1.12 acres within the One -Eleven La
Quinta Shopping Center, Specific Plan 89-014. The applicant is also requesting approval of the
required Conditional Use Permit for the Car Wash and service station use. The project consists of a
2,615 square foot service station/Food Mart building with eight pump island bays under a 3,880
square foot canopy and a 900 square foot drive through Car Wash.
SUMMARY OF NEW INFORMATION:
This project was continued from the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting to allow the
applicant an opportunity to review site plan , circulation, and design concerns. Concerns included
access to the property from the existing Adams Street driveway, the configuration of parking on site,
and the a roof design to be compatible with that of the existing buildings in the One -Eleven La Quinta
Center.
The applicant has redesigned the canopy structure to include a mansard roof with Spanish Mission
tile. The applicant has redesigned the Adams Street access by moving the driveway approximately
fifty one feet west from the property line moving the entry seven additional feet from Adams Street.
Moving the driveway further west is constrained by the existing Imperial Irrigation District
transformers.
In addition, the applicant has redesigned the parking layout by moving the northerly most parking
stall, along the east edge of the property, approximately 31 and '/z feet south allowing an increase
in parking turning movements and an increase in the landscape planter area and by moving three
spaces from the parking row along the west edge abutting the car wash driveway to the southeast
portion of the property as a stacking aisle.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The Community Development Department completed Environmental Assessment 89-150 for Specific
Plan 89-014. Based upon this assessment, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and no additional documentation is necessary.
COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
The applicant's request was sent to sent City Departments and affected public agencies on October
15, 1997, requesting comments to be returned by October 31, 1997. All applicable comments are
incorporated in the Conditions of Approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on April 15,1998. All property
owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice.
2
ANALYSIS AND ISSUES:
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as Mixed Regional Commercial. This
designation allows commercial uses including service stations as proposed. Land Use Element Policy
2-3.1 provides for primary uses being major retail businesses with ancillary uses including other
commercial enterprises. The One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center contains the primary uses, Wal-
Mart and Albertson's supermarket; the proposed service station is an ancillary use. The project is
compatible with surrounding regional commercial uses and consistent with the General Plan.
Specific Plan Consistency
Specific Plan 89-014, for the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, allows the proposed use. The
Specific Plan, adopted in 1989, identified this site as a service station; although the proposed Site Plan
contains acceptable modifications from the original site layout, vehicular access, parking and setbacks
are consistent with Specific Plan 89-014. The Specific Plan allows flexibility in development
standards. A Conditional Use permit is required for Service Stations and Car Washes.
Building setbacks for the Food Mart and service bay canopy are consistent with the Specific Plan. The
southwest architecture of the Food Mart (with a reddish brown Spanish Mission tile roof), Car Wash
and service bay canopy all with tan/brown stucco and the is compatible with the architectural styles,
materials, and colors in the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. The project is in compliance
with the architectural standards of the Highway 111 Design Theme Guidelines.
Vehicle access is adequately accommodated with the existing driveways on Highway 1 I I and Adams
Street. The 10-foot vehicle entry and exit access for the Car Wash is adequate. Adequate lanes and
spacing are provided for on -site vehicle circulation. Parking can be accommodated on site. Based
on the current and potential demand for parking and the parking study for the Center, a parking
deficiency does not exist and the proposed parking spaces adequately serve the site.
As part of the Specific Plan, a sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center has been
adopted. The proposed building signs are similar to that permitted for the other service station within
the Center. The adopted sign program specifically permits a pricing sign. The project is conditioned
to reduce the height of the pricing/monument type sign to be in conformance with the existing service
station price sign in the Center.
The proposed landscaping is consistent with the existing landscaping along Highway 1 1 1 for the
Shopping Center; an average minimum of three feet of mounding has been added as a condition in
compliance with the Highway 111 Design Theme Guidelines.
3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
The Food Mart, Car Wash, and service bay canopy, as designed, will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or general welfare. Adequate vehicle access for fueling and tank refueling is provided.
The project will be conditioned to reduce light spillage and require all exterior lighting modifications
to be approved as an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , approving Conditional Use Permit 97-036,
subject to conditions.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , approving Site Development Permit 97-616
to allow construction of a 2,615 square foot Food Mart with eight pump island bays under
a 3,880 square foot service bay canopy, and a 900 square foot drive through Car Wash,
subject to conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Specific Plan 89-014, Map Exhibit
3. Site Plan and Elevations
Prepared by:
n
Fred Baker, Princil5afi Planner
Submitted by:
OL
Christine di Iorio, Plannin = Manager
E
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-
036, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUTO
MOBILE SERVICE STATION AND A CAR WASH
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-036
APPLICANT: SHELL OIL COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Planning Conunission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
28'ni day of April, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued said Public Hearing to the
12' day of May, 1998 to consider Conditional Use Permit 97-036, to allow construction of a a 2,615
square foot Food Mart with a 3,880 square foot service bay canopy, and a 900 square foot Car Wash,
generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 I and Adams Street, more particularly
described as:
APN: BOOK 643 MAP 08 PARCEL 6
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-
63) in that the Community Development Department Director has conducted, and adopted under
Resolution 90-27, an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 89-150) and has determined that the
proposed project is within the scope of EA 89-150 and that no further environmental review is
necessary.
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
Conditional Use Permit 97-036:
1. That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and policies of the La
Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Mixed Commercial which permits the
uses proposed for the property.
2. The proposed commercial building and car wash are consistent with the City's Zoning Code
in that development standards and criteria contained in the Specific Plan as conditioned,
supplement, replace, or are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code.
3. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or general welfare or incompatible with surrounding properties. The adjacent properties are
PCRFS0.C1JP 97-036
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
designated and zoned for commercial use and the site is located at the intersection of two
Arterial roadways, which commonly attracts automotive -based commercial uses. The
conditional uses proposed are a consistent representation of the uses which would be
proposed for surrounding sites. The adverse impact of the project are mitigated to an
acceptable level and generally in conformance with the Dark Sky Ordinance with a soft
lighting design which includes limiting the height, direction and wattage of the lights fixtures,
shielding the light fixtures, and limiting the hours of night operation.
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 Conditional Use Permit
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 12th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PCRESO.CUP 97-036
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-616 TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,615 SQUARE FOOT FOOD MART
WITH A 3880 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE BAY CANOPY, AND
A 900 SQUARE FOOT CAR WASH
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-616
APPLICANT: SHELL OIL COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
28'n{ day of April, 1998 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued said Public Hearing to the
12� day of May, 1998, for a 1.12 acre site with a 2,615 square foot Food Mart with a 3,880 square
foot service bay canopy, and a 900 square foot Car Wash generally located at the northwest corner
of Highway I I I and Adams Street, more particularly described as:
APN: BOOK 643 MAP 08 PARCEL 6
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution
83-63) in that the Community Development Department Director has conducted, and adopted under
Resolution 90-27, an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 89-150) and has determined that the
proposed project is within the scope of EA 89-150 and that no further environmental review is
necessary.
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 Site
Development Permit 97-616
1. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in that:
A. The property is designated Mixed/Regional Commercial (M./RC). The Land Use
Element (Policy 2-3.1) of the 1992 General Plan Update allows retail business. The
project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan
Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met.
B. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Highway I 1 1 as a Primary Image
Corridor and Adams Street as a Secondary Image Corridor; the project will have
street improvements with abundant landscaping contiguous to the street right-of-way
consistent with Circulation Policy 3-4.1.2. The landscape setbacks are consistent with
Circulation Element Policy 3-4.1.11. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with
the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element.
PCRESO.SDP97-616
RESOLUTION 98-
2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan in that
the project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards and design
guidelines.
The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that
development standards and criteria contained in the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center
Specific Plan 84-004 supplement, replace or, are consistent with those in the City's Zoning
Code.
4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the high quality of commercial
development in the Center, and the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area
intersections.
The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and the surrounding
commercial area in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high
quality of materials.
7. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding development and
development in the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center in that it is similar in scale to the
development in the area, the building materials are a durable, aesthetically pleasing, low
maintenance, and a blend of surfaces and textures are provided.
The conceptual sign program of the project is consistent with the adopted Sign Program for
the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center and it provides building identity using common
elements of size, color, and materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case;
2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Site Development Permit 97-616 for
the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City
Planning Commission, held on this the 12"' day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PCRESO.SDP97-616
RESOLUTION 98-
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PCRESO.SDP97-616
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97- 616
MAY 12, 1998
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The development shall comply with Specific Plan 84-004, the approved exhibits, and the
following conditions on file in the Community Development Department, which shall take
precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the Specific Plan.
2. SDP 97-616 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the
following related approvals:
Environmental Assessment 89-150
Specific Plan 84-004
Conditional Use Permit 97-036
Adequate trash and recycling areas shall be approved by the Community Development
Department prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Plans to be reviewed for acceptability by the
City's franchise waste hauler prior to City review.
4. Handicap access, facilities and parking shall be provided per State and local requirements
5. A minimum average of three feet of earth berming will be provided along Highway I I I in
compliance with the Highway I 1 I Design Theme Guidelines.
6. The pricing/monument sign structure shall not exceed a height of eight feet and one inch and,
a width of thirteen (13) feet and four inches consistent with the existing service station
pricing/monument sign.
7. Construct a bus shelter as required by Sunline Transit and the City Engineer. The bus shelter
design will be supplied and approved by the Community Development Department.
8. Prior to any site disturbance being permitted, including construction, preliminary site work
and/or archaeological investigation, the project developer shall submit and have approved a
Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP), in accordance with Chapter 6.16 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code. The plan shall define all areas proposed for development and shall indicate
time lines for any phasing of the project, and shall establish standards for comprehensive
control of both anthropogenic and natural creation of airborne dust due to development
activities on site. Phased projects must prepare a plan that addresses control measures over
the entire build out of the project such as for disturbed lands and pending future development.
AAC0A.PC.SDP97-616. %vpd
Conditions of Approval - SDP 97-616
May 12, 1998
9. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as determined
by the Building and Safety Director.
10. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written
report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those
Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of SDP 97-616 and EA 89-150. Prior to
the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to
the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of
Approval and mitigation measures of SDP 97-616, and EA 89-150. Prior to final building
inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community
Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval
and mitigation measures of EA89-150 and SDP 97-616. The Community Development
Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance.
FIRE MARSHAL
11. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 17.50 g.p.m. for a two hour
duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible
material is placed on the job site.
12. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2") located
not less than 25-feet, or more than 165-feet, from any portion of the building(s) as measured
along approved vehicular travel ways.
13. Blue retro-reflective pavement markets shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and
driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers
must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department.
14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy
of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire
hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the
following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance
with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department".
15. The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water
company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is
capable of delivering 1500 gpm fire flow for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to
provide them.
A:\COA.PC.SD1197-616.wpd 2
Conditions of Approval - SDP 97-616
May 12, 1998
Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will
not meet the required fire flows of 1500 gpm. Please check with the water company prior to
obtaining an approval from the Fire Department Planning Department.
16. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, (6" x 4" x 2-1/2") will be located
not less than 25-feet or more than 165-feet from any portion of the buildings as measured
along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
17. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to
the start of construction.
18. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining under ground/above ground tank
permits from both the Riverside County Health and Fire Departments.
19. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must
be paid to the Fire Department at the time the building plans are submitted.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
20. The site grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of a site grading permit. The site shall be graded in accordance
with the approved grading plan prepared for Specific Plan 89-014 unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer.
21. All storm water and nuisance water run-off produced on site shall be discharged in
accordance with the approved drainage plan prepared for Specific Plan 89-014 unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide a fuel/water separator (1,000 gallon minimum fuel capacity) or
other approved devise, to intercept and retail fuel spills on site. Wash water from the car
wash shall not be allowed to drain into the storm drainage system. The applicant may be
required, in the future, to implement additional measures to maintain compliance with State
and Federal standards for discharge of pollutants in the Whitewater Stormwater Channel.
22. Site grading shall conform to approved improvement plans prepared pursuant to Specific Plan
89-014.
23. The applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on the
applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of
the site grading and improvements to insure compliance with the plans, specifications,
applicable codes, and ordinances.
AAC(.)A.PC. sDP97-616.wpd
Conditions of Approval - SDP 97-616
May 12, 1998
a. All grading and improvements were properly monitored by qualified personnel during
construction for compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and
ordinances and thereby certify the grading to be in full compliance with those
documents.
b. The finished building pad elevations conform with the approved grading plans.
24. Site access shall be from entry drives existing at the time of this approval.
25. The applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping, and irrigation plans
to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to the District's
Water Management Program.
26. Applicant shall install a raised landscaped traffic island in the westerly access intersection.
The shape and location of the island shall be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant
shall provide a one inch equals ten foot drawing of the access routes to and from the site
which show the turning radii of the tanker trucks that will service the station.
27. All underground utilities shall be installed with trenches compacted to City standards prior
to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by the applicant shall
provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer.
28. The applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking
and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time
the work is undertaken and accomplished by the City.
MISCELLANEOUS
29. Applicant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event
of any legal claim or litigation arising out the City's approval of this project. The City of La
Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion.
A:\C0A.PC.SDP97-616.N,,pd 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97- 036
MAY 12, 1998
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Applicant agrees to lower the lighting level of the project by: 1) reducing the number of
luminaries proposed for the ceiling of the service bay canopy structure to sixteen (16) and,
2) to recess said luminaries into the ceiling of the service bay canopy to reduce lighting and
glare levels.
2. Any and all exterior lighting modifications are to be approved by the Planning Commission
as an Amendment to this Conditional Use Permit.
MISCELLANEOUS
Applicant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event
of any legal claim or litigation arising out the City's approval of this project. The City of La
Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion.
A:\PC.COA.CUP97-036.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-
036, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUTO
MOBILE SERVICE STATION AND A CAR WASH
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-036
APPLICANT: SHELL OIL COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
28111 day of April, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued said Public Hearing to the
12' day of May, 1998 to consider Conditional Use Permit 97-036, to allow construction of a 2,615
square foot Food Mart with a 3,880 square foot service bay canopy, and a 900 square foot Car Wash,
generally located at the northwest corner of Highway I I I and Adams Street, more particularly
described as:
APN: BOOK 643 MAP 08 PARCEL 6
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-
63) in that the Community Development Department Director has conducted, and adopted under
Resolution 90-27, an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 89-150) and has determined that the
proposed project is within the scope of EA 89-150 and that no further environmental review is
necessary.
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
Conditional Use Permit 97-036:
That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and policies of the La
Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated Mixed Commercial which permits the
uses proposed for the property.
The proposed commercial building and car wash are consistent with the City's Zoning Code
in that development standards and criteria contained in the Specific Plan as conditioned,
supplement, replace, or are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code.
Approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or general welfare or incompatible with surrounding properties. The adjacent properties are
PCR:SO.CUP 97-036
Plannuig Conumssion Resolution 98-
designated and zoned for commercial use and the site is located at the intersection of two
Arterial roadways, which commonly attracts automotive -based commercial uses. The
conditional uses proposed are a consistent representation of the uses which would be
proposed for surrounding sites. The adverse impact of the project are mitigated to an
acceptable level and generally in conformance with the Dark Sky Ordinance with a soft
lighting design which includes limiting the height, direction and wattage of the lights fixtures,
shielding the light fixtures, and limiting the hours of night operation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission
in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Conditional Use Permit
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 12th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN -
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PCU'SO.CUP 97-036
I
i�4 B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 12, 1998
CASE NOS.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-056
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-057
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
LOCATION: CITYWIDE - WITHIN THE HILLSIDE/UNIQUE GEOLOGY
OVERLAY (HUGO) DISTRICT
REQUEST: AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 9.140
(HILLSIDE CONSERVATION REGULATIONS), AND THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION ELEMENTS REGARDING HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT DENSITY TRANSFER
BACKGROUND:
At the direction of the City Council, staff has reviewed Chapter 9.140.000 Hillside Conservation
Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, and proposes the attached code amendment (Attachment 1).
The City Council and Planning Commission hillside field trips visited several potential hillside
development scenarios, namely single family residences and roads on the hillside, defining toe of
slope, etc. (Attachments 2 & 3). After the hillside field trips with the Planning Commission and City
Council it became apparent that the various development scenarios and constraints were numerous
due to the varying topography, making it difficult to develop a set of detailed development standards
that would address all possibilities. Therefore, staff recommends rather than creating development
standards for all scenarios, that development be reviewed during the Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Permit processes. This will allow for better addressing site specific concerns. Criteria
specific to each case ensuring sensitive hillside grading must be met for a recommendation of
approval.
The Planning Commission opened the Public Hearing on this item on February 24, 1998, but
continued it off calendar so that the City Attorney could continue her review of the proposed
amendments (Attachment 4). The item was readvertised for this meeting.
General Plan Amendment
The proposed General Plan amendments consist of allowing a 20% maximum density increase of the
base General Plan residential land use designation. This density transfer from hillside areas will offset
limitations on development if the City Council finds that a potential for negative visual impacts. The
General Plan Resolution contains the proposed amendment to the General Plan.
Zoning Code Amendment
The proposed amendments to Chapter 9.140 Hillside Conservation Regulations are contained in the
Zoning Code Amendment Resolution. The key changes include a change in definition to include
unique geologic features, and a statement of purpose, definitions of several important
geomorphological terms (most importantly toe of slope), clarification of permitted uses above the toe
of slope within areas having less than 20% slope, and the procedure for review and approval, grading
criteria, development standards, and transfer of development rights from hillside parcels. The primary
goal of the proposed amendments is to simplify and clarify hillside development issues and
requirements.
Submittal of applications for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit will be required
for development in the hillsides. The basic procedure for a development application in the hillsides
consists of the following steps:
1) Delineation of the toe of slope for the project using a method specified in the "Zoning
Ordinance for hillside area. Any area above the toe of slope including canyons and
boulder fields are within the hillside overlay district.
2) Submit project design consistent with toe of slope delineation and stated hillside
development criteria, including architectural review. Submit all special engineering
studies such as hydrology and drainage, soils survey, geologic suitability study,
seismic analysis, access plan, grading plan, and utility plan. Submit biology and
cultural resource studies for review. The cultural resource report is reviewed by the
Historic Preservation Commission with recommendations given to the Planning
Commission and City Council. An Initial Study Environmental Assessment is
conducted by staff to identify environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation
measures.
3) Staff reviews all information and prepares for Planning Commission and City Council
public hearings. Normally the CUP process only requires Planning Commission
approval, however, the Hillside Conservation Regulations also require City Council
approval of development applications.
Opportunities for Annexation of Hillside Areas:
Opportunities for annexation of adjacent hillside areas appear to be minimal as nearly all land adjacent
to the City, located in the hillsides, is owned by public entities. There are no hillside areas within La
Quinta's existing Sphere of Influence. To expand the City's Sphere of Influence into hillside or
mountainous areas with the intent to annex would require the cooperation of state and federal
agencies as the property owners and approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO). The possibility of annexing appears redundant, since annexation for the preservation of
the hillsides is also the goal shared by the public agencies. The only privately owned land adjacent to
to the City are Sections 25 and 30 within the City limits of Indian Wells with their own restrictions
for hillside development, and Sections 7 and 9, located south of the City, within Riverside County
jurisdiction also with development restrictions for these properties. It appears that there are no
opportunities for annexation west of the Cove, and only minimal opportunities south of the City that
could provide any type of development opportunities for La Quinta.
FINDINGS:
The following required findings for a General Plan Amendment can be made:
The proposed policy amendments are internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the General Plan which are not being amended, in that the proposed amendments
define and clarify the existing goals, policies and objectives so that they can be more
effectively and easily implemented; and,
2. Approval of the proposed amendments will not create conditions materially detrimental to the
public health, safety, and general welfare as indicated by Environmental Assessment 98-351,
prepared for the proposed amendments.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- recommending to the City Council
certification of Environmental Assessment 98-351, and,
2. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ recommending to the City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment 98-056; and,
3. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- recommending to the City Council
approval of Zoning Code Amendment 97-057.
Attachments:
City Council Minutes, Dec. 2, 1997
2. City Council Field Trip Minutes, Jan. 21, 1998
3. Planning Commission Field Trip Minutes, Feb. 10, 1998
4. Planning Commission Minutes, Feb. 24, 1998
Prepared by: Submitted by:
LES�-IE MOURIQUAND /
Associate Planner
CHRISTINE DI IORIO
Planning Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 98-351 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 98-056, AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
97-057
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-351
CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 24th day of February, and the 12th day of May, 1998, hold a duly -noticed
Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 98-351, General Plan
Amendment 98-056, and Zoning Code Amendment 97-057; and,
WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment
have complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La
Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an
Initial Study (EA 98-351); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
said General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment will not
be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either
indirectly or directly, in that no significant impacts can be identified beyond
those associated with the current General Plan policies and Zone Code
standards.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment will not
have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Environmental Assessment 98-351
May 12, 1998
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, as
no new impacts beyond those associated with the current General Plan and
Zone Code have been identified.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment do not
have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. No significant effects on
environmental factors have been identified.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment will not
result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable
when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity,
as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the
Amendments.
5. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment will not
have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population,
either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which
would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 98-351 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution
and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum,
attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Panning Commission held on this 12th day of May 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
I':\I,1?SI,IE\pc Res EA 99-351.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Environmental Assessment 98-351
May 12, 1998
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
11:ALES1.I1?\pc Res PA 98-351.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ELEMENTS
REGARDING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
TRANSFER
CASE NO. GPA 98-056
CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 24th day of February, and the 121h day of May, 1998, hold a duly -noticed
Public Hearing to consider amendments to the City's General Plan to add language to
Policy 2-1.1.3 and change language to Page 6-1 as contained in Exhibit "A"; and,
WHEREAS, the amendment is internally consistent with those goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan which are not being amended; and,
WHEREAS, approval of the amendment will not create conditions
materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare as indicated by
the environmental assessment prepared for General Plan Amendment 98-056; and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission for the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the General Plan Amendment;
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made part of;
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have environmental effects
that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the
implementation of this proposal.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12th day of May 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\I,I?SLII?\pc Res UPA 99-056.%Apd
EXHIBIT "A"
Amendment 1:
(Policy 2-1.1.3, add after the existing paragraph on Page 2-8)
For parcels within the Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO) District, development
rights (1 unit per 10 acres) may be transferred to any area in the City which has been
zoned for residential purposes provided the increase does not exceed 20% of the General
Plan density designation of the receiving property..
Amendment 2:
(Replace wording on Page 6-1, second column, under "Topography/Hillside Areas," beginning
with line 14)
per 10 acres. The following uses within the Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO)
District shall be permitted in areas of less than 20% slope gradient, located above the toe of
slope: golf courses (including above -ground structures, fairways, greens, tees, and golf -cart
paths), flood -control structures, parks and lakes, water wells, pumping stations, and water
tanks (if screened properly), power, telephone, and cable substations and transmission lines
(if screened properly or undergrounded), T.V., cable and radio antennas, hiking, bicycle,
and equestrian trails, single family residential uses, accessory uses to the permitted uses,
and access roads, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Development
Permit.
-GOAL2-1-
l1 atywith a %w°density rssiderMal duwacW
=-throirgh#he devNopmeet of low density real
`dendai areas and .higher-derwity _=residential .::°-
.areas with generous -areas of open space.._
Objective 2-1.1
The General Plan shall identify residential land
use categories on the Land Use Policy Diagram
which provide for a variety of residential product
types, densities and development characteristics.
Policy 2-1.1.1
The General Plan shall define residential density
according to the formula presented below.
D = du
A-(c+i+a)
Where D =
Residential density
A =
Total site area (acres)
c =
Total commercial land area (acres)
i =
Total industrial land area, including
electrical substations, well sites and
watercoursehlood control facilities
(acres)
a =
Arterial street rights -of -way (acres)
du =
Dwelling Units
Policy 2-1.1.2
All new development shall conform to the building
intensity (as defined by the density range) shown on
the Land Use Policy Diagram. The maximum density
of the development shall not exceed the maximum
density for the site, except where a density bonus for
the provision of particularly desirable design amenities
is allowed.
Policy 2-1.1.3
Sites considered for density bonuses shall be
evaluated on an individual basis oohsidering such
factors as adjacent land use compatibility, available
services, infrastructure, traffic impacts, provision of
aftbrdable housing opportunities, enhanced urban
design standards, provision of significant open space,
on -site historic or cultural resource preservation, and
similar issues. A density bonus may be granted for
rBRW, Inc.
tw-WftA*-&WT
incorporating particularly desirable design amenities
into a project This bonus shall not exceed to percent
Policy 2-1.1.4
A Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) category shall
be established on the Land Use Policy Diagram. The
density standard for this category shall range from
0-2 dwelling unds/acres (DU/AC). The maximum
density shall be 2 DU/AC, the general residential
product type shall be characterized by one to two-
story, single-family detached homes on large lots or
clustered one to two-story, single-family attached
(condominium) units in projects with generous amounts
of open space, subject to conditions for varying
residential use guidelines as specified in Policy
2-1.1.8. Appropriate locations of VLDR uses shall
include areas adjacent to LDR uses, within planned
communities which provide a variety of residential
dwelling unit types, in environmentally sensitive areas
and in areas where equestrian uses are allowed or
where a rural character is desired. Specific areas
appropriate for VLOR uses include the portions of the
City east of Jefferson Sheet and south of Avenue 50.
Policy 2-1.1.5
A Low Density Residential (LDR) category shall' be
established on the Land Use Policy Diagram. The
density standard for this category shall range from
2-4 DU/AC. The maximum density shall be 4 DU/AC.
The general residential product type shall be chamc-
terized by one to two-story, single-family detached
homes on large or medium size lots and/or clustered
one to two --story, single-family attached units in
projects with generous amounts of open space, subject
to conditions for varying residential use guidelines as
speed in Policy 2-1.1.9. Appropriate locations of
LDR uses shall include all areas of the City except the
Village, along Highway 111 and in open space areas.
Policy 2-1.1.6
A Medium Density Residential (MDR) category shall be
established on the Land Use Policy Diagram. The
density standard for this category shag range from
4-8 DU/AC. The maximum density shall be 8 DU/AC.
The general residential product type shag be charac-
terized by one to two-story, single-family detached
homes on medium and small lots and/or one to two-
story, single-family attached units in protects with open
space, subject to the conditions tier varying residential
use guidelines as specified in PaW 2-1.1.9. Appropriate
bcftions of MDR uses include the Cove area, near
transportation arteries and in planned communities. The
Chapter 2 - Land Use Element
2-8
City of La Quinta
General Plan
0; 5 C
Chapter 6 Environmental Conservation Element
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Conservation Element of the
La Quinta General Plan identifies and establishes the
City's official policy relative to the identification,
establishment, preservation and management of
natural resources in the City. The purpose of the
element is to establish official City policy which:
• Identifies areas in La Quinta with substantial natural
resources which shall be managed to prevent
waste, destruction or neglect.
• Identifies policies related to permissible uses
development standards within conservation areas,
as well as programs to ensure the conservation of
resources.
Identifies desired courses of action/strategies
which provide the means to implement the
community's conservation policies.
The Environmental Conservation Element is organized
in the following manner.
• Existing Setting - Includes a general overview of
the existing natural resources and their function in
La Quinta
• Summary of Key Planning Issues - Includes
a brief discussion of the key planning issues which
are addressed in the Environmental Conservation
Element.
• Environmental Conservation Vision State-
ment - Includes a statement describing the future
state of natural resource conservation in La Quinta
desired by the citizens and elected officials of the
City. The development policies in the Environ-
mental Conservation Element are designed to bring
this vision to fruition.
• Relationship to der Elements - Includes
a statement describing the relationship of the
Environmental Conservation Element to the other
General Plan elements.
• Overview of Environmental Conservation
Policy Diagram - Includes a description of the
Environmental Conservation Policy Diagram and an
overview of the spatial distribution of the various
natural resource conservation areas in the City.
• Environmental Conservation Development
Goals, Objectives and Policies - Includes a
description of the City of La Quintes official
development policies relative to the identification,
location, management and development of natural
resources in the City.
• Environmental Conservation Element
Implementation Measures - includes a summary
of the various actions, programs and strategies the
City of La Quinta should take to implement the
Environmental Conservation Element goals,
objectives and policies.
EXISTING SETTING
Topography/Hillside Areas
Approximately 30 percent of the City is comprised of
the undeveloped Coral Reef and Santa Rosa
Mountains, which are located in the south central
region of the City and extend north along the western
incorporated area boundary. These mountains
contribute significantly to the City's visual, wildlife and
archaeological resources. The mountains provide a
dramatic framing element for the City as a result of
their close proximity, steep topography and varied
vegetation. Development in these areas is regulated
by the City's Hillside Conservation Zone Ordinance.
Generally, very low density development such as
single family residential uses less than 1 dwelling unit
per 10 acres; golf course fairways, tees and greens;
parks and other passive recreation facilities; and water
wells, pumping stations and water tanks are allowed in
areas with slopes less than 20%. Uses permitted in
areas with slopes greater than 20% are limited
primarily to hiking and equestrian trails and access
roads.
Archaeological Resources
Information provided by the Archaeological Research
Unit at the University of California, Riverside,
concluded that the most likely locations of prehistoric
cultural resources in La Quinta were along the foot of
the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains. These
cultural resources are most likely tethered to sources
of water or to locations where specific resources were
available in quantity on a seasonal basis. The most
BRW, Inc. Chapter 6 - Environmental Conservation Element City of La Oulnta
W.. 6-1 General 51
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND CHAPTER 9.140. -
HILLSIDE/UNIQUE GEOLOGY OVERLAY DISTRICT
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-057
CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 24th day of February, and the 12th day of May, 1998, hold a duly -noticed
Public Hearing to consider a Zoning Code Amendment for Chapter 9.140.-
Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay District; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan for development in the hillsides as defined
by the criteria in Exhibit "A"; and,
WHEREAS, approval of the Zoning Code Amendment will not create
conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare as
indicated by the environmental review conducted for ZCA 97-057;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission for the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Code
Amendment 97-057 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as noted
in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part of.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12th day of May 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PALESI IPAPc Res ZCA 97-057.wpd
Appendix I
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay District EA 98-351
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Leslie Nlouriquand, (760) 777-7068
4. Project Location: City-wide
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta
6. General Plan Designation: Hillside Conservation Overlay
7. Zoning
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.)
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
PAL.ESLIMNew EA 98-351.wpd -1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing N Biological Resources N Utilities and Service S}'stems
X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise Recreation
X Mandaton, Findings of
Significance
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. R
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentiallv
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. R
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 all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (be) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are'imposed upon the proposed project.
1, Si ature Date
_Leslie Mouriquand
Printed Name
City of La Quinta
For
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) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII 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. See the sample question below. A
source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited
in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
P:\LFSLIF\New FA 98-351.wpd -3
'ample question:
I.
11.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1.6)
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a
USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further
explanation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning'? (Source#(s): )
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less'rhan
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact MItigated Impact Impact
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project'? ( I I I X
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( I I I I X :1
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.. impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( I I I X
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( ) I I I X
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major
infrastructure)? ( )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( )
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (
P:\I.ESLIEUVew EA 98-35 Lwpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure. including liquefaction'? ( )
d) Seiche. tsunami. or volcanic hazard'? ( )
c) Landslides or mudflows? (
f) Erosion. changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation. grading. or fill? ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features'?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding? ( )
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g. temperature. dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body'? ( )
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less 'than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact ;Mitigated Impact impact
II X 1 J
I - I I X 1 ::1
e) Changes in currents. or the course or direction of water movements?
F- I t ( ) X
PA.ESI.IE\,New EA 98-351.wpd
V
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations. or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality'? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water supplies'? ( )
AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate anv air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air qualitv violation? ( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants'? (
Potentially
Potentially Significant I,ess'rhan
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact :Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature. or cause any change
in climate'? ( ) �`
d) Create objectionable odors'? (
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (
I I I X n
b) Hazards to safety flcm design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site?
VII.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists'? ( )
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact :Mitigated Impact Impact
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) X
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts'? (
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened. or rare species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) I X
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitat, Cie.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g,. marsh, riparian. and vernal pool)? (
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors'? (
VIIL ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans'? ( )
I I I - I X:]
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? I I i %t
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State'?
P:\LESLIE\tiew EA 98-351.wpd
IX.
X.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil. pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? X 17
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? ( )
X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees'? I I I X
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels'? (
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? (
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools'? ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads'? ( )
c) Other governmental services? ( )
�i i
I I I - X 1 71
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result
in a need for new systems or supplies. or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas'? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal'? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic Vista or scenic highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( )
c) Create light or glare'? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less'rhan
Significant Unless significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
I��
I I I x 1 --1
I I II X:1
T
I I- L X 1 :1
PA.ESLIONew EA 98-351.wpd
X`J.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Affect historical resources'? (
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ( )
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Umess Significant \u
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Restnct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area'? ( )
X
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities'? ( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (
XWL 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 to 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
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or
indirectiv?
P: .ESLIE'New EA 98-351.wpd
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where. pursuant to the tiering, program
EIR. or other CEQA process. one or more effects have been adequately
analvzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
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 N%ere
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
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.
P:`d.ESI.IE\New EA 98-351.wpd
INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-351
Zoning Code Amendment 97-057
and
General Plan Amendment 98-056
Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO) District
Applicant:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Prepared by:
City of La Quinta
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Leslie Mo iquand
Associate Planner
January 15, 1998
*Revised May 4, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1 INTRODUCTION....................................................3
1.1 Project Overview .................................................. 3
1.2 Purpose of Initial Study ............................................ 3
1.3 Background of Environmental Review ................................... 4
1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review ............................ 4
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. 4
2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting ............................... 4
2.2 Physical Characteristics .............................................. 4
2.3 Operational Characteristics ............................................ 5
2.4 Objectives ...
2.5 Discretionary Actions ............................................... 1 5
2.6 Related Projects ................................................... 5
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .......................................
3.1 Land Use and Planning ..............................................
6
3.2 Population and Housing .............................................
7
3.3 Geologic Problems .................................................
9
3.4 Water..........................................................13
3.5 Air Quality......................................................16
3.6 Transportation/Circulation..........................................
19
3.7 Biological Resources ..............................................
21
3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources .......................................
22
3.9 Hazards
23
3.10 Noise .........................................................24
3.11 Public Services ..................................................
25
3.12 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................
28
3.13 Aesthetics......................................................30
3.14 Cultural Resources ................................................
31
3.15 Recreation ......................................................
2
...
4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................... 33
5 EARLIER ANALYSES ............................................... 33
Page 2
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
Zoning Code Amendment 97-057 to Chapter 9.140. Hillside Conservation Regulations, and General
Plan Amendment 98-056 for the City of La Quinta. The proposed amendments affect all areas within
the City of La Quinta that are within the current Hillside Conservation (HC) Overlay District, and
other areas meeting the criteria for inclusion in the overlay district per the proposed amendments.
Among the proposed amendments is a change in name to Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO)
District. This change is proposed because areas other than just hillsides are included in the proposed
regulations.
The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the
principal responsibility for adopting Zoning Code Amendments and General Plan Amendments, which
may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has
the authority to oversee the environmental review and to adopt Zoning Code and General Plan text
amendments.
1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY
As part of the environmental review for the proposed amendments, the City of La Quinta Community
Development Department staff has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for
determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed
amendments. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, include the following:
To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
for the amendments;
To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the amendments, mitigating
adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the amendment to qualify for a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact,
To assist the preparation of an EK should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those
issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed amendments;
To facilitate environmental review early in the crafting of the amendments,
To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the amendment will
not have a significant effect on the environment;
Page 3
To eliminate unnecessary EIR's, and,
To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the amendments
(Source: A-25).
1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Zoning Code and General Plan amendments were deemed subject to the environmental
review requirements of CEQA because of the potential for land use, density, and aesthetic impacts
resulting from development in the HUGO District. An Initial Study Checklist and Addendum were
prepared for review 'by the La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the La Quinta Citv
Council.
1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Initial Study indicates that there is potential for adverse environmental impacts for five issue
areas contained in the Environmental Checklist. These issue areas are Land Use and Planning,
Geologic Problems, Biological Resources, Aesthetics, and Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures
are recommended for the proposed amendments, where possible, which will reduce any identified
potential impacts to less than significant levels if implemented on a project -by -project basis. As a
result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for
this project. An Environmental Impact Report will not be necessary.
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the
Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. The City is bounded on the west by the City of
Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside
County, and County, federal, and state lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated
in 1982.
The proposed Zoning Code and General Plan Amendments will apply to all areas within La Quinta
designated in the Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO) District, or are indirectly affected by
these regulations (Source: B-5).
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Zoning Code and General Plan Amendments do not have physical characteristics, but
rather are portions of regulatory documents for the City of La Quinta, California. However, their
adoption and implementation could have a physical manifestation within the City.
Page 4
2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed text amendments would regulate development within the HUGO District within the
City of La Quinta. The amendments would serve as the "local law" regarding development in the
areas determined to be within the HUGO District. If approved, the proposed General Plan
amendment would permit density bonuses for hillside parcels not exceeding 20% of the General Plan
designation. The proposed Zoning Code Amendments would provide a clarified and simplified guide
to hillside and canyon development standards and procedure for review (Source: B-6). Proposed
development within the HUGO District would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Permit processes, so that unique situations can be addressed individually while
maintaining a sensitivity for development within hillsides, canyons, boulder fields, and other areas
determined to be within the HUGO District.
2.4 OBJECTIVES
The objective of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment is to maintain development in the HUGO
District below the 20% slope gradient, and in areas where there are pockets of land that are under
20% slope, in order to provide the same level of preservation consideration to natural and cultural
resources found within the HUGO District. All proposed development within the HUGO District
would be subject to the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit processes. In addition,
there are newly proposed definitions to clarify concepts and issues. The proposed General Plan
Amendment would provide for density bonuses from HUGO-designated parcels not exceeding 20%
of the General Plan density designation.
2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of
judgment in deciding whether to approve a project or regulatory document. For the proposed
amendments, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The proposed amendments will require
discretionary approval and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council.
2.6 RELATED PROJECTS
There are no other currently related projects to the proposed Zoning Code and General Plan
Amendments.
SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the land use compatibilit},
and zoning consistency considerations of the proposed text amendments, for both the Zoning Code
and the General Plan. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each
Page 5
checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing
conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed amendments. Thresholds of
significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies, or by referring
to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G).
3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Regional Environmental &tting
The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County
The valley is abundant with both desert plant and animal life. The topographical relief ranges from
-237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is a part of the
Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa
Mountains, the Chocolate and Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountains. The San
Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley.
Local Environmental.Setting
The proposed amendments will directly affect all areas of the City within the HUGO District, and
possibly indirectly affect areas in residential zoning districts (such as those properties that receive
density credits from other parcels). Currently those areas within the existing Hillside Conservation
Overlay District are also within the Open Space designated areas on the City's General Plan. The
HUGO District is the proposed new name for this district that will also include canyons, geologic
features, boulder fields, and other unique geologic areas meeting the criteria stated in the proposed
ordinance amendments.
A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Zoning Code Amendment includes the proposal to maintain
the slope gradient level at 20% as the line of demarcation to define the toe of slope, and include
canyons, boulder fields, and other unique geologic features in addition to the hillsides surrounding
La Quinta. Proposed development within the HUGO District will be subject to a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Permit for approval. This will allow for consideration of individual
environmental and design constraints and consistency with the general plan and zoning code for each
proposed project. Thus, there is no additional identifiable significant adverse impact anticipated from
the proposed amendments.
B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over the Zoning Ordinance
and the General Plan. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this proposed
amendment are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR, and the La Quinta
Page 6
Master Environmental Assessment. The proposed amendments have been transmitted to various
agencies for review and comment regarding conflicts with environmental plans or policies. No
comments have been received from outside agencies at the time of this writing.
C. Would the project be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments provide clarification to, and expansion
of, the existing hillside development policies and requirements. Definitions, analytical methods, and
processural requirements are explained in the proposed HUGO District regulations.
D. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
No Impact. The La Quinta General Plan does not contain an agricultural land use designation
although there are a few locations with agricultural land uses extant in the south and southeastern
portions of the City. Historically, there has been farming activity in several sections of the City,
however, that has largely been replaced by resort, commercial, and residential development over the
past 15 years. There has never been any agriculture in the local hillsides, except for the lower areas
on alluvial fans, as they are typically too steep and rocky. The proposed amendments would not
affect any identified agricultural land uses or policies.
E. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income minority community)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments would define the existing 20% slope
gradient as the toe of slope and geologic features for application of development regulations in the
HUGO District. The proposed amendment might result in the slight increase of the residential density
of some parcels below the 20% slope line from the transfer of density credits from acreage above the
20% slope areas for a particular landholding or development proposal. Proposed is a provision to
allow a density bonus not exceeding 20% of the underlying General Plan density designation. This
possibility will be reviewed for each development proposal by the Conditional Use Permit process
required for development.
3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Regional Environmental.4etting
Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U.S.
Census, making the City the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. During that time
period, the number -of residents in La Quinta blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215 permanent residents
From 1990 to January of 1996, the population grew from 13,070 to 18,050. During peak tourist
seasons, the population of La Quinta swells to several times the permanent resident population figure
These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, State Department
Page 7
of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). La Quinta's population
ranks sixth largest of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth rate has been
approximately 10% in recent years. The projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is
anticipated to be 23,000 (Source: A-15, A-20).
The average age of a City resident is 32 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City's
population (Source: A-15, A-20).
In addition to permanent residents, La Quinta has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend
three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by
seasonal residents (Source: A-15, A-20).
The total housing stock as of 1996, is listed at 9,352 units. Single family units make up 68 percent
of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 8,624 detached single
family, 481 multi -family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household
is 3.15 (Source: Department of Finance 1996). Median home prices in La Quinta are approximately
$1 12,000 which is lower than the average for Riverside County ($120,950), but less than other
Southern California counties (Source: A-26).
Ethnicity information from the 1990 Census revealed that the composition of La Quinta's population
is 70% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 2% Afro-American, 1.5% Asian, and 1.0% Native American. The
1990 Census indicates that 81 % of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 21 % are
college graduates (Source: A-15).
Local Environmental .Setting
The proposed HUGO District areas are sparsely populated. Currently, there are only six single family
residential lots (Tradition Project) within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District.
A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments do not include specific development_
but rather regulate future development in the HUGO District. Development density allowances could
be transferred from the area above 20% at a factor of 1 dwelling unit per each ten acres. If density
transfers were approved, there could be a slightly higher density in the project areas below 20% slope
than normally would be permitted by the General Plan designation for some residential land use
designations. This potential increase in residential density is not anticipated to create significant
adverse impacts upon the environment (Sources: A-1, B-1).
B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?
Page 8
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments will make only a cumulative impact to
the existing major infrastructure within the developed areas of the City, which could be altered or
required to be extended to service particular project sites. This impact is not anticipated to be
significant, as there is existing infrastructure in place. Each utility provider is requested to comment
on new development proposals as they are before the City for approval. Expansion of infrastructure
is reviewed on a project -by -project basis.
C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
No Impact. The proposed amendments do not have any identifiable direct affect upon affordable
housing issues and does not include the displacement of existing housing units. Thus, there is no
identifiable adverse impact to the supply of affordable housing.
3.3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Regional Rnvironmental.Setting
The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the hillside and
canyon areas on the southern and western portions of the City. Elevations in the southeastern portion
of the City reach 1,400 feet above msl. Slopes on the valley floor area of the City are gentle, except
in the rolling sand dune areas. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City are underlain by
igneous -metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef
Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The
Coachella Valley is underlain by hundreds of feet to several thousand feet of Quaternary fluvial_
lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits. Slopes on the hillsides extend to the very steep, exceeding 40
and 50% in certain places.
The Coachella Valley consists of a trough that is bounded by high terrain. The upwind end of the
trough is considered to be the San Gorgonio Pass area. From this northwestern extreme, the trough
extends for about 30 miles to its downwind end. The Whitewater River is the Valley's major
watercourse. The seismicity of the Valley is dominated by the San Andreas Fault, which is
approximately 4 miles from the City at its nearest point. In the event of an earthquake, the intensity
of groundshaking will be affected both by distance from the fault and by the thickness of alluvial and
sedimentary cover overlying hard bedrock.
North of the City lies the Palm Springs Sand Ridge. This large sand ridge has been formed by the
strong prevailing winds that continually move sand and debris in southwesterly direction down the
Coachella Valley.
Page 9
Local Environmental.Setting
The areas where the Hillside Conservation Overlay Districts are located consist of hillside and
geologic features. Many of the unique geologic features are products of the erosion of the Santa
Rosa Mountains, which consist of large blocks of igneous and metamorphic complex that have been
uplifted by faulting. The boundary of the HUGO District includes all hillside land, except for sand
dunes, located above the toe of slope boundary. The toe of slope boundary shall be the boundary
between the HUGO conservation areas and developable land. The boundary shall be determined by
the Public Works Department/City Engineer per the requirements contained in the proposed HUGO
District regulations. Also included in the HUGO District are those areas that are relatively flat
pockets of land less than 20% slope. These areas may also be developed under an approved
conditional use permit and site development permit.
A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity:
fault rupture?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are inferred fault lines located within the City of La Quinta.
These fault lines are considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last
10,000 years. A major earthquake along these faults would be capable of generating seismic hazards
and strong ground shaking effects in the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been
placed in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. All structures developed on the City are required
to be constructed to current Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic standards in order to mitigate risk
of collapse to the extent feasible (Sources: A-1, A-2, A-3, A-22). The proposed amendments are not
anticipated to significantly impact fault rupture issues, however, development in the hillsides would
be reviewed on an individual project basis. Site suitability studies prepared by qualified geologists are
required to be submitted with each proposed hillside development proposal.
While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, significant geologic information and statistical
analysis have been complied, analyzed, and published intensely by various agencies over the past 25
years. It has been reported that a 22% conditional probability occurrence for the 30-year period from
1994 to 2024 that a magnitude 7.5 event or greater would occur along the Coachella Valley segment
of the San Andreas Fault. The primary risk to the City is from the San Andreas Fault. The Coachella
Valley Segment of the fault comprises the southern 115 km of the fault zone. This segment has the
longest elapsed time of any portion of the San Andreas Fault, last experiencing an event about 1690
AD based on USGS dating of trench surveys near Indio. The San Andreas Fault zone is considered
to have characteristic earthquakes that ruptures each fault segment. The San Andreas Fault may
rupture in multiple segments producing a higher magnitude earthquake.
Fault rupture is anticipated to occur at areas near the well -delineated regional fault lines as shown
on United States Geological Survey and California Division of Mines and Geology maps. However,
because the City is located in a region of high tectonic activity, the potential for surface rupture on
undiscovered or new faults that may underlie the City can not be discounted (Source: A-17).
Page 10
B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
seismic ground shaking?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. All areas within the City are subject to ground shaking
hazards from regional and local events. Any habitable structure constructed in the City will be
required to meet current seismic standards of construction for the Seismic Zone that they are located
in, to minimize or reduce to the extent feasible, the risk of structural collapse, this includes structures
built in the HUGO District (Sources: A-1, A-2). The proposed amendments are not anticipated to
have any additional adverse effect upon ground shaking issues.
The primary seismic hazard in the City is strong ground shaking from earthquakes along the San
Andreas and San Jacinto (Source: A-1, A-2, A-10). Strong ground motion resulting from earthquake
activity along the nearby San Andreas or San Jacinto fault systems is likely to impact all structures
during the anticipated lifetime of such structures.
C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
seismicity: ground 'failure or liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment indicates that
there are areas with a recognized liquefaction hazard. However, the majority of the City has a very
low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet
below the ground surface. Areas within the HUGO Districts are typically not within the liquefaction
hazard zones, as these hazard zones are on the flatter desert floor areas of the City, while the HUGO
District is typically in the higher elevations (Source: A-2, A-10). The proposed amendments are not
anticipated to expose potential development in the HUGO District to any significant adverse impact
from ground failure or liquefaction events. No required mitigation measures are identified for this
issue.
D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity:
seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard?
No Impact. The City is located in an inland valley separated from the Pacific Ocean by mountain
ranges, and would not be subjected to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the
southeast portion of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an
earthquake and ground shaking. Areas within the HUGO District are typically at higher elevations
and would not likely be impacted by these kinds of natural events (Source: A-2, A-17). The proposed
amendments are not anticipated to expose potential development to significant adverse the hazards
from seiches, tsunamis, or volcanic episodes. No mitigation is required for this issue.
E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides
or mudflows?
Page 11
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The terrain of HUGO District areas is typically rocky
hillsides, but can include geologic features. There could be a potential danger to structures and.people
from landslides and rockfall from steep slope gradients that might be located adjacent to developable
areas in the HUGO District. No mudflows are anticipated in the area, as the adjacent hills and
mountains are formed of rocky granodioritic material that typically does not go into solution from
rainfall. Much of the developed area of the City is protected from flood waters by earthen training
dikes and retention basins that are located throughout the City. It is a requirement of development
applications to submit a report prepared by the Registered Geologist assessing the stability of a
project sites in the HUGO District that will assess each of these hazards on a project -specific basis.
( Source: A-2, A-17). The recommendations of these reports serve as project -specific mitigation.
F. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion,
changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Less Than Significant Impact. Any proposed development in the HUGO District is anticipated to
result in potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography, and possibly unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading and fill. Soil studies and site suitability studies are required to
be submitted with each development application. These studies are used to determine physical
constraints and mitigation measures. for a project which affect the design of a development. The
proposed amendments are not anticipated to increase the impacts from erosion and other unstable soil
conditions beyond the level of impacts that currently exist as a result of development governed by the
current Hillside Conservation Overlay District.
G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence
of the land?
Less Than Significant Impact. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where
poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation
of the ground. Hillside Districts are not typically located in areas designated with subsidence hazards,
thus there is no anticipated significant impact from the proposed amendments. (Source: A-2).
H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive
soils?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and
the recommendations of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits
for hillside development at any slope gradient (Sources: A-6). All proposed development in the
HUGO District will be required to submit a soils study for review. These studies are used to
determine physical constraints and the appropriate grading and excavation techniques required for
a specific area which serve as mitigation. Each development project is reviewed on an individual basis.
The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have any adverse impact on the requirement for
stable soil.
Page 12
I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique
geologic or physical features:'
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The local mountains represent unique geologic features
in the La Quinta area. There could be direct significant adverse impact on these resources from
development in the HUGO District. Each proposed development application will be reviewed for
impacts to the geologic features present on specific project sites, with determinations and
recommended mitigation measures, under an approved Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Permit.
3.4 WATER
Regional Environmental Setting
Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layers of
rock material containing water) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that
trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin
which is the major water supply for the potable water needs of the City as well as a significant supply
for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via
domestic water wells in the City operated and administered by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The district has its own local wells and has contractual entitlements to Colorado River
water. It holds future entitlements to northern California water from the State Water Project (Source:
A-2).
La Quinta is located primarily in the Lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal
Subarea is separated into the Upper and Lower Valley Sub -Basins near Point Happy, located
southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that
approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available
for use. Water pumped from the aquifer is treated and distributed to users through the existing
(potable) water distribution system. Water is also pumped for irrigation purposes to water golf
courses and the remaining agricultural uses in the City. Water supplies are augmented with surface
water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal.
The quality of water in the La Quinta area is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However,
chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the
Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less
than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet
are considered excellent.
Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa
Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of
groundwater will be necessary in the near future.
Page 13
Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal
and stored in the Lake Cahuilla reservoir; lakes in private developments which are comprised of canal
water and/or untreated groundwater; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds
in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which result in substantial runoff. The
steep gradient of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing down to
the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. The majority of La Quinta is protected
from this runoff by the existing flood control facilities located throughout the City. There are some
hillside areas where there is no protection from flood waters to the lower elevations.
One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development
construction and operation activities. Without controls, total dissolved solids (TDS) can increase
significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to
conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater
runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a
two-part permitting process, for which the City of La Quinta participates.
Most of La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel
for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable
areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a
flood control plan for the general area developed by Bechtel for the District in 1970. Construction
was completed in November 1986 (Source: A-27).
Local Environmental ,Setting
The City does not have any natural standing bodies of water in the hillsides, other than Army Corps
designated blue -line streams. Lake Cahuilla is a man-made reservoir located in the southeastern
portion of the City and is part of the CVWD water supply system. The Whitewater River channel
transects the northern part of the City, but is dry except during seasonal storms. The La Quinta
Stormwater Channel is a man-made flood water evacuation channel that transects the City in a
northeast to southwest trend, and is a part of the community -wide network of flood control facilities.
The local hillsides provide watershed to the desert cove area on a seasonal basis.
The City currently has only limited areas which are still subject to storm water flow or flooding. Flood
prone areas are designated with a specific zoning district (Watercourse, Watershed, and Conservation
Areas: W-1). The intent of this zoning district is to allow development in flood prone area based upon
the submittal of drainage and stormwater control plan. The City also implements flood hazard
regulations for development within flood prone areas.
A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. There usually are changes in absorption rates, and sometimes
drainage patterns or surface runoff as a result of proposed development projects. The absorption rate
Page 14
will be altered by the paving of streets, construction of buildings, and landscaping. The drainage
patterns can be altered by man-made drainage facilities designed to serve a particular project. The
City typically requires that stormwater falling on a development site during the peak 24-hour period
of a 100-year storm shall be retained on site to protect adjacent properties from flood damage. Each
project is reviewed on an individual basis, with review by the Army Corps as necessary. The proposed
amendments are not anticipated to significantly alter this requirement. The City of La Quinta requires
that all runoff storm and nuisance water be retained on site. There is no city-wide master drainage
plan. Drainage plans are project -specific and as such are reviewed by the City Engineer prior to
project approval.
B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards
such as flooding?
Less Than Significant Impact. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to the
CVWD and the City Engineer for review and approval for every proposed development project,
including hillside projects. Mitigation for flood hazard is project specific within the context of the
community -wide flood protection system. For projects areas including blue -line streams, review by
the Army Corps is required. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant effect
upon this review process.
C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Storm and nuisance runoff will be required to be retained and
disposed of on site in an approved percolation device. Plans for such devices are submitted on a
project by project basis. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to result in any significant
adverse impact to the existing policies and standards for storm and nuisance runoff.
D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
Less Than Significant Impact. It is possible that a specific development project could propose a
change in the amount of water of a body of water. This issue would be assessed on a project by
project basis with appropriate mitigation, if feasible, recommended for the project. There are very few
bodies of water in La Quinta. The proposed amendments permitting development in the HUGO
District are not anticipated to adversely impact this issue.
E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have any existing natural bodies
of standing water or year-round rivers that would be affected by the proposed amendments. There
are many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. The La Quinta Evacuation
Channel is a man-made stormwater channel that is usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms.
Page 15
Future development of hillside areas at any slope gradient could affect, to a significant degree,
existing drainage corridors (Source: A-2). A drainage plan is required for all proposed developments.
This issue is considered on a project by project basis under the Conditional Use Process.
F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawal, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by
excavations?
Less Than Significant Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and
supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. Potable water to service hillside
development will most likely come from existing groundwater wells in the near vicinity. The
Coachella Valley Water District furnishes domestic water and sanitation service to the City (Sources:
A-2). All development applications are reviewed by CVWD for water -related issues. The proposed
amendments are not anticipated to have a significant effect upon domestic water issues.
G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Less Than Significant Impact. As with any project using substantial amounts of water, there will
be cumulative impacts to quantity of groundwater resources. It is not anticipated that there will be
any significant alteration to the direction of flow of the groundwater supply from hillside
development, however, the rate of flow may be impacted due to high demand for water by large
developments. Groundwater is reported to be below 100 feet in the City. Each project is considered
separately by the City and CVWD for water -related issues. The proposed amendments are not
anticipated to have a significant effect upon ground water issues.
H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. Development of a project site at any slope gradient will include
concrete and asphalt pavement of portions of the site. This pavement will reduce the absorption
ability of the ground Storm water runoff is to be discharged into approved retention areas. Following
a heavy rain, contaminates could be transported into the retention areas or into the City's storm drain
system that could contribute to groundwater and/or surface water pollution. However, this potential
impact is anticipated to be less than significant in most instances. A review of the drainage plan for
a proposed development project should identify potential problems that will affect groundwater
quality. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant affect upon impacts to
groundwater quality.
3.5 AIR QUALITY
Regional Environmental .Vetting
The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), and in particular, the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) division. SEDAB has a
Page 16
distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the
jurisdictional organization of SCAQMD and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA.
The air quality in Southern California region has historically been poor due to the topography,
climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the
California Air Resources Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agencv (EPA) are often
exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and
the maintenance of local air quality standards. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards
for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (PM-10). In the Coachella Valley, the standard for
PM-10 is frequently exceeded. PM-10 is a particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that
becomes suspended in the air due principally to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles traveling on
paved and unpaved roads. Wind currents can carry the PM-10 into the atmosphere and into the
hillside areas. PM-10 has been proved to be a health hazard to humans.
Local Environmental.Setting
The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by
hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall,
temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding
mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region.
The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMD, a plan which describes measures to bring
the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean
Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining
mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP.
The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes two air quality monitoring
stations, one located in the City of Palm Springs, and the other in the City of Indio. The Indio station
monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area. The Palm Springs station
monitors carbon monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate.
A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air
Quality Handbook indicates that the threshold - for significance for a single family housing
development is 170 units. This threshold is applicable for hillside development as well. Given that
hillside development is currently permitted at a density of 1 unit per 10 acres for areas above the toe
of slope, a hillside project would have to consist of 1700 acres before an air quality study would be
triggered by the threshold. It is doubtful that a specific hillside development project would include
1700 acres of hillside in La Quinta. This would involve several sections of land in contiguous
ownership for which the current ownership of hillside land is typically not more than one section per
one owner. The current ownership of hillside land includes private, state and federal. With most
Page 17
sections owned by one entity. State and federal owned land is not designated for development, but
rather various types of conservation and preservation management designations which would preclude
development. Each development application in the HUGO District will be reviewed and assessed for
air quality impacts during an Initial Study. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to create
any significant adverse impacts on air quality issues.
B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, day care centers, parks and
recreation centers, medical facilities, rest homes, and other land uses that include a concentration of
individuals recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. The Ambient Air Quality
Standards (AAQS) are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory
distress or infection, referred to as "sensitive receptors." (Sources: A-l; A-2; A-8),If a proposed
project exceeds the significance threshold for air quality impacts, there could be adverse impacts to
sensitive receptors. It is not anticipated that proposed hillside development at any slope gradient will
exceed the threshold. Therefore, anticipated impacts from the proposed amendments are less than
significant for hillside single family development. However, each development application will be
assessed on an individual basis under the Conditional Use Permit process, with appropriate mitigation
measures required as necessary.
C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
No Impact. Hillside development is not anticipated to result in any significant impact to climatic
issues at any slope gradient. There are no known significance thresholds for this topic area in which
to assess impacts to the climate, thus no definitive statements can be made on this issue regarding
impacts and their significance.
D. Would the project create objectionable odors?
Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicles traveling on nearby streets generate gaseous and particular
emissions that may be noticeable on project sites. However, these would be short-term odors that
should dissipate quickly. Projects might store small quantities of chemicals (cleansers and
disinfectants) for which their could be odors, but storage of such chemicals is limited to inside
buildings. Each project will be assessed on an individual basis. The proposed amendments are not
anticipated to result in any significant adverse impact from odors on the environment at any slope
gradient.
Page 18
3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Regional Environmental. Setting
La Quinta is a desert community of over 18,600 permanent residents, and approximately 9,500
seasonal residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The
existing circulation system is a combination of early road work constructed in the 1930's by Riverside
County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State
Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, and Eisenhower Drive.
Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early -
spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes.
Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus routes operated by
Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas
with the community of Palm Desert to the west. Two lines operate along Highway I 1 I serving trips
between La Quinta and other communities in the desert.
There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these
systems will be expanded as the City grows. These facilities, both existing and future, are designated
in the La Quinta General Plan.
Local Environmental Setting
Hillsides around La Quinta vary from alluvial fans to rocky mountain faces. The potential for road
construction in hillside areas varies with project design and physical constraints. Roadways may not
exceed 15% grade per the Fire Marshal's standards. Currently there are very few roadways at the
15% slope gradient bn the hillside areas within the City. All new roadways within the HUGO District
would be subject to review and approval through the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Permit processes.
A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicles trips and traffic congestion is assessed on a project by
project basis to determine impacts and mitigation. Density transfers from higher elevations could
increase traffic in areas that receive transferred units. The proposed change from 20% slope to 15%
slope are not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact upon traffic congestion. Each project
will be assessed for impacts to this issue on an individual basis.
B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
Page 19
Less Than Significant Impact. It is possible that hazards to safety from design features could result
from proposed development projects in the hillsides. Impacts and mitigation will be determined on
a project by project basis.
C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses?
Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed projects are not permitted to obstruct emergency access
to surrounding land uses. This issue will be assessed on a project by project basis for impacts and
mitigation. It is not anticipated that there would be significant impacts from the proposed
amendments.
D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site?
Less Than Significant Impact. Parking needs and requirements are reviewed on a project by project
basis in accordance with Zoning Code Chapter 9.150 Off -Street Parking Requirements.
It is not anticipated that there would be significant impacts from the proposed amendments.
E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists?
Less Than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians will
be increased significantly as a result of the proposed amendments (Source: A-1). This issue will be
assessed on a project by project basis for impacts and mitigation.
F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The need for alternative transportation is reviewed on a project by
project basis. It is not anticipated that there would be a significant impact from the proposed
amendments. There are no adopted policies requiring alternative transportation for developments
unless there are over 100 employees.
G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
No Impact. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. The closest rail line is approximately
nine miles to the north of the project site. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, or air travel
lanes or airports within the City. Thus, there are no anticipated impacts upon these types of
transportation from the proposed amendments. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport.
a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately one mile north of the City
boundary, and the Thermal Airport, located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the City boundary,
on Airport Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: A-2; A-17). This issue is considered for each
development application on a project by project basis.
Page 20
3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental.4etting
The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert regional environment. Two ecosystems are
found within the City, the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed
environments within the City are classified as either urban or agricultural. A detailed discussion of
these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (1992).
Local Environmental .Setting
The majority of the areas that would be within the HUGO District are located in the Desert Transition
ecosystem. The Desert Transition areas are found on alluvial fans and slopes of the surrounding
mountains. It is a transition from the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem and the Pinon-Juniper
Woodland at higher elevations. The transition is gradual and involves an intermingling of vegetation
types typically found in the Desert Scrub ecosystem and the Pinon-Juniper Woodland near the top
of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The plant species in the desert transition zone benefit from slightly
higher rainfall. Where creosote bush and bur -sage dominated in the desert scrub areas, cacti become
more abundant and ocotillo dominate on the upper portions of alluvial fans, bajadas, and rocky
mountain slopes (Source: A-2).
A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. There are designated habitats of endangered, threatened,
or rare species known to be within the HUGO District areas in La Quinta (Source: A-2).
Development projects are transmitted for comment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Department of
Fish and Game. Each project is assessed on an individual basis. Biology studies are required for
development projects in HUGO District areas. Appropriate mitigation is required for any impacts
identified.
B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta as
there is no City ordinance in place with which to designate local species. All significant biological
resources are designated at the state and/or federal level by the California Department of Fish and
Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game are transmitted to for review and comment on each development
application. Appropriate mitigation is required for significant impacts, which may include
undevelopable habitat easements placed on portions of higher elevations (Source: A-2).
C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
Page 21
No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found in the City. The U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are transmitted to for review and
comment on each individual project. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a
significant adverse impact upon locally designated natural communities.
D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)?
No Impact. There is no known wetland habitat in the HUGO District. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife
Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are transmitted to for review and comment
regarding this issue for each proposed development project. There is no anticipated significant impact
from the proposed amendments on wetland habitats.
E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Wildlife corridors are open in the Coral Reef and Santa
Rosa Mountains which provide access to the higher mountains (Source: A-2). The U. S. Fish &
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are transmitted to for review and
comment for each proposed development project. There are no anticipated significant impacts from
the proposed amendments to wildlife corridors. Increasing non -buildable hillside area by reducing
slope will increase wildlife corridors.
3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental.Setting
The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resource
Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil
resources in the City. Major energy resources used in La Quinta come from the Imperial Irrigation
District (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and various gasoline companies.
Local Environmental.Setting
There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities or resources in the City. Most
hillside areas are within the MRZ-3 Mineral Resource Zone. The MRZ-3 designation is applied to
those areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which can not be evaluated from available
data (Source: A-2). Each development project is assessed for energy and mineral resource
significance individually. There are no anticipated significant impacts to this issue area from the
proposed amendments to the HUGO District.
A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Page 22
No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan, however, the City's
General Plan Housing Element contains requirements for efficiency in construction and materials with
the goal of reducing energy consumption. Future hillside development will be required to meet Title
24 energy requirements as is all development in the City (Sources: A-1, A-22). This issue is assessed
on a project by project basis. There is no anticipated significant impact to energy conservation plans.
B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by development projects include
air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, and other resources needed for construction. Title
24 (of the Uniform Building Code) requirements shall be complied with for energy conservation. Any
landscaping will also be required to comply with the City's landscape water conservation ordinance
as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (Source: A-2). Each development
project is reviewed for impacts on an individual basis. There are no anticipated significant impact from
the proposed amendments.
3.9 HAZARDS
Regional Environmental.Vetting
Recent growth has increased the City's exposure to hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic
materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the
work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not present in the City
of La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations,
restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may
pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous
disposal waste sites located in Riverside County.
Local Environmental.Setting
In order to comply with AB 2948-Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting
Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste
Management Plan. There are no known hazardous waste dump sites in the City's hillside areas.
A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)?
Less Than Significant Impact. There is minimal risk of exposure from chemicals and pesticides
used within the typical residential development project. Use of any chemicals during the construction
phase or on -going operations shall be by trained personnel only according to local Riverside County
Health Department, OSHA, and EPA requirements. Each development project is reviewed on an
individual basis. There are no anticipated significant impacts to this issue from the proposed
amendments.
Page 23
B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities will be confined to project sites, except for
minimal off -site work as permitted for project roadways, curbs, and gutters. These activities will not
be permitted to interfere with emergency responses to the site or surrounding areas nor will it
obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. Needed measures to divert and control traffic shall be
implemented whenever required. Traffic diversions are subject to inspection by the City's Public
Works Department.
C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
No Impact. There are no anticipated health hazards associated with the development in the hillsides
beyond those normally associated with a construction project, which consist primarily of accidental
injuries. This issue is reviewed for each development application. There are no significant impacts
from the proposed amendments to this issue.
D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
No Impact. There are no identifiable significant health hazards related to the proposed amendments
to the HUGO District. All development will be required to conform to zoning standards and all
applicable health and safety codes. Each development project is assessed individually. There are no
anticipated significant adverse impacts to this issue from the proposed amendments.
E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
Less Than Significant Impact. There is a very low fire potential from the brush, grass, or trees in
the rocky hillsides or sandy alluvial fans as there is sparse vegetation. The construction of buildings
will increase fire hazards for which the Fire Marshal requires conditions of approval specifying type
of construction and materials. This issue is reviewed for each development project individually. There
are no significant impacts anticipated from the proposed amendments to the fire hazard issue.
3.10 NOISE
Regional Rnvironmental.Setting
Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources within and outside the City boundaries.
The major sources of noise include vehicles on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary
construction noise. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and
major arterial roadways.
Page 24
Local Environmental.Setting
The ambient noise levels at development project sites is typically dominated by vehicle traffic noise
from nearby roadways. Residential areas are considered noise -sensitive land uses, especially during
the nighttime hours. The State Building Code requires that interior noise level in residential buildings
do not exceed CNEL 45. The General Plan of the City of La Quinta requires that exterior noise levels
do not exceed CNEL 60 for residential land uses (Sources: A-2; A-1). The existing noise level in the
hillsides is very low.
A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular noise would result from residents and visitors arriving and
departing the residential developments. Walls typically serve as mitigation from sound affecting and
originating from proposed development project. Any hillside development will cumulatively add
noise to the area. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to significantly impact this issue.
B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration
in the City by establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Residential land uses should
have a maximum exterior noise level of up to 60 CNEL. If the ambient noise level is higher than this
standard, then it will serve as the standard.
Proposed development in hillside areas will result in short-term impacts associated with construction
activities. During construction, heavy machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise
levels ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. These high noise levels
are short in duration and temporary with the construction phases of the project. Such high noise levels
are not anticipated or permitted after construction ( Source: A- I).
3.11 PUBLIC SIERVICIES
Regional Environmental .Setting
Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County
Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department extends service to the City from existing facilities
located in the City of Indio. There is a small substation located within the La Quinta City Hall. The
Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional
public safety personnel requirements in La Quinta at buildout. Based on this standard, the City should
have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently under served. Currently, there are three officers
per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve La Quinta. In addition to patrol, there is also a
target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source:
A-24).
Page 25
Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department through a
contractual arrangement. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City, Station #32 on
Frances Hack Lane, west of Washington Street, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison
Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections.
plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per
1,000 population, the City is currently under served (Source: A-2). Currently, there are two paid
firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid staff
Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the
City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillsides are virtually barren and the scattered brush
on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat.
Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve
the City. There are two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school within the City
The City is also within the Desert Community College District.
Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located
in the Village area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and county planning standards of
0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita are used to forecast future facility requirements
to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was under served in space but over served in
terms of volumes (Source: A-2).
Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the
Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility in La Quinta on Hwy. 111. The Eisenhower Medical Center is
located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health
programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by
Springs Ambulance Service.
Local Environmental.Settsng
Public services would be extended to hillside areas as development occurs there.
Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other
County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region.
A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered
governmental services in relation to fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Development will increase the need for fire protection due to the
construction of structures. Development shall comply with the fire flow and fire safety building
standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazard on -site and to minimize the need
for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access is required through the design of the project
Page 26
streets and setbacks between structures. Other code requirements (such as sprinkler systems,
construction materials, etc.) shall be complied with. The comment letter from the Fire Department
shall be made part of the Conditions of Approval for Site Development Permits.
B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered
government services in relation to police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Traffic collisions, patrol requests, and calls for service generated by
development will impact the Sheriffs Department. This will generate a cumulative need for additional
staff in the future. Each project is reviewed by the Sheriff's Department with recommendations
provided on a project by project basis.
C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in relation to school services?
Less Than Significant Impact. School overcrowding is a District -wide concern for the Desert
Sands and Coachella Valley Unified School Districts. These 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 an impact on the financing of new schools. The school mitigation
fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued is
required of development project as mitigation for impacts.
D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Less Than Significant Impact. There is a potential for the need for new or altered government
services from hillside development, especially landscape and road maintenance. HUGO District
development will be reviewed on a project by project basis for impacts. HUGO District development
will be reviewed on a project by project basis under a Conditional Use Permit.
E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in relation to other governmental services?
Less Than Significant Impact. Building, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for
proposed projects will be partially offset by application, permit and inspection fees charged to the
applicant and contractors. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant impact to City staff from
proposed hillside projects. The proposed amendments would result in HUGO District development
being kept at lower elevations around the City and potential for greater density.
Page 27
3.12 UTILITIES
Regional Environmental .Services
The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply
and The Gas Company (TGC) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations
are found throughout the City. IID has four substations in La Quinta, with electricity generated by
a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General
Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Media One serves the area for
cable television service. There are several wireless communication companies that provide services
in the La Quinta area.
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD
obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado Diver. CVWD operates a water
system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth
from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City.
The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates
a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste
Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is
taken to the only open landfill (Edom Hill) within the Coachella Valley.
Local Environmental.Vetting
There are typically no utilities available in the more remote hillside and canyon areas. The extension
of utilities is dependent upon development.
A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power
and gas service?
Less Than Significant Impact. Power, water, sewer, and natural gas lines have been brought in to
the community and are available to the urban areas of the City. Project developers will have to
coordinate with IID and The Gas Company for the timely provision of utilities to hillside
developments. Each development is reviewed on an individual basis.
B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to
communication systems?
Less Than Significant Impact. It is possible that development in the HUGO District would result
in a need for new systems. Each project will be reviewed on an individual basis. Any proposed
development will require telephone communication. The developer will be required to coordinate the
installation of telephone service infrastructure with GTE. Media One is the current provider of cable
television services for which developers will have to coordinate with if a project is to have cable
Page 28
television service. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant impact on the
environment, that can not be mitigated to an insignificant level.
C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local
or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that the project will result in a significant
adverse impact upon the water resources of the area. No significant impacts are anticipated by the
proposed amendments. Rather, the amendment would serve as a mitigating effect by limiting where
development could be located in the hillside area, thus, reducing the need for expansion to water
distribution facilities.
D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer
services or septic tanks?
Less Than Significant Impact. Potential development in the HUGO District will generate sewage
which will have to be transported and treated by CVWD. Developer are responsible for the cost of
connection and installation of an on -site sewer system. The proposed amendments are not anticipated
to significantly impact sewer systems but rather would have a mitigating effect by limiting where
development could be located in the hillside areas.
E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm
water drainage?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. It is possible that HUGO District development could
require additions or changes to the existing stormwater drainage system in the City. However, this
issue will be reviewed on a project by project basis. The proposed amendments could result in
significant impacts on this issue from a specific development project. A careful analysis would be
required with appropriate mitigation measures implemented to lessen the impact to an insignificant
level.
F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid
waste disposal?
Less Than Significant Impact. Development projects require solid waste disposal services from
the current franchisee. Solid waste is transported to the one existing landfill in the Coachella Valley.
This landfill is reaching capacity and may be closed in the near future. Development must comply with
the City's Source Reduction and Recycling policies. Any on -site programs will be coordinated with
Waste Management. All projects will cumulatively impact solid waste systems and facilities. Each
project is assessed for impacts individually. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have
a significant effect on waste disposal.
Page 29
3.13 AESTHETICS
Regional Environmental .Vetting
The City of La Quinta is located within a desert valley cove with boundaries extending to the desert
floor and up into the local mountains. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of
the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Dominate
architectural styles found in the City are Mediterranean and Spanish Revival, with a relatively low
profile for residential structures and for most commercial structures.
Local Environmental Setting
The hillside areas are located in the south and western portion of the City. Views to the hillsides
consists of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to the west and south, the Guadalupe
Creek/Devil's Canyon alluvial fan area to the west, and the open valley floor and San Bernardino
Mountains beyond to the north and northeast (Source: A-2).
A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact. Viewsheds are designated by the City's General Plan. The vistas
with the City include the Coral Reef Mountains adjacent to the west, the Santa Rosa Mountains to
the south, and the valley floor and San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast and east. Each project
is reviewed for impacts to vewsheds and vistas on a project by project basis. The proposed
amendments would restrict development to slopes 10% or less, unless there is an approved
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit, which would serve to, at least, mitigate
aesthetic impacts of development in the HUGO District.
B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
No Impact. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to result in negative impacts to aesthetic
issues in and of themselves. HUGO District development will be required to comply at the time of
development with current architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances of the City. Negative
aesthetic effects will be assessed for each individual development application, with mitigation to be
project -specific.
C. Would the project create light or glare?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to result in significant
impacts to the area from light or glare. All development proposals create light and glare. Mitigation
consists of compliance with the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance for residential land uses. Each
project is reviewed individually for impacts and appropriate mitigation measures (Source: A-4).
Page 30
3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental.Yetting
A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record pieced
together from various archaeological investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive
ethnographic information collected by various anthropologists. A discussion of the prehistory and
history of La Quinta is provided in the Draft Historic Context Statement of the City of La Quinta, La
Quinta General Plan, and the Master Environmental Assessment.
Local Environmental .Setting
There are recorded archaeological sites in many locations of the City, including the hillsides. Project
sites are surveyed in conjunction with the environmental assessment prepared for individual projects.
Approximately 1/3 of the Current City area has been surveyed in conjunction with development
proposals.
A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources?
Less Than Significant Impact. It is known that marine -associated paleontological resources are
found at elevations below 42 feet above mean sea level. The hillside areas are located at higher
elevations. Each project as reviewed on an individual basis. However, there are no known
paleontological resources in the local hillsides. The proposed amendments would serve to protect
paleontological resources, if they exist, in areas above 20% slope.
B. Would the project affect archaeological resources?
Less Than Significant Impacts. There are several recorded archaeological sites within the local
mountains, alluvial fans, canyons, and other areas. A moderate potential remains for the discovery
of archaeological resources in the hillsides where hunting blinds, sheep fences, trails, astronomical
rock alignments, rock art, camp sites, and resource procurement sites have been found. Proposed
development projects would be required to have an archaeological survey conducted to locate,
identify, determine the significance, and recommend mitigation for any such resources on a project
site. The proposed amendments would keep development at 20% slopes and below, serving as
protective mitigation for archaeological resources that may be found in the steeper sloped areas.
C. Would the project affect historical resources?
Less Than Significant Impacts. There were no known historic resources located in the hillsides as
there have been very few surveys in these areas to locate such resources. The possibility exists that
there are historic resources in the hillsides that could be significantly impacted by hillside
development. The proposed amendments would restrict development to slopes not exceeding 20%,
Page 31
which may serve to protect resources at steeper slopes and higher elevations. This issue is assessed
for each development proposal on a project by project basis.
D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic values?
Less Than Significant Impact. There is no identifiable specific unique ethnic values associated with
the hillsides, except the desire to view the hills and keep them undeveloped as expressed by La Quinta
residents during the public hearings for the Tradition project and other projects in the past. Thus,
there is no significant impact to this issue area from the proposed amendments.
E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
No Impact. There are no publicly known current religious uses or sacred uses in the hillsides. The
proposed amendments would serve to keep development at lower sloped areas which may result in
the protection of unknown religious uses of the hillside areas.
3.15 RECREATION
Regional Environmental.Setting
The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan that assesses
the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City has approximately 28.7
acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845 acre regional Lake Cahuilla Park is
not included in this count. There are also unimproved bike and equestrian corridors within the City
and designated pedestrian hiking trails.
Local Environmental.Setting
Hiking and equestrian trails are the only organized recreation amenity in the local hillsides. There are
informal trails and formal trails. The known recreation activities in the hillsides are hiking, rock
climbing, and horse back riding.
A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments will not significantly impact the need
for additional park and recreation facilities. Each development project is reviewed for impacts and
the appropriate mitigation, usually consisting of dedication of park lands or payment of an in -lieu fee
to the City for development of public park and recreation facilities.
B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities?
Page 32
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments is not anticipated to significantly affect
existing parks and recreation facilities in the hillsides, as there are very few such facilities in the
hillsides. This issue will be reviewed for impacts and mitigation on a project by project basis.
SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed amendments will not have unmitigable significant adverse impacts on the environmental
issues addressed in the checklist and addendum. In some instances, the proposed mitigation will serve
to reduce potential impacts from the existing hillside development regulations and General Plan
policies. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set
forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental
assessment:
• The proposed amendments will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures.
• The proposed amendments will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation.
• The proposed amendments will not have impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the
immediate vicinity.
• The proposed amendments will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect
human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation.
SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES
A. Earlier Analyses Used.
Utilized in the current analysis were the following sources:
1. La Quinta General Plan (1992)
2. La Quinta General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (1992)
3. La Quinta General Plan EIR (1992)
4. La Quinta Zoning Ordinance
5. La Quinta Municipal Code
6. Soil Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area, USDA -Soil
Conservation Service (1979)
7. City of La Quinta Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1992)
8. SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Draft) (May 1992)
9. La Quinta General Plan - Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program (1992)
10. Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (1989)
Page 33
I3
C.
11. California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System Report for the City of la
Quinta
12. La Quinta Bike Route Plan: Existing and Proposed (1996)
13. La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance
14. City Aerial map
15. 1990 Census
16. (Deleted)
17. La Quinta Topographic Quad Sheet, 7.5'
18. 1949 Aerial Photograph
19. Paleontological Lakebed Determination Map
20. City of La Quinta 1995/ 1996 Department of Finance Estimates, 1990 Census
21. La Quinta Housing Element (1995)
22. Uniform Building Code
23. Draft Historic Context Statement for La Quinta
24. 101-301 Police Services Supporting Information
25. CEQA Guidelines
26. La Quinta Economic Overview, 1996
Project Specific Sources:
1. Site Visit
2. CVWD letter
3. Fire Marshal letter
4. Sheriff letter
5. Proposed Amended Chapter 9.140.040 HUGO District
6.
Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential impact/issue areas, are considered to be
adequately addressed with this environmental assessment. Certification of this EA by the City
Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental assessment.
Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum as they relate
to the proposed amendments.
Page 34
FXHIBI.T_ #A
9.140.040 +W- HUGO Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay District Conservation Regulati
A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is as follows:
1. Ensure that development in the Hillside and Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO) District
is consistent with the goals, policies, and criteria of the General Plan;
2. Protect and preserve public and private open space as a limited and valuable resource;
3. Preserve significant features of the natural environmental including watersheds,
watercourses, canyons, knolls, ridge lines, boulder fields, and rock outcrops, while
minimizing disturbance to the natural terrain;
4. Protect significant native vegetation and wildlife;
ZOUPDATE-supspepurregs 2
S. Protect significant cultural resources;
6. Limit development to a level consistent with available public services and road access
that can be reasonably provided to and within each parcel,
7. Ensure that development will not create or increase fare, flood, rock slide, or other
hazards to public health and safety;
8. Protect the health, safety, general welfare and property of people in the vicinity of steep
hillside and unique geological building sites;
This chapter establishes procedures and standards for the review of land divisions and the
construction of buildings, structures, and improvements necessary to meet this purpose.
-AB. Applicability.
1. The HUGO District and the provisions of this Section apply to land meeting the criteria for
hillsides, canyons, boulder fields, and topographic aberrants. The 1 le 1 R11side Gonser .atio_
HUGO District applies to a44 land within the City designated in the General Plan as `
spaee" shown on the Official Zoning Map as "HUGO." More-speei€ieai-iy, bei-mirg above
"the tee of the sltpe," as defined in this Seetion. within the following Seetions of land (San
Bernardino Base and Meridian) within the City:
The delineation of the HUGO District has been generally identified in the Zoning Map and
Ordinance, however, it is adjustable dependent upon more detailed boundary information
submitted to the City. The final determination of the HUGO District boundary will be made
by the Community Development and Public Works Department staff, Planning Commission,
and City Council.
.
OWN'
• ::
-
i�_
_ _
• _
RMF
1,10
LOUPDATE-supspcpurregs
011
y
TWWWWR
WS
_ _ _ _: is ::. :+ : ::_ .�__ _ _� � _ �•
1. Boundary of the HUGO District. HUGO District includes all hillside land, except for sand
dunes, located above the toe of slope boundary. The toe of slope boundary line shall be the
boundary between the HUGO conservation area and developable land. The boundary shall
be confirmed by the Public Works Department per the requirements contained later in this
subsection. It is acknowledged, however there are some areas located above the toe of slope
which are flatter than the percent (20%) topographic gradient required for hillside
conservation. These areas may potentially be developed for certain uses, if certain findings
are made, under a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section G.
2. Determination of the Toe of Slope. The toe of slope boundary line is the lower elevation of
a twenty-five foot (25 foot) wide calculation band where the topographic gradient within the
banded area exceeds twenty percent (20%). The topographic gradient within the banded
area may be calculated manually, or by digitizing/plotting software capable of producing
the desired analytical documents. The calculation method and analytical documents for
each method shall be as follows:
I.OUPDATE-supspcpurregs 4
Manual Method
Using the slope formula specified herein, the topographic gradient calculation must be
calculated using a map with five foot intervals between contour lines on a 40-scale map
(I "=40 ) and the maximum size subarea for calculation purposes must not exceed 2,500
feet (0.057 acre); see Attachment I for an example of the graphic technique used to
implement the manual analysis method
S = 0.00229 x I x L S=average cross slope of ground in percent
A I = contour interval in feet
L = combined length of all contours (in feet)
A = area of the calculation subarea in acres
Note: When the analysis subarea is confined to 2,500 square feet in a 25 feet by
100 feet configuration using five-foot contour intervals, the maximum
allowable length of contour lines passing through the analysis area (banded
area) totals 100 feet.
The applicant shall submit the 40-scale contour map and calculations for each subarea
in the toe of slope band for review and approval by the City Engineer. If requested, the
applicant shall provide on the land in question, up to one survey stake per one hundred
feet of toe of slope boundary.
Automated Digital Method
Use computer software capable of calculating topographic gradient from digitized
contour data and then outputs the calculation results by shading the map areas that have
topographic gradients exceeding twenty percent (20%). The shaded calculation results
shall be plotted onto two different backgrounds: 1) an 80-scale rectified color aerial
photograph, and 2) an 80-scale topographic contour map with five feet contour intervals.
The applicant shall submit the two 80-scale analytic documents specified herein for
review and approval by the City Engineer. If requested, the applicant shall provide on
the land in question, up to one survey stake per one hundred feet of toe of slope
boundary, and a computer file of the analytic documents in a digitized graphic format
suitable for viewing on city -owned computers.
3. Canvons. The canyon areas where the canyon is less than 200 feet wide are included in
the HUGO District. The two hundred foot width is measured on the canyon floor
perpendicularly to the canyon centerline from the toe of slope boundary on one side of
the canyon to the toe of slope boundary on the other side. The applicant shall prepare
and submit analytical documentation on a 100-scale (I "=1009, topographic map, or
larger scale (i.e., I inch equals less than 100 feet). The approved toe of slope shall be
drawn on the map, along with a canyon centerline that reasonably approximates the
center of the canyon.
ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 5
4. A boulder field is nominally defined as any area regardless of topographic gradient
(above or below the toe of slope) in which there is an abundance of large loose boulders
lying on the ground surface exposed to sight and possessing the visual appearance and
geologic character of other rocky material readily visible on nearby hillside open space
areas.
Boulder fields are analytically determined by first requesting the City Engineer or
appointed representative, to visit the site and confirm the visual and geologic character
of the potential boulder field by making a generalized comparison of the boulders in the
potential boulder field with the rocky material readily visible on nearby hillside open
space. If the visual and geologic character of the potential boulder field is confirmed,
the applicant shall prepare a detailed analytical document in which a proposed boundary
is shown on a 40-scale rectified color aerial photograph. The City Engineer shall review
the document and proposed boundary for appropriateness. In general, but detailed
calculations are not required, an area shall be considered a boulder field if eighty
percent (80%) of the squares in a continuous grid of 10 feet by 10 feet squares are
occupied by at least one boulder, or if at least eighty percent (80%) of the squares in the
grid network have a third, or more, of the ground surface containing an exposed rock
outcropping.
For the purposes of this section, a large loose boulder is defined as any rock material
identified in the first phase of the boulder field determination, that is detached from its'
place of origin and its' largest caliper dimension is two (2) feet or larger. The City
Engineer's boundary review and analytical confirmation shall be the basis of a
recommendation to the City Council for final approval. The City Council shall have
final approval authority of the boulder field boundary and may make any adjustments
to the boundary it deems appropriate.
5. Topographic Aberrant - Unique or potentially significant topographic or geologic
features which are different in character with the balance of developable land and is not
above the toe of slope.
6. Sand Dunes -a sand dune is defined as a mound or ridge of loose sand piled up by the wind.
B. Permitted Uses in 111C HUGO District.
ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 6
The following uses within the HG HUGO District shall be permitted in areas of less than 20%
above the toe of slope ailtrvial fims with slopes not emeeeding 20 pereefl.t.-
a. Golf courses (not including above -ground structures), including fairways, greens, tees, and
golf -cart paths to access them;
b. Flood -control structures;
c. Parks and lakes, ;
d. Water wells, pumping stations, and water tanks (if properly screened);
e Power, telephone, and cable substations and transmission lines (if properly screened or
undergrounded);
f. T.V., cable, and radio antennas;
g. Hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails not permitting motorized vehicles;
h. Single family residential uses (ten acres per lot);
i. Accessory uses necessary to establish and maintain the permitted uses, such as roads,
gate -houses, on -site subdivision signs, parking lots, noncommercial community association,
recreation, and assembly buildings and facilities.
..N"
bj. Access roads which shall be non -visible from adjacent properties unless applicant can
prove to the satisfaction of the City that the only access to a non -visible area must
traverse a visible area. (Ownership or non -ownership of property is not sufficient proof
of reason to place a road in a visible area.) Roads shall not exceed 15 percent grade.
E. Conditional Use Permit Required. In addition to the requirements of this Section, all
development within the HE HUGO District shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant
to Section 9.210.020, including City Council approval.
F. Site Development Review Required. All development in the HUGO District shall be subject
to site development review by the Piardting Commissi pursuant to Section 9.210.010. "Development"
in this context shall include the following: grading, building, grubbing, or permitting any heavy
equipment (equipment whose function is digging, clearing, earth -moving, grading, or a similar function
disruptive to the natural terrain) access to the HE HUGO District property.
G. Criteria for Review of Grading Plans.
Consideration shall be given to the following matters of pwtiettlar eeneer.n. in reviewing of grading
proposals in the HG HUGO District. Conditions may be attached to the approval of grading plans so
as to achieve the purpose and intent of this Section and the following objectives:
1. The health and safety of the public;
7.OUPDATE-supspcpurregs 7
2. The preservation of vegetation and animal habitat, designation of stream courses as open
space, preservation of habitat corridors, encouraging revegetation with drought -tolerant native
species;
3. The avoidance of excessive building padding or terracing and cut and fill slopes to reduce the
scarring effects of grading;
4. The encouragement of sensitive grading to ensure optimum treatment of natural hillside,-wtd
arroyo and unique geological features;
5. The encouragement of imaginative grading plans to soften the impact of grading on hillsides,
including rolled, sloping, or split pads, rounded cut and fill slopes, and post and beam
construction techniques; and
6. The maximum retention of vistas, and natural topographic features including mountainsides,
ridgelines, hilltops, slopes, rock outcroppings, arroyos, ravines, canyons, and boulder fields.
7. The addition of soil against the hillsides shall meet the City Codes for completed fill (if
filling on slope). Slopes shall be graded to conform with the surrounding hillsides,
mimicking the natural topography including swales, knolls, ridges, etc., in accordance with
the Grading Ordinance.
H. Engineering Reviews Required. For all
development within the HG HUGO District, the following reports shall be prepared by a
California -licensed engineer (licensed in the appropriate discipline), and filed with the City Engineer;
tmiess speeifiealiy wftived by the City Engineer based aft a visit to the proposed site:
1. Hydrology, drainage, and flooding report for all sites;
2. Soil survey of the sites proposed attesting to stability of all sites and the appropriateness of the
construction method proposed;
3. Underlying geology/engineering report attesting to stability of all sites;
4. Seismic analysis attesting to the stability of the site(s) and addressing the potential of material
above the site(s) impacting the site(s);
5. Access plan showing the preliminary engineering for roads giving access to the proposed
site(s);
6. Grading plan for the construction site(s) and access routes; and
7. A utility plan demonstrating the feasibility of providing water for domestic and fire
suppression purposes, sewer, power, and other utilities, especially with regard to the scarring
effects of the grading necessary to install such utilities.
8. Toe of slope study.
7.OUPDATE-supspcpurregs 8
I. Other Studies Required. The following studies shall be filed with the Community Development
Department as a part of the application process:
All development in the HG HUGO District shall be subject to a report by a qualified biologist
addressing the following:
a. Natural vegetation and native plants which may be affected by the project;
b. Wildlife habitats, migratory routes (e.g., for Bighorn sheep), and native animal species; and
c. A plan to maintain corridors for wildlife habitat and movement of animals within HC-
HUGO District.
2. All development in the i4G HUGO District shall be subject to a review by a qualified
archaeologist addressing the following:
a. A review of the literature and records for any known and/or recorded historic or prehistoric
resources;
b. A survey of the project site for historic or prehistoric resources; and
c. A final report of findings including significance determinations, and recommended
mitigation and resource treatment shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation
Commission Gontmtmity Development Bireete for review.
3. A viewshed study, including plans and sections, showing visibility of proposed project and
grading as viewed from surrounding properties located at lower elevations.
ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 9
10111
0.
N
_ _i : _ : : :•: :�_ �_ _ _
_ _
__�� _
J. Development Standards.
1.AA&imum Density ati Minimum Lot Size. In the I I - HUGO District, the maximum density
permitted shall be one residential unit per ten acres. On a contiguous parcel which includes
areas both above and below the "toe of the slope," residential units may be clustered together
below the "toe of the slope" with an approved conditional use permit, to take advantage of
buildable areas with lower slope angles thereby, allowing for exceeding the density permitted
by the General Plan provided the overeAl density for the pareel of one unit per ten aeres is mt
exeee4ed. Stmetttres sha4l remain single f�mily, sepm-ated, on individual iots having an are
of at least 20,000 sqttffe . Clustering maybe suitable if the overall 1:10 density ratio is
maintained for the total development.
ZOUPDATE-supspcputtegs 10
2. Maximum Building Height. No
structure shall be placed in such a way that its outline is visible above a ridgeline, and shall
not exceed 28 feet in height.
3. Parking. Off-street requirements shall conform to Chapter 9.150.
4. Roof Equipment. No roof -top equipment for heating, cooling or other purposes shall be
permitted.
.
jjjjj&aZj-
III "WE -
III "WE -
5. Utilities. All utilities shall be placed underground
K. Land Divisions in HE HUGO District. In order to assure compliance with the provisions of
this Section, the following requirements shall apply to the proposed division of any property which is
partially or completely within the HG HUGO District: A preliminary grading plan prepared in
accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code Title 13 and this Section shall be submitted (together
with other requirements of this Section) with every conditional use permit, tentative subdivision map
or parcel map filed for approval. The preliminary grading plan shall show at least one practical, usable,
and accessible building site which can be developed in accordance with the provisions of this Section
within each proposed lot or parcel.
ZOUPDATE-supspepurregs 11
L. Transfer of Development Rights.
Transfers of development rights shall follow the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter
9.190.
2. Any owner of property within the 1G HUGO District may transfer development rights from
the lG HUGO District on the basis of one residential unit per ten acres.
3. Development rights may be transferred as follows:
a. Transferred to a subdivided portion of the same property below "the toe of the slope," as
presented in a conditional use permit; or
b. By means of sale to any area of the City which has been zoned for residential purposes,
provided the increase for any particular parcel does not exceed 20 percent of the General
Plan density designation.
a. Development rights may be retained by an individual.
b. Transfer rights may be further sold as provided in Chapter 9.190.
4. Any owner of property within the HG HUGO District may sell, bequeath or transfer the
development rights of the property, in accordance with this Section and Chapter 9.190 to any
governmental jurisdiction or any properly organized nonprofit organization whose charter
allows for the ownership of public open space. The governmental jurisdiction or nonprofit
organization may retain or sell or transfer acquired development rights in accordance with
Chapter 9.190.
--
M. Ownership and Maintenance of Recreation/Open Space.
Those areas located within a hillside development controlled by this Section which are to
remain as undeveloped open space, such as undevelopable slopes and natural landmarks, may
be offered for dedication for game preserve, recreation, or open space purposes. Such areas
may be offered to a public agency or to a nonprofit land trust conservancy or similar
organization whose charter allows for the ownership of recreation and open space which will
preserve the natural open space in perpetuity..
ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 12
2. If an offer of dedication mder PaMraph N 1 of this Seetio or if such an offer is not accepted,
the developer shall make provisions for the ownership and care of the open space in such a
manner that there can be necessary protection and maintenance thereof. Such area shall be
provided with appropriate access and shall be designated as a separate parcel or parcels which
may be maintained through special fees charged to the residents of the subject development
or through an appropriate homeowner's association or maintenance district.
ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 13
ATTACHMENT #1
City Council Minutes 12 December 2, 1997
Council concurred on. taking up Study Session Item No. 3 at this time.
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE HILLSIDE CONSERVATION AREAS AND
REGULATIONS.
Ms. di lorio, Planning Manager, advised that in April 1997, Council directed
staff to research the City's Hillside Conservation Ordinance. Staff has found
that a majority of other cities, who tend to focus on permitting hillside
development as opposed to conserving the hillsides, use the slope -averaging
method instead of the toe -of -slope method. She noted that the hillside
ordinances of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells are more restrictive than La
Quinta's ordinance. The opportunities for annexation are possible if the
conservation goals are compatible with agency goals and there's a potential
public relations benefit. In reviewing the City's hillside boundaries, she noted
that many of the hillsides surrounding La Quinta are private property or within
the boundaries of other agencies such as BLM and the City of Indian Wells.
Council Member Sniff suggested looking into annexing the hillside area
controlled by BLM.
Council Member Henderson noted that they're stricter than La Quinta and Mayor
Pena .pointed out that La Quinta controls access to those areas as well.
Ms. di lorio then proceeded to review two case studies: the Green Specific
Plan, which is located south of Lake Cahuilla and the Quarry development; and
the Richard Meyer property, which is north of the Green property. She advised
that the Green property has 20% slopes to be graded into terraces that could
result in sharp lines of demarcation and scarring. The Meyer property, under the
City's existing ordinance, could be developed above the toe of slope similar to
the six lots at the Tradition Club. She noted a conflict in the ordinance; advising
that Section (13)(2) states that "....shall determine the boundary between
developable and undevelopable by toe of slope," and Section (13)(1) states that
"In general, ailuvial.fans not exceeding 20% slope are developable....."
Mr. Speer, Senior Engineer, then presented some aerial photographs of the land
south of the Quarry, pointing out the Green and Meyer property locations; and
he showed the grading plan for the Meyer property which is above the toe of
slope. He also demonstrated two different methods of determining the location
of the toe of slope -- the boulder field method and canyon width method. He
noted that there's enough latitude in the current ordinance to allow property
owners to cut down some of the area above toe of slope.
rvr
City Council Minutes 13 December 2, 1997
In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Herman, Community Development
Director, advised that the ordinance is intended to not allow development above
20% slope. That percentage is completely discretionary and can be changed.
He cautioned, however, that reducing the percentage too much would restrict
development in the Cove.
In response to Mayor Peria, Mr. Speer advised that the Cove is about 4% slope
at the steeper portion. 1.
In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Speer advised that he recommends
using the alluvial fan side of the analysis block as opposed to the mountain side
to determine the toe of slope. He further advised that an exception may need
to be made for wind-borne, alluvial materials and noted that compaction of
wind -born materials would be difficult in steeply -sloped areas.
In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Speer confirmed that the accepted
analysis of toe of slope is where the alluvial fan meets the rock.
Council Member Sniff felt the toe of slope should be the natural contour, not an
elevated contour achieved by placing fill against the mountain as has been done
in some instances. He wished to see the ordinance tightened up wherever
legally possible and some consideration given to annexing the mountains
adjacent to the Indian Wells boundary. He asked if the mountain slopes could
be considered for historical preservation, given the presence of bedrock mortars
and traveling by Indians years ago.
Ms. di lorio advised that such sites are recorded and could receive a national
designation if they meet the criteria, or the City could establish local landmark
status for archaeological sites with certain criteria. She confirmed that the trails
also have the potential for historical preservation.
Council Member Sniff suggested looking into changing the 20% slope to a
smaller number.
Mayor Pena agreed and asked if the City has any advantage in dealing with the
other agencies since it's a Charter City to which Ms. Honeywell advised that
charter status has no impact on Federal regulations.
Council Member Adolph supported the City taking a look at the ordinance to
protect not only the hillsides, but also the rights of the property owners and to
make it more compatible with what the community wants.
rGS
City Council Minutes 14 December 2, 1997
Council Member Sniff felt the City's public safety prerogatives should be looked
at as well as it relates to locating sites in high -risk areas.
Ms. di lorio then reviewed what appears to be the Council's issues as follows:
1) staff to define boulder fields and canyon widths and make recommendations
for possible development; 2) use an understandable formula to identify the toe
of slope; 3) look into annexation; 4► develop a section regarding wind-borne
materials; and, 5) Oook at reducing the 20% slope -figure.
Council concurred on the above issues.
Staff also asked for clarification on how development should be allowed above
the toe of slope.
In response to Mayor Pena, Ms. di lorio advised that access roads, not
exceeding 15 % grade, are allowed, but must not be visible if at all possible.
Mr. Herman noted that developers can receive credit if development is limited
in the hillside and forced down into developable areas.
Council Member Sniff felt the use of fill material against the mountains should
also be considered as well as the public safety issue.
Council Member Adolph asked if the number of alluvial fans in the City is
recorded to which Ms. di lorio responded no, but noted that it's a requirement
for analysis by the developer.
Mayor Pena suggested Council take a tour of the hillside areas.
Bob Ross, RBF Engineering, felt the "boulder fields" definition was somewhat
subjective and very conservative and suggested the slope be considered.
Mayor Pena suggested he work with staff on a definition.
Council Member Henderson complimented staff for their hard work on this
issue.
Mr. Herman advised that staff would address the points raised by Council and,
upon conclusion of the site visits in January, present a revised ordinance to the
Planning Commission in February and to the Council in March.
r.,S9
City Council Minutes 15 December 2, 1997
Council Member Henderson suggested the tour invitation be extended to the
Planning Commission as well.
Council concurred.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE VILLAGE PLAN.
Ms. di lorio, Planning Manager, advised that in March 1997, staff met with
business and property owners of The Village to discuss the Village Specific
Plan. Various solutions were discussed as follows: 1)retain an art focus and
establish a permanent Arts Festival location; 2) make the Frances Hack Park a
major focus for Village activities; 3) create a Village Stakeholder Committee; 4)
enhance the Mainstreet Marketplace; and, 5) be consistent in use approvals.
She noted that the Cal Poly Pomona Study verified the most previously -
identified problems and issues and it concurred that The Village needs a special
draw to compensate for the lack of traditional commercial development
precursors. It also presented a bold plan for a resort/hotel and spa.
She advised that staff is looking for direction regarding the Village Specific Plan
and presented the following options for Council's consideration: 1) eliminate
the existing plan and zoning in favor of more flexible, conceptual guidelines; 2)
establish a program to address interim improvements; 3) purchase the Frances
Hack Park; 4) focus on attracting events and activities to draw people to The
Village; 5) limit requirements placed on temporary events; 6) reduce required
parking and/or allow alternative means; 7) provide interim streetscape
enhancements; and, 8) increase attention to The Village area concerns.
Council Member Sniff felt a bold stroke should be considered, but wasn't sure
the idea of a resort/hotel and spa was the answer. He suggested a tower with
an elevated restaurant and shops on the ground level and wished to see a
historical/cultural plaza in concert with the La Quinta Historical Museum. He felt
the City should stop waiting for something to happen and develop a
comprehensive plan of its own. He suggested land banking and breaking up the
area into sub -zones to make development easier to accomplish, cutting down
the massive cost of infrastructure.
Mayor Pena felt a realistic approach should be taken, noting that more and more
activities are being lost to the Highway 111 Corridor and that the arts focus is
moving out of The Village. He was disappointed that none of the property
owners were present to help determine the destiny of The Village, noting that
that has always been part of the problem. He felt some short-term incentives
would help, such as lessening some of the requirements and possibly enhancing
r: 71--
ATTACHMENT #2
LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 1998
Special meeting of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at 10:00 am by
Mayor Pena followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT: Council Members Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Pefia
ABSENT: Council Members Adolph, Perkins
PUBLIC COMMENT - None
BUSINES ' SESSION - None
1. DISCUSSION AND TOUR OF HILLSIDE AREAS IN RELATION TO HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT.
Ms. di lorio explained that this is the first of two tours — that the Planning
Commission will also be scheduling one.
Council proceeded to board a bus with the following staff members: City
Manager, Tom Genovese; City Clerk, Saundra Juhola; Planning Manager,
Christie di lorio; and Senior Engineer, Steve Speer; and the following members
of the public: Cheryl Ward, Richard Meyer, Dennis Cooney and Bob Ross with
Mainiero, Smith & Assoc.
The Council's first stop was the area around St. Francis of Assisi Church where
they were joined by Stewart Woodard, Fred Simon and the Pastor of the
Church, in discussing the proposed development, of the La Quinta Arts
Foundation and the parking lot for the Church. The general scope of discussion
centered around whether or not to allow the dirt to be moved around, but not
added to and whether or not the building for the Arts Foundation could be built
on a plateau.
The second stop was along Montezuma where there was discussion regarding
the slope gradient of an alluvial fan/boulder field.
r71
City Council Minutes Page 2 January 21, 1998
The third stop was within The Quarry to view Mr. Meyer's property and discuss
whether or not a boulder field should be developed or not. Also, whether
locations above the toe of slope with slope gradient less than 15% or 20% be
allowed to be developed. Also discussed, was development of roadways.
The next stop was that of Mr. Green's property where there was discussion
about cutting and filling being allowed within the Hillside Conservation area and
how wide the canyon can be for development to occur and how far from the toe
of slope can development occur.
The meeting concluded about 12:30 pm with Council Members Sniff/Henderson
moving to adjourn the meeting.
Resogctfully submitted,
SAUNDRA L. JUTiOLA, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
r7-9
V
ATTACHMENT
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
February 10, 1998
I. CALL TO ORDER
2:30 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 2:30 P.M. by
Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute
B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Gardner,
Kirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Woodard to excuse Commissioner Seaton. Unanimously
approved.
C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA -
A. Staff noted that the evening portion of the Planning Commission meeting had been
canceled as the Business Items that had been agendized had been canceled. It was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to confirm the agenda as noted.
Unanimously approved.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of January 27, 1998.
Commissioner Tyler asked the minutes be corrected as follows: Page 4, Item A.2.
"...any changes to the allowable sign sizes..."; Pages 6 and 8, change the street
vacation case numbers to reflect the year as "98-". There being no other changes, it
was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None
PC'2-10-98 I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 10, 1998
V. TOUR OF THE HILLSIDE:
A. Chairman Butler recessed the Commission at 2:37 p.m. to attend a tour of the
Hillside prepared by staff.
B. Tour Notes:
1. St. Francis of Assisi Church. Subject: Add or remove blowsand adjacent to
the hillside?
a Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the issue at this site was to
determine where the toe of slope began. Two potential scenarios
existed to determine the toe of slope: push the sand up or pull the
sand away.
b. Commissioner Woodard briefed the Commission on the project being
planned by the La Quinta Arts Foundation and St. Francis of Assisi
Church for this site.
C. Discussion followed as where the toe of slope began. If the blowsand
were removed, what would be found? Staff noted the question was
to determine where the natural grade and hillside come together.
Need to determine where the wind blown material begins versus
where the actual toe of the slope starts.
d. Questions were raised as to whether the purpose of retaining the
hillsides was for the aesthetics, environmental, or functional
purposes.
2. Avenida Montezuma. Subject: Should a alluvial fan/boulder field, having a
slope gradient less than 20%, be allowed to be developed?
a. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that this was an example of a
slope consisting of a boulder field/alluvial fan having a 10% grade.
Should the boulders be removed to allow building to occur?
b. Discussion followed regarding where the actual toe of slope occurred.
C. Questions were raised regarding removal of the boulders and what
would be found; what would be the natural toe of slope? Whether the
issues were aesthetics or environmental. Would the allowable
building height of 17-feet block the view of the hillside from the
adjacent residents? How, and whether access could be obtained
across the wash to allow construction to occur.
PC2-10-98 2
Planning Commission Meeting
February 10, 1998
3. Mr. Meyer's Property -south of The Quarry. Subject: Should the property
owner be allowed to build a road to gain access to construct homes on a
boulder field? Should locations above the toe of slope, with a slope gradient
less than the 15% or 20%, be allowed to be developed? If yes, then access
to the area would most likely require passage through the hillside areas.
a. Senior Engineer Steve Speer noted the issue at this site was whether
to allow the property owner to construct a road across the ridge to
build homesites on a boulder field which has a slope of less than
20%?
b. Questions were raised by the Commissioners as to where, and
whether or not, a road for access could be built. If the road didn't
exceed the 20% grade, why shouldn't it be allowed to be built? Why
not use the road that already exists within The Quarry development?
C. Staff defined where Mr. Meyer's property began and where Mr.
Green's property extended to.
4. Mr. Green's Property: Subject: Should the property owner be allowed to cut
away from the toe of the ridge at the first site; should the property owner be
allowed to cut away from the toe of the ridge at the second site; how far into
the canyon can development occur; if a plateau exists and the access does not
exceed a slope of 20%, is it buildable; how wide does a canyon need to be for
development to occur? How far from the toe of slope can development
occur?
a. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained there were three areas of
concern. At one site the toe of slope again was hard to determine due
to boulder fields and blowsand materials; the width at the mouth of
the canyon; and determining whether or not development could occur
on the plateau, and if so, should a road be allowed. Distinctions were
noted regarding the obvious color changes in the rock material and
vegetation.
b. Discussion followed regarding where the 10%-20% grade occurred.
What areas appeared to be hillside and which were created by
blowsand material and how they were distinguishable.
C. Questions raised were whether magnitude could be used to determine
if a site was hillside or blowsand material. If the top of the hillside
was flat, does that make it buildable, or is it still hillside? Whether
the economics of constructing a road would prevent building on the
PC2-10-98 3
Planning Commission Meeting
February 10, 1998
hillside even if it did not exceed the 20% grade. How stormwater
issues could be resolved in the canyon areas.
5. All sites brought up the question as to where the 20% grade occurred,
whether the property owner could move sand to create the toe of slope or
remove it to establish where the toe of slope started. The question was asked
if a geological definition could be made to assist with the definition of where
the toe of slope started.
6. Commissioners and staff returned to City Hall at 4:54 p.m.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Presentation on the Draft Cultural Plan; a presentation by the Chairman of the
Cultural Commission on the Draft Plan.
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the Commission
this item would be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
February 24, 1998. No action was taken by the Commission.
B. Continued - Sign Application 97-410; a request of Wells Fargo (Quality Project
Coordinating) for approval of a modification to the approved sign program to replace
a bank mini -branch sign located on the south elevation of the Albertson's
Supermarket.
l . Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the Commission
a letter had been received from the applicant requesting this item be tabled
until further notice.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to table Sign
Application 97-410 till further notice. Unanimously approved.
VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS. None
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a meeting of February 24, 1998. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 5:12 P.M. on February 10, 1998.
PC2-10-98 4
ATTA+�HMENT
Planning Commission Meeting
February 24, 1998
C. Environmental Assessment 98-351 General Plan Amendment 97-056 and Zone Text
Amendment 97-057; a request of the City for approval and recommendation to the
City Council for certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to
amend Chapter 9.140 - Hillside Conservation Regulations, and the Land Use Element
and Environmental Conservation Element of the La Quinta General Plan regarding
Hillside Development Density.
Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
2. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern that one of the Commissioners had
a strong involvement in two projects that would be directly affected by this
potential change.
3. Chairman Butler asked the City Attorney to give her opinion. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated she had not studied the proposed changes in depth,
but the issues appeared to be whether the proposed changes will have an
impact on an individuals source of income. The proposed changes do not
change how the blowsand is, or will be, treated. Commissioner Woodard
PC-2-47-98 8
Planning Commission Meeting
February 24, 1998
should have a better idea of whether some revision of this ordinance is going
to impact his client financially. Commissioner Tyler stated he would rather
continue this item until the City Attorney had the opportunity to review the
proposed changes.
4. Commissioner Woodard stated he was unaware of what Commissioner Tyler
was referring to as he did not believe he had any conflicts of interest.
Commissioner Tyler asked if it wasn't true that during the City Council and
Planning Commission tour of the Hillside and areas that would be affected
by the proposed changes, Commissioner Woodard spoke regarding his plans
for two projects, St. Frances of Assisi Church and the La Quinta Arts
Foundation. Commissioner Woodard stated he is not involved with the
church at all, and second, he is a member of the Board of Directors for the La
Quinta Arts Foundation and he represented them in the acquisition of the
property and has since been hired by them as their architect. Whether this
Commission votes to allow development on a 20 percent grade, or on top of
the ridge, has no affect on his economic income regarding this project.
5. Commissioner Tyler stated he has a problem accepting that statement as any
design or suggestions he proposes for the hillside could have an impact.
6. Commissioner Woodard clarified that he had not been contracted by anyone
to be their architect and second he stated there all sorts of options available
in regard to the hillside. However, there are no plans on what they will do.
7. Chairman Butler stated that in addition to this request, there are some other
concerns regarding this General Plan Amendment he would like to have the
City Attorney review before the Commission discussed the proposed
changed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she would like to have
additional time to review the 20 acre per unit issue. As to Commissioner
Woodard, it does not appear that the Arts Foundation would monetarily
benefit from this proposal.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Kirk to continue this item to the next meeting of the
Commission. Unanimously approved.
9. Commissioner Woodard asked the City Attorney to clarify whether he would
be in conflict of interest if he lived at PGA West and an issue came before the
Commission that would potentially affect the value of his property. Should
he abstain from voting. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated he should if
PC-2-47-98 9
Planning Commission Meeting
February 24, 1998
it would affect only his property in a specific way. PGA West itself is such
a large community within the community, that it meets the exception for the
"public generally" test. If it affects the entire specific plan community he
would not need to abstain.
10. Commissioner Woodard questioned whether his decisions on the Hillside
Ordinance would affect his income as an architect for the Foundation. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is more of a problem if it affects the
source of his income.
PC-2-47-98 10
rI
L / TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH INC. ®R
April 30, 1998
Ms. Leslie Mouriquand
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Tampico Boulevard
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: Comments on D=ft RM'eide Conservation Overlay District
Dear Leslie:
I am writing on behalf of Rich Meyer to provide comments and suggestions on the above
referenced draft ordinance. As you know, Mr. Meyer is the owner of property generally located
between the Quarry project and the Green property and portions of the proposed ordinance may
affect his property. The following comments and questions are meant to assure an ordinance that
allows flexibility for Mr. Meyer and similarly situated land owners, while equally assuring the
City's capabilities to adequately regulate development on these lands.
Max. Slope Gradient: Draft General Plan Amendment language cites developable areas as those
"less than 20% slope gradient". The Change of Zone language cites "steeper than 20% gradient".
Our preferred language in this regard, and where ever it needs to be applied, is "steeper than" or "
not exceeding 20% slope gradient".
Toe of Slope Boundary Line: The use of a twenty-five (25) foot wide calculation band to determine
where the slope exceeds 20% seems too restrictive. It implies that within any planning area where
even one band 25-feet wide exceeds 20% slope that all of that land above this point should be termed
as hillside open space. Perhaps Ibis is an issue that can he cleared up with more detailed and
explicit language.
An alternative boundary line, and one that might be more appropriate, would be to use the point of
contact between rocky outcroppings of bedrock and alluvium or sluffage. This is less arbitrary
and can be more consistently applied without elaborate, costly and time-consuming methods.
Boulder Field Definition and Need for Same: The proposed boulder field definition seems very
restrictive and could remove large expanses of developable land from development. We feel that
the standard of one boulder per 100 sq. ft. with the largest caliper dimension being only 2 feet is
arbitrary and excessively conservative. The use of this extensive grid system to determine the
extent of the boulder field and its applicability also appear to be an unnecessarily elaborate, costly
and time-consuming a method.
400 SOUTH FARRELL, SUITE B-205 ❑ PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 ❑ (760) 320-9040
TN/Meyer/City of La Quinta
Draft Hillside Conservation Overlay District/5.1.98
GENERAL COIVIMENTS/QUESTIONS
Viewshed Analysis: The ordinance makes reference to how viewshed analyses are to be
conducted. The ordinance should indicate that staff shall direct applicant as to from where
viewsheds are to be gauged and impacts assessed. The issue of avoiding structures the outline of
which is visible above the ridgeline is a more difficult; the impact to viewsheds varies with the
location of the viewer relative to the location of the structure and mountain backdrop. Some criteria
such as distance, relative elevation and other essentials should be set forth so that all staff and
applicants perform to the same standards.
Unique Topographic/Geologic Features: This issue has to do with such features that are located
within otherwise developable areas. Language in the ordinance needs to be clear and explicit about
what qualifies these features as unique and requiring preservation. Rocky outcroppings might
qualify, but a spur of stranded alluvium, which could disappear over a short period of time should
arguably be considered differently.
There was also some reference to identifying changes in coloration or stratification of exposed
soils on slopes which might argue for their being treated differently. This is of concern because
there does not appear to be a sound geologic basis for this distinction, as it has been made to date.
Recently exposed soils are generally lighter in color than older exposed soils, but they may
otherwise be essentially the same basic soil type.
Access Road Visibility: This is a sticky issue in that again a determination must be made on a
subjective case by case basis regarding to whom a road may be visible and from where. The draft
ordinance we reviewed indicated that traversing a visible area is only permissible if there are no
other viable non -visible options. It also indicates that the lack of ownership or control over an
alternative is not grounds for using the visible roadway route. There are obviously issues of
concern regarding reasonable access and use to private property which need to be addressed with
care.
The City is to be commended on its efforts to preserve hillsides while addressing the difficult
issues of land use. I hope that the above discussions adequately set forth our concerns. Mr. Meyer
is not insensitive to these issues and wishes to develop in an environment that allows him to
exercise his property rights without compromising reasonable development standards and
regulations.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this input. If you have any questions or would like
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Si
D. Criste, AICP
JDC/sw
.
CARLOS A.G. VIGON
P.O. BOX 2828
PALM DESERT, CA 92261
March 9, 1998
Mr. Jerry Herman
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Facsimile Transmission: 2 pages
Re: Hillside Ordinance; General Plan and Zoning Code Amendment (97-057, 98-056)
Dear Mr. Herman:
I own land within the City of La Quinta which to my knowledge, is not impacted by the
current Hillside Ordinance nor would it be impacted by the proposed Draft Amendment.
I believe there is a serious defect in the Amendment as drafted that could seriously
undermine the ordinance's function of protecting and conserving the scenic hillsides of La
Quinta.
There is crucial language in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 24,
1998 that is either redundant or it is vague and ambiguous. Unless modified, this weak
text leaves an open door for misinterpretation or abuse by City officials, citizens and land
owners alike. The result will be needless disputes for the City of La Quinta and its
citizens. Please eliminate this problematic language from the General Plan and Zoning
Code Amendments.
The language that severely undermines the integrity of the Amendment is contained in
Items 5. and 6. located on page 059 of the above referenced staff report.
The language is redundant:
If a geological characteristic exist, then it can be measured and quantified in mathematical
and geometric terms, i.e., a definition. Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 on pages 056 to 059 of the
report serves this purpose; presumably defining all the geological characteristics that are
relevant, or otherwise there would have been additional definitions. Since the geological
characteristics defined in Items 1- 4 are types of a "Topographic Aberrant" Why then is
Item 5. necessary?
The language is vague and ambiguous:
If Item 5., "Topographic Aberrant", is intended to address some other geologic
phenomenon not addressed by Items 1, 2, 3 and 4, why not define it in comparable
analytical terms? Again, if it exists as a topographic or geologic feature, it can be
measured and quantified in mathematical and geometric terms, and thus can be defined.
With Item 6., the same problem; a "Sand Dune" should be defined in a similar manner as
used in Items 1, 2, 3 and 4. Otherwise who draws the arbitrary line in the sand between a
"Sand Dune" and a mound of sand?
page 2 of 2
Allowed to stand, Items 5. and 6. only create confusion for the land owners of La Quinta
and the staff of the City of La Quinta, resulting in a lose - lose proposition for all
interested parties.
You may have heard the cliche, "...making a mountain out of a molehill". Well, the
proposed Ordinance Amendment, as drafted, could literally do just that. Conceivably a
mere molehill could fall under the ordinance as "Topographic Aberrant" or even a "Sand
Dune"! This rediculous scenario is a possibility because the nebulous language in Items 5.
and 6. does not preclude it. Likewise, even the most reasonable recommendations by City
staff could be challenged by applicants and citizens on the basis of this same ambiguity.
At this point, this issue is figuratively a molehill; the solution is to either delete Items 5.
and 6. from the Amendment or delete these items and replace them with clear
unambiguous mathematical and geometric definitions that can be understood by the
public, adhered to by your staff; creating an incontrovertible ordinance, enforceable in a
court of law.
But, if adopted in its current form, the Amendment will cause a mountain of abuse,
controversy and litigation.
For the sake of our hillsides, please insist on a clear and definitive General Plan and
Zoning Code Plan Amendment.
Sin el �
,'Carlos A.G. 'V iU6n
P H h` C,
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MAY 12, 1998
CASE NOS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-349
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-055
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28601
SPECIFIC PLAN 97-97-031
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-618
REQUEST: 1. RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARING
HOUSE 488041111);
2. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT REDUCING PRIVATE STREETS FROM 36 FEET
TO 28 AND 32 FEET:
3. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
CREATING A 86 SINGLE FAMILY, FOUR SENIOR
APARTMENT LOTS AND OPEN SPACE LOTS (A-G)
SUBDIVISION;
4. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF "VILLAGE ON THE GREEN"
SPECIFIC PLAN CREATING DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
AND STANDARDS FOR A MIXED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT; AND
5. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT INCLUDING THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS, SITE,
SIGN. LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING PLANS FOR BOTH THE
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND SENIOR APARTMENTS AND
RECREATION BUILDING..
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND 48"
AVENUE
APPLICANT: CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP/LA QUINTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR), MIXED REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL (M/RC)
SURROUNDING
ZONING LAND USE: SOUTH: VACANT (RANCHO LA QUINTA) WITH A LOW
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DESIGNATION ACROSS AVENUE 48.
NORTH: VACANT WITHIN THE CITY OF INDIO.
EAST: MOBILE HOME PARK ACROSS JEFFERSON
STREET WITHIN THE CITY OF INDIO.
WEST: ACROSS THE EVACUATION CHANNEL ARE
THE ,ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES FOR THE
DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
ENVIRONMENTAL: THE PROPOSED VILLAGE ON THE GREEN IS AN
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION UNDER THE LA QUINTA
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA #2. AN EIR
WAS CERTIFIED FOR THIS PLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL
(STATE CLEARING HOUSE #88041111). PURSUANT TO
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 21090, ALL ACTIONS TAKEN TO
IMPLEMENT A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ARE DEEMED A
SINGLE PROJECT AND NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW IS NECESSARY BEYOND ANALYSIS OF PROJECT -
SPECIFIC IMPACTS. THEREFORE AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE EIR WAS
PREPARED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CONDITIONS
REFERENCED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166
ARE PRESENT.
BACKGROUND:
Two community meetings were conducted with community attendees and City officials to gather
residential comments. These comments were incorporated into the proposed project design and
character of the planned community. Additionally, the City Council has held several study sessions.
Direction was giver,, to staff and the applicant to create a mixed use residential neighborhood with a
unique sense of place. As directed, the proposed project offers interesting architecture, generous
landscaping and open space. thereby enhancing the feeling of a "neighborhood" ( Attachment 1).
General Plan Amendment
The applicant is proposing to reduce some of the interior street widths from the General Plan
Circulation Element (Table CIR-2 La Quinta Roadway Design Standards) required 36 feet to 32 and
28 feet. Parking will alternate on each side of the street for the residential units. The senior
apartments will have'32 foot wide streets. The streets will be private and parking enforcement will
be the responsibility of the :1-lomeowners' Association.
Tentative Tract Man
I'he applicant is proposing a 90 lot Tentative Tract Map consisting of the following lot sizes:
Lots 1-86 range in size from approximately 5.625 to approximately 6,800 square feet for the
single family residences.
Lot 87. 88. 89 & 90 will total approximately 12 acres for the senior apartments
Seven lettered lots are proposed, A, B, C. D, E. F. and G. Lots A, B, and C, will be for the 20-foot
landscape parkways on both Jefferson Street and Avenue 48. Lots D. E. F, and G are proposed as
open space lots. The proposed streets, A through J. will be private, with two access points off
Avenue 48. the southern most entry will allow a left turn movement into the development only.
Streets A. D, and F will be 36 feet wide with parking on both sides. Streets B, F, G. H. I will be 28
and 32 feet wide with parking alternating on either side of the street. No access will be provided on
Jefferson Street.
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan will set forth the detailed development principles, guidelines and programs to
facilitate the development of this approximately 34 acre, mixed use residential subdivision. The
approximately 22 acre single family residential area will be located at the southwest corner, adjacent
to Avenue 48 and along the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The 12 acres senior apartments will be
wrap around the residential to the east and north of the single family residences. The General Plan
designation is Regional Commercial. This designation allows High and Medium High Density
Residential uses with a density of 12-16 dwelling units per acre. The proposed single family
residences will have a density of approximately 3.8 du/acre and the senior apartments approximately
9.8 du/acre with a total average of 5.9 du/acre for the project.
Proposed development standards unique to this Specific Plan are as follows:
Single Family Residences:
l . Five foot rear yard setbacks. Side and front courtyards will substitute for the rear yard so as
to provide an external open space immediately outside of the kitchen, nook, family and dining
rooms. Courtyard sizes will be in the following range: Plan 1-1,300, Plan 2-1,000 and Plan
3-1.300.
2. Average lot sizes are approximately 6.250 square feet.
3. A zero lot line con.'.guration is proposed with sidevard abutting sideyard.
4. All houses will be oriented east to west around a courtyard.
5. Front yards will have a 6 foot landscape parkway with a 5 foot sidewalk. The proposed house
will be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk ( Section III).
6. Each of three proposed prototypes will have a front terrace with a 4 foot high low wall
7. Each single family residence will provide a two car garage and two parking spaces in the
driveway. Garages will be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the street.
8. Streets will have parking on one side of the street in parking bays that alternate on one side
of the street or the other. At the transition between these bays, the street will narrow to 28 feet
allowing for an additional 4 foot wide planter, referred to as a "Choker." Street intersections
will also have "chokers'"
Senior Apartments:
1. The senior apartments will have one carport space per unit.
2. The streets will have a five foot parkway and five foot wide pedestrian sidewalk. The
apartment parking courts will have a 20-foot width at the entry and 24-foot width where
vehicles are back to back.
I
. Each unit will have; an entry terrace oriented to the open space or drive.
4. Storage will be provided in the carport.
5. A recreation building and swimming pool and spa are proposed.
Site Develonment Permit
Single Family Residences
Plan 1- The single story. 1,710 square foot unit will have two entry design alternatives. One has a tile
shed roof overhang supported by a stucco columns and the second one will have a parapet with two
arched bays. Both have tile covered multi -pitched roofs. Walls are clad in stucco. Exposed rafter
tails are proposed along the garage eaves. Windows are inset and multi -paned. A decorative stucco
wall encloses the courtyard facing the street. Many of the windows have heavy wood lintels.
Plan ? -The single story, 1,860 square foot unit will have two entry design alternatives. One will
have a long tile shed roof extending over the living room highlighted with three accent windows. A
single support column defines the tiont door and terrace for both design alternatives. The second
design alternative living room wall will have a gable shape parapet highlighted with two accent
windows and decorative wrought iron grill. Both have tile covered multi -pitched roofs. Walls are
clad in stucco. A decorative stucco wall encloses the courtyard facing the street. Windows are inset
and multi -paned.
Plan 3- The single story, 2,010 square foot unit will have two entry design alternatives. One will have
a central gable shape parapet stucco wall with a three column arcade. The second proposed design
alternative,will have a central four column arcade with a tile roof overhang and exposed rafters. This
arcade will be flanked with front facing gable parapets wall . Both have side facing gable roofs with
varying height. Walls are clad in stucco. Windows are inset and multi -pane, some have shutters.
Senior Apartments
Plan 1, ?, and 3: Proposed are three design alternatives with three floor plans consisting of a one (660
square feet) and two (865 square feet) bedroom, two one bedrooms, and two two bedrooms. All have
gable roofs covered with tile. Each facade has a front facing stucco parapet wall. All have arched
windows and doors. Windows on two of the alternatives will have a tile roof overhang and the walls
will be clad in stucco.
Recreation Building: The single story building will have a gable roof covered in tile. The raised
central portion of the structure will be 35 feet in height and have a large arch defining the main
entrance. All multi -pane windows will have heavy wood lintels
Color Schemes
All proposed buildings, the single family residences and senior apartments, will have 3 to 4 "s" tile
blends in colors of red -brown, brown -red, rose -brown and terra cotta-brown. Eleven different color
schemes are proposed. Eac:i scheme includes colors for the stucco walls, garage doors, entry doors,
shutters and louvered awnings and wood fascia and rafter tails. The color scheme book is available
in the Community Development Department.
Landscaping:
fhe Specific Plan (Page 17).includes the Conceptual Landscape Palette. Tree type, location, calipher
and size are specified.
Village Green: Fhe proposed, one acre, park will be turfed for open play. The perimeter of the park
will be surrounded with shade trees. It will be located within the center of the subdivision.
Pedestrian lighting, namely bollards, and benches are proposed. This area will also serve as the
retention basin.
Villa =e,�, Park: The proposed. less than an acre, park will be turfed for open play. A tot lot is also
proposed. It will be located along the west boundary, adjacent to the channel.
Senior's Park and Commons: The recreation area, totaling more than an acre, will include a pool and
spa, trellis shaded areas as well as sunning areas. The park, located at the project's northeast corner,
will be turfed and encircled with shade trees. Seating areas and games tables will be incorporated into
the park.
Corner Ilummock: The corner of Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street will be planted with desert
landscaping. The i:opographv will consist of undulating hummocks rising above the surrounding
streets at the intersection, sloping down into an arroyo to the north. A curving low wall wraps around
this corner treatment. Informal clusters of Date Palms and flowering desert plants are proposed. The
hummocks will be covered in decomposed granite and desert plants. The arroyo will serve as the
retention basin for the water runoff from Jefferson Street.
Project Entries and Street Frontage: Both vehicular entries are proposed on Avenue 48. Each entry
will have a row of Date Palms with an understory of Orange trees. The ground cover will be turf. The
trees will wrap around the corners as you enter the project. A 10 foot wide center median is proposed
to separate two 20 foot traffic lanes, a six foot parkway planter, a five foot wide sidewalk, and a six
foot planter adjacent to the house side yards. The street frontage will have a backdrop of a six foot
high wall along Avenue 48 and eight feet high wall with a two foot berm along Jefferson Street. The
walls, clad in stucco, will extend two feet beyond the property line for approximately 160 feet at each
entry and adjacent to the hummock along Avenue 48. Landscaping will include bermed areas with
roundcover and shrubbery. Trees, as identified in the Specific Plan, are also proposed.
Lighting:
Street lighting- Twenty foot high metal poles with high pressure sodium lights are proposed along
the interior streets. Generally the fixtures will be located at street intersections. The light fixture will
be bell shaped aluminum with a tempered glass lens.
Park lighting- Ten foot high light fixtures similar to the street light fixtures are proposed. Also
proposed are 32 inch high aluminum bollards along the walkways.
Senior apartments- Fluorescent Wall light fixtures are proposed.
Signs
Two 12 foot long, five foot high stucco monument signs are proposed, one in each of the medians as
you enter the project from Avenue 48. The proposed sign copy will read "Village on the Green." The
proposed eight inch high letters will be brass. Uplighting is proposed.
A City secondary gateway sign is proposed at the corner of Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street. It mirrors
the design of the entry_ signs approved by City Council on Highway I I I with the exception of the
water feature. It will be incorporated into the base of the proposed hummock. The copy will read
"City of La Quinta" with the City logo.
Issues
Environmental Impact Report: This project implements the La Quinta Redevelopment Plan for
Project Area # 2 generally bounded by Avenue 50 to the south, Fred Waring Drive to the north,
Washington Street to the west and Jefferson Street to the east. (Attachment 2) The Plan, established
in 1988. encompasses a 3,116 acre area with implementation to occur over the next 40 years.
The primary reasons for recommending approval of the proposed Mixed Use Residential Specific
Plan is that it will accomplish five of the twelve objectives of the Redevelopment Plan as follows:
1. The need to expand the commercial and residential base of the community through
assisting and promoting new and continuing private sector investment.
2. The need to address environmental deficiencies including substandard vehicular
circulation systems, inadequate water service, sewer and storm drainage systems and
other similar public improvements.
3. The desire to achieve an environment reflecting a high level of concern for
contemporary urban design principles including architecture and landscaping.
4. The need to provide opportunities for the expansion of the community's supply of
housing (on a citywide basis) including housing opportunities for low and moderate
income households.
5. The need to plan and implement new development and infrastructure that will result
in improved service to the Project area.
Each of these objectives will be accomplished, namely the single family houses will be affordable to
moderate family incomes and the senior apartments to low and very low income households.
Secondly, infrastructure improvements have and will be completed along Avenue 48 and Jefferson
Street, respectively. Full right of way improvements on Avenue 48 have been completed from
Jefferson Street west to Adams Street. Additionally, as a proposed condition, Jefferson Street will
also be widened to its ultimate arterial configuration along its Jefferson Street frontage. Traffic signal
improvements at Avenue 48 and Adams and Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street have also been
constructed. Lastly, a transit turnout on Jefferson Street will be constructed as one of the fourteen
turnouts noted in the EIR.
The traffic study for Redevelopment Project #2 concluded trip generation from new development
within Project Area #2 would increase by 58,000 trips per day at build out with the traffic volume on
L)
Avenue 48 estimated to he 12,000 ADT. As a result, a mitigation measure in the EIR called for
streets designed as Arterial streets in the Project area to be upgraded to accommodate the increased
traffic volume. This Project will generate 1,678 trips per day. Avenue 48 is already widened to its
:arterial street configuration capable of handling 21,000 cars per day at Level of Service "A" and as
Jefferson Street will also be widened to its ultimate arterial along its Jefferson Street frontage, both
streets will more than adequately handle the traffic generated by this project. The proposed traffic
study concludes that the street improvement measures will more than adequately handle the traffic
generated by this project.
A second traffic study. prepared for the 1992 General Plan Update, used a City-wide build -out model
to determine the appropriate Arterial street configuration for use in various locations of the City. The
Project's land use designation is "mixed commercial" with an assumed trip generation rate calculated
using 500 trips per day per acre or 18.000 trips per day for the entire Project area. I lowever. as stated
in the traffic study, this Project will generate only 1,678 trips per day, substantially less than the
allowable 18,000 trips for the subject site as used in the trip generation model to determine
appropriate Arterial street configurations.
The I:IR assumed a buildout population of 29,632. Additionally, the 1992 General Plan assumes a
buildout population of 59.392. Adding 582 people as proposed by this Mixed Use Residential
Specific Plan to our current population estimation of 18, 931, the City is well below both the 1986
and 1992 population buildout scenarios.
I'he Air Quality mitigation measures in the EIR required compliance with the SCAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook. This project was analyzed in accordance with this handbook. According to the
appropriate thresholds the impacts will not be significant because the unit count for each residential
type is to low to be qualified. Therefore, this project fulfills the EIR's requirement for air quality
compliance.
Also, as noted in the EIR fugitive dust must be mitigated, staff will recommend a condition be
required for a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prior to any clearing, grading or other site activity. Other
mitigation measures addressed in the EIR have been implemented such as the preparation of a noise
study prepared by an acoustical engineer. The noise study concludes the project, as mitigated, will
be well within the decibel level for outdoor living area as addressed in the EIR. Additionally, all
public services can be pro-vided without compromising any existing levels of service.
Lastly, as noted in the EIR, known and unknown burial places and cemeteries, places of spiritual
importance, native animals and plants of traditional usage and major village sites could be adversely
impacted by implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. During Phase II (which consisted of
fieldwork on the test excavation), a large, deep buried prehistoric occupation site was found. Because
of the importance of this discovery and recommendation of the Native American consultant, the area
will be retained in -situ, capped and designated open space, thereby complying with the mitigation
measures within the EIR.
Specific Plan: The applicant has prepared a Mixed Use Residential Specific Plan that incorporates
many design features unique to that of other subdivisions within the City. These design features are
reduced private street widths with chokers at intersections allowing not only increased landscaping,
but also serve as a t-affic calming measure. Alternating parking along the street further enhances the
pedestrian environment because at the transition from one side of the street to other the street width
will be 28 feet. Street trees are proposed along the curvilinear streets. Also contributing to the
pedestrian environment are the proposed terraces situated in front of each of the prototype single
family residences.
The three prototypes will be situated on the lot such that the courtyard is facing east or west. These
courtyards will be an extension of the living areas within the house including dens, kitchens, dining,
living and family rooms. The bedrooms generally are located at the rear of the house without access
to the outside therefore the setback is 5 feet. The two prototypes with the courtyard in the front and
side yards are proposed along Jefferson Street. The building will then act as a buffer from street noise
for the outdoor living area. The building configuration for Lot 1 proposed a courtyard in the rear
yard. Staff is recommending this prototype be changed to Plan 1 or 2 with the courtyard in the front
or side yard to provide better buffering from Avenue 48 traffic noise.
The grading plan for the proposed VillageGreen specifies a 5:1 slope with the retention basin having
an approximate depth of seven feet. This design does not maximize the usable play area at the bottom
of the retention basin. Therefore, staff recommends a 3:1 side slope with the play area having no
more than a 1 % cross slope.
The proposed signs in the medians due to their size and location may cause visibility problems from
those entering and exiting the project. Staff is therefore recommending the monument signs be
deleted and the brass lettering be placed on the perimeter wall.
Senior Apartments: The senior apartments will be maintained by a property management company.
Their responsibility will be to provide and assist residents with access to services in the La Quinta
area if private transportation is not available. Additionally, as a condition, requested by Sunline
Transit, a bus turnout will be constructed on Jefferson Street. Until the bus service is available,
within two to five years, a van will be available for shuttling the residents. Also a support services
coordinator will be employed to assist tenants to address residents concerns.
Public Noticing
This case was noticed in the Desert Sun on May 21, 1998. All property owners within the 500 feet
of the boundaries of the project were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. All appropriate
outside agencies have been notified and their responses are included in the conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- recommending certification of an
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 (SCH
#88041111) for Environmental Assessment 97-349, according to the Findings set forth in the
attached Resolution.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ recommending approval of a General Plan
Amendment reducing private interior streets from 36 feet to 28 and 32 feet.
3. Adopt Plarming Commission Resolution 98-_ recommending approval of Tentative Tract
Map 28601 to allow a 90-lot residential subdivision consisting of 86 lots for single family
residences, four Iots for 118 senior apartments, and lettered Lots A through G on
approximately 34.4 acres, subject to conditions.
4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ recommending approval of Specific Plan 97-
031 - "Village on the Green" creating development guidelines and standards for a mixed
residential development, subject to conditions.
5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ recommending approval of Site Development
Permit 97-618 including the building elevations, site, sign, landscaping, and lighting plans for
both the single family housing and senior apartments, and recreation building subject to
conditions.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Executive Summary Report for Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Project
Area No. 2
Prepared and Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF AN INITIAL STUDY/EIR ADDENDUM
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-349 PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-055, SPECIFIC
PLAN 97-031, TENTATIVE TRACT 28601 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-618
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-349
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 12th day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 97-349, as prepared for General Plan Amendment 97-055,
Specific Plan 97-031, Tentative Tract 28601 and Site Development Permit 97-618;
and,
WHEREAS, said applications have been continued at the Planning
Commission level on several previous occasions; and,
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended;
Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community
Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 97-349); and,
WHEREAS, it is the determination of the Community Development
Director that the proposed applications serve to implement the La Quinta
Redevelopment Plan for Project Area #2, for which an EIR was certified by the City
Council (SCH #88041111) on May 16, 1989, and that pursuant to Public Resources
Code 21090, actions taken to implement a redevelopment plan are deemed a single
project, and no further environmental review is necessary beyond analysis of project -
specific impacts. The Community Development Department has prepared
Environmental Assessment 97-349 as an addendum to the EIR. No changed
circumstances or conditions exist which require preparation of a subsequent EIR,
pursuant to Public Resources Code 21 166; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the EIR for
Redevelopment Area #2 and Addendum thereto; and,
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\PCreso\resopcea349.wpd J
Planning Commission Resolution 98 -
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
The proposed Specific Plan and related applications will not have the potential
to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not
be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other
current City standards, in conjunction with the proposed General Plan
Amendment to street width requirements. The project does not have the
potential to eliminate an important example of California prehistory, as
extensive archaeological investigations of the site have been conducted as part
of the project to implement appropriate mitigation alternatives. The applicant
has agreed to implementing the necessary mitigation prior to site development
activities and is in concurrence with project conditions relating to this.
2. The proposed Specific Plan and related applications will not have the potential
to achieve short term goals, to the disadvantage of long term environmental
goals, as the proposed project will serve to implement the La Quinta
Redevelopment Plan for Project Area #2.
J. The proposed Specific Plan and related applications will not have impacts
which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering
planned cr proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that the
proposed project is undertaken pursuant to a redevelopment plan for which a
final EIR has been certified, and no changes in conditions and circumstances,
as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21166, are applicable.
4. The proposed Specific Plan and related applications will not have environmental
effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the
project contemplates uses at a substantially reduced density than those already
assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan, and which
were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 97-
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\PCreso\resopcea349.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 98 -
349 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the
Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on
file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12th day of May, 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\PCreso\resopcea349.wpd
INITIAL STUDY AND EIR ADDENDUM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE (SCH) #88041111
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-349
Prepared for:
VILLAGE ON THE GREEN
CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #97-055
TENTATIVE TRACT #28601
SPECIFIC PLAN #97-031
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #97-618
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
April 21, 1998
1 ,\97349 \Npd
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title:
Village on the Green
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Citv of La Quinta; 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
3, Contact Person and Phone :dumber:
Christine di Iorio, Planning Manager
760-777-7071
4. Project Location:
Northwest corner of 48 h :avenue and Jefferson Street.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Catellus Residential Group - 5 Park Plaza, Suite 400 - Irvine, CA 92614
Contact: John O'Brien; 714-251-6100 (FAX 714-251 8837)
6. General Plan Designation:
%1/RC (Mixed/Regional Commercial)
7. Zoning:
CR (Regional Commercial)
S. 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.)
This residential development encompasses approximately 36 acres, and will offer
affordable units from the very low to moderate income levels. It proposes 204 total
dwellings (118 senior apartments with recreation/pool facility and 86 single family
detached dwellings) oriented around a Village Green open space area. The proposal
is an implementation project pursuant to the La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area
92 Plan.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings):
The project site is vacant, but has been partially disturbed by activities associated with
open dumping, roadway improvement work and borrow of soils as fill material for
other projects/activities. The site is adjacent to the City of Indio/La Quinta boundary
on the north and east. The overall project as proposed is generally consistent with the
General Plan and the M/RC land use category currently in effect; a General Plan
Amendment is being processed concurrently to reduce private double -loaded street
widths from 36 to 32 and 28 feet. No prior project approvals exist for this site.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement): Citv of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
C. C'orel Wrkgp,EAd0CSTklst349 wpd -1-
Environmental Factors Potentiallv 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.
Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service S%stems
Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
!C Water Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Qualit} Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
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.
l find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment.
there `mill not be a sigmficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures descnbed
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION %trill
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. F1
I find that the proposed protect MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment. but at least one
�ftect 1) has been ade quatel}, analvzod in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. and
') has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. if the effect is a -potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a), have been analvzed
adequately nn 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.
_ v�-4
Signature
Pnnted Name
L. y-z�-�>
Date
wit-- -.,- �f (r v,-.,r,I
For
-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 agencv cites in the parentheses
Collowing 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 vroject 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).
'I) 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.
1 "Potentially Significant Impact ' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant If there are one or more "Potentially Sigmficant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
�) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration
[Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the
checklist.
h) 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. See the sample question below A
source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited
in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
JL 1p
Sample question:
Issues (and Supportim! Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts Involving:
Landslides or mudslides'? (1.6)
( Attached source list explains that I is the general plan. and 6 is a
1: SGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further
cxplananon. )
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning'? (1, 5, 9)
Pntentiauv
Potentiallv Significant less rhan
Nignificant I nless significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1, 4. 8, 9) X
c) Be Incompatible with existing land use in the vicinm? H. 8, 9)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.. Impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)'? (1, 2, 8, 9, 15) X
c) Disrupt or divide ,he physical arrangement of an established
commumty (including a low-income or mmonty community)'? (1, 2, 8)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections'? (1, 3, -1, 8.9)
b) Induce substantiali growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
Infrastructure)'? (1, 3. 4. 8, 9 )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing'? (1, 4)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
1V.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
I) Fault rupture' ( 1-3. 1 5 )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ) 1-3. 15 )
,:) Seismic ground failure. including liquefaction'? (1-3. 15. 16)
d) Seiche. tsunarru. or volcanic hazard'? (2, 9)
,:) Landslides or mudfloN%s! i'_. '))
t) Erosion. changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
,�xca%ation. grading. or fill'? (2. 9. 15 )
g) Subsidence of the land'? (2, 15. 16)
li) Expansive soils'? (2. 15. 16)
) I Unique geologic cr physical features'? (2, '). 15. 19)
WATER Would the proposal result in.
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? (2, 9, 12, 16)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding'? (2.9.12.16)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g. temperature. dissolved oxygen or turbidity)'? (2. 9. 12.
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (2. 9
12. 16)
16)
Potentially
Potentially Significant
Less Phan
Significant Unless
Isignificant No
Impact Mitigated
impact Impact
r
-L u
V.
VI.
Issues (and Supporting Infformation Sources):
Potentialiv
Potentialiv significant less Phan
%ienificant Unless significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
.) Clianges in currents. or the course or direction of eater movements'? x
IL 9 )
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters. either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability'? (2.3.9. 16)
-) Altered direction or rate of flow of g,roundwater'? (2, 3. 12. 16 )
h I Impacts to groundwater quality? (1-1. 12. 16 )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of eroundwater otherwise
.ivailable for public water supplies'? (2. 12. 16)
AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate anv air quality standard or contnbute to an existing or
projected air qualm violation'? (2. 3. 17)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (2. 9. 17)
E7T
F-7-..i
x
c) Alter air movement, moisture. or temperature. or cause any change
in climate? (2, 3. 17) x
d) Create objectionable odors'? (9)
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
PotentWv
Potentialiv Significant Less Than
significant ['mess Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
.i) Increased Vehicle trips or traffic coneestion? ( 1-4. 9, 11 x
h) Ha/ards to safety from design features (e.g.. sharp cuncs or dangerous -7
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.. farm equipment)? (3. 9. 11) X
,;) Inadequate emergence access or access to nearby uses'? (}. 9, 11)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (3. 7, 9)
.:) Halards or barriers for pedestrians or bicvchsts? (3. 9 )
X
x
I) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation —
(e.l .. bus turnouts. bic%.cle racks)? ( I. Z) x
-) Rail. NNaterborne or air traffic impacts? (9)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
I X_
.i) Endangered. threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants. fish. insects. animals. and birds)" (2. 12) x
b) Locally designated species (e.g.. heritage trees)'? (2, 9. 12) F7_1
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.. oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.)? (2, 9, 12) x
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian. and vernal pool)? (2, 9, 12) X
c) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (2, 9, 12)
Ix.
X.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans'! (1-3 )
Potentially
Potentiallv Significant Less than
Significant l'niess Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner'? X
(1-3)
c) Result in the Ioss of availability of a known mineral resource that
�Nould be of future value to the region and the residents of the State'?
(1-1. 9)
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a► A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including. but not limited to: oil, pesticides. chemicals, or radiation)'?
(9)
�i�
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? ( I-1. 7. 9) X
c) The creation of anv health hazard or potential health hazard'?
9)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards'? X
(1-3. 9)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X
(1-3. 9. 12)
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1-3. 9, 20) X
issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
h) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( 1 9. 20)
M. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the
Ibllowing areas:
,i) Fire protection'? ( 1. 2. 9, 10)
h) Police protection? ( 1, 2, 1). 1 1 )
.) Schools:' (1. 2, 9. 1.1)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads'? (1, 2, 9)
e) Other governmental services'? (1-3. 9 )
X11. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result
in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the
Ibllowing utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (1-3. 9. 13 )
b► Communications systems? 1 1-3)
Potentiallv
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant I'nless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
r�1
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities'? (1-3. 12) X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1-3. 12)
e) Storm eater drainage'? (1-3. 12. 16)
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
11 Solid waste disposal'? ( I-.,)
,,) Local or regional .%ater supplies'? ( 1-3. 12. 16)
\III. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highwa}•'? (1-3. 9)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic et%ct? ( 1-3. 9 )
c) Create light or glare'? ( 1 9)
\IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources'? (24)
b) Disturb archaeological resources'? (21-23)
c) Affect historical resources'? (2. 21)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values'? (2. 21)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant I mess Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X 17
I I x I - ----T- - -- - I
c) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area'? (2. 21) X
tiN'
N:V1.
\VI1.
Issues (and Supporting; Information Sources):
RECREATION. % ould the proposal:
,i) Increase the demr.nd for neighborhood or rc°,ional parks or other
rocreationalfacilittcs'? )2.9)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities' ('. 9)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
m Does the protect have the potential to degrade the quality of the
.:m ironment. substantial) reduce the habitat of a fish or «ildlife
species. :ause a fish or %%ildlife population to drop bolo« self-
sustafnine Ic%els. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community.
r,�ducz the number or restrict the range of a rare to endangered plant or
;uumal. 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
disad%antage of long-term. environmental goals?
Pntentiallb.
Patentialiv %iRniflcant Less Chan
14ieniScant I mess significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Does the project have impacts that are mdividualllimited. but
cumuiatively considerable'? (" Cumulativeiv considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable .,'hen viewed in
connection with the effects of past protects. the effects of other current �
protects. and the effects of probable future projects.)
LI) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse etfects on human beings. either dircctor� or
indirectlN"
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where. pursuant to the tiering, program
1:IR. or ocher CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately
anal red in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a. discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
,ii Earner analyser used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are mailable for reyieu
REFER TO ADDENDUM SECTION 5
b) impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were %Nithm the scope of and
idequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. and state NN hcther such effects NNere
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
REFER TO ADDENDUM SECTION 5
c! :Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated." descnbe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to %i hich they
address site -specific conditions for the project.
REFER TO ADDENDUM SECTION 5
Section
2
3
E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 3
I 1 Project Overview
1.2 Purpose of Initial Study
1 3 Background of Environmental Review 3
1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION a
2 1 Project Location and Environmental Setting
l
2.2 Phvsical Characteristics
2.3 Operational Characteristics
2.4 Objectives
.5 Discretionary Actions
2.6 Related Projects
6
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
6
3.1 Land Use and Planning
6
3.2 Population and Housing
7
3.3 Geological Problems
,4 Water
1Il
3.5 Air Quality
l I
6 Transportation/Circulation
12
3 7 Biological Resources
14
3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources
15
3.9 Hazards
15
3.10 Noise
16
3. I I Public Services
17
3.12 Utilities and Service Systems
18
3.13 Aesthetics
18
3.14 Cultural Resources
19
3.15 Recreation
20
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 20
EARLIER ANALYSIS 21
l :A97349.wpd
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for this project review. as defined by Section 21067 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility
for cam -mg out or approving a project %dhich may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City
of La Quinta has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to make a decision on the proposal. The
project is proposed to further implement the La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area #2 plan, adopted May
16. 1989. CEQA states that there can be only one lead agency, which shall generally be the one to carry out
the project. The La Quinta City Council has approval authority on land use and zoning actions, and will
approve the agreement: the Redevelopment Agency will need to approve the affordable housing agreement as
\%ell. prior to any transfer of the project site to the developer. The La Quinta City_ Council also acts as the
,o�crning bod%. for the Redevelopment Agency
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
As part of the environmental review for the proposed project. the City of La Quinta Community_ Development
Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and
scope of the subsequent environmental review for the amendment. The purposes of the Initial Study_ , as stated
in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following:
To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for a project:
To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project. mitigating adverse impacts
before an EIR is prepared thereby enabling the project to qualif , for a mitigated negative declaration
of environmental impact:
To assist in the preparation of an EIR. should one be required. by focusing the anal_ ,sis on those issues
that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project:
To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project:
To provide documentation for the findings in a negative declaration that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment:
To eliminate unnecessary EIR's: and
To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Village on the Green project was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of
CEQA in light of its potential project -specific impacts. The proposed Village on the Green project is an
F.A97349 %pd n ��
91
implementation action under the La Quetta Redevelopment Plan for Project Area #2. for which an EIR was
certified by the Citv Council (SCH #88041111). Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21090. all actions taken
to implement a redevelopment plan are deemed a single project, and no further environmental review is
neccssany beyond analysis of project -specific impacts. The Community Development Department has prepared
this Environmental Assessment as an addendum to the EIR_ for review by the Planning Commission and City
Council/Redevelopment Agency, to determine whether the conditions referenced in Public resources Code
Section 21166 are present.
1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Initial Study checklist indicates certain potential for significant project -specific environmental impacts.
As a result, specific mitigation measures have been incorporated. Mitigation measures proposed for each issue
area, as provided for in the EIR prepared for Redevelopment Project Area #2 and developed as part of review
of the Village on the Green proici are underlined within this discussion. and are summanaed in the Mitigation
vlonitonng Program 'GIMP) attached to this Addendum.
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
?.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella
Vallev. The City is bounded on the west by the Citv of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and
Riverside Countv. on the north by Riverside County, and federal and county_ lands to the south. The City_ of
La Quinta was incorporated on May 1. 1982.
The proposed implementation project consists of approximately 36 acres, at the northwest corner of 48w
Avenue and Jefferson Street. The applicants have submitted a specific plan application (SP 97-031), tentative
tract map (TT 28601), general plan amendment (GPA 97-055) and site development permit (SDP 1)7-618). The
site is vacant and relatively flat. with some undulation occurring due to hummocks created by windblown sand
being restricted by vegetation. A biological study, geotechnical report, hydrology analysis. noise assessment
and cultural resources survev have all been submitted with the proposed project.
The City of Indio has jurisdiction along the east side of Jefferson Street. Existing mobile homes and RV/trailer
sites are situated directly across and north of the site, at the northeast corner of 48' Avenue and Jefferson
Street. This area contains approximately 590 such units (300 trailers/RV's, 290 mobile and manufactured
homes) over 55 acres (10.7 units/acre). The southeast corner of the intersection is in agriculture as a sod farm:
1/4 mile south is a 110-unit single-family residential tract (The Verandas).
Directly south of the site, across 48`s Avenue within the La Quinta boundary, is the 700-acre Rancho La Quinta
project. a 1.500 unit specific plan area. This portion is currently vacant and unimproved. but will be developed
with single family dwellings around a second golf course. an area designation for a 200 to 400 room hotel is
currently being proposed. Current prices for existing new and resale units in developed areas of Rancho La
Quetta are in the upper $200.000 to $500,000 range.
1:A97349 wpd +w ,
i
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
A general plan amendment is proposed to allow reduced local private street widths within the project area. This
is a residential project that is designed to attract very low to moderate income residents. �\ith 118 senior
apartment units and 86 single family detached homes on individual lots. There will be two floor plans for the
apartments: a 750 square foot one -bedroom unit and a 850 square foot two bedroom unit. There are three
single-family floor plans of 1760. 1920 and 2100 square feet. The senior apartments will have a common pool
and recreation building to serve the residents. There will be a Village Green. which will serve as common open
space for all residents of the project. as well as a recreation trail access to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel.
There are two project entry points. both off of 48' Avenue. which will incorporate a special entry design theme.
Neither entry is proposed for signalization. An entry statement. at the northeast corner of 48L' and Jefferson.
will be based on the existing hummock and will include some project retention needs.
2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
As previously stated this project is residential and incorporates no commercial or other land uses in the M/RC
(Mixed/Regional Commercial) land use designation. The La Quinta General Plan allows residential uses in this
category: the average overall density of this project is 5.65 units/acre, which is consistent with medium density
uses as permitted under the Citv*s General Plan. The project will be managed by a homeowners association
for the single-family residene,:s. The senior apartments and common facilities are a tax credit -based project.
requiring management by the owners of the facility for a minimum of 30 years.
Approval of this project, as proposed, requires the filing of a general plan amendment, specific plan, site
development peanut and tentative map applications. It also requires that the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
approve an affordable housing agreement with the developer. As set forth bv_ the La Quinta Zoning Code, all
of the applications are being considered concurrently.
2.4 OBJECTIVES
The objective of th-.s project. as stated in the specific plan document. �s to develop an affordable housing
community. while creating. "visually distinctive, environmentally sensitive neighborhoods consisting of a
variety of housing ... connected by open space, landscaping and well -lighted street/sidewalk systems." A further
project objective is to facilitate the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area #2, in that
Objective 11 of the Plan identifies. "The need to provide opportunities for the expansion of the community's
supply of housing (on a citywide basis) including housing opportunities for low and moderate income
households.".
2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agencv (for this project. the government agency is
the Citv of La Quinta) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The
proposed Village on the Green project will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission. Citv_
Council and La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for the following:
• Certification of the Environmental Assessment/Redevelopment Project Area #2 EIR Addendum
for the project;
f;A97349.wpd r'
'�J
R
• .approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement;
• Approval of the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment applications for the project concept
and reduced General Plan street widths;
• approval of a Tentative Tract Map for the single family and senior apartment parcels, and,
• approval of a Site Development Permit for the senior apartment and single family unit site and
architectural design, landscaping, lighting and sign plans.
2.6 RELATED PROJECTS
There are no related projects to this proposal under review at present. A previous application for the DSUSD
Educational Services Center was approve by the Cite Council on July 11. 1995 with a total of 164.000 square
feet proposed for development on 24.5 acres. Construction of this facility was completed in late 1997. The
project is directly_ across the La Quinta Evacuation Channel from this facility. and while it is not accessible
from the project area. it is risible and lies within 300 feet of the site.
SECTION I ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. CEQA issue areas
are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the Initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item. the
environmental setting is discussed including a description of conditions as they presently exist within the Citv
and the areas affected bv_ the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards
adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA. Appendix G. The main purpose
of this section. relative to the Village on the Green project. is to determine whether there are changed
circumstances as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21166.
3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Reguional Environmental Setting
The CitN of La Quetta is located in the Coachella Valley. in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The
Valley is abundant with both plant and animal life. Topographic relief ranges from 237 feet below mean sea
level (msl) to about 2.000 feet above msl. The Valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa
Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain Range. The San Andreas fault
transects the northeastern edge of the Valley.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject site is vacant, but has been partially disturbed by activities associated with open dumping, roadway
improvement work and borrow of soils as fill material for other projects/activities. The site is adjacent to the
Citv of Indio/La Quinta boundary on the north and east. The overall project as proposed is generally consistent
with the General Plan (a General Plan amendment is being processed concurrently to allow reduced private
street widths for double -loaded street conditions), the La Quinta Redevelopment Plan for Project Area 42 and
the M/RC land use category currently in effect; no prior project approvals exist for this site.
A Through E - No Impact. The project as proposed is consistent with the current and future land uses
contemplate for the project area. The La Quetta General Plan allows residential uses to locate in M/RC areas
f:A97349 N pd
VA
Outside of the non-residential overiav, under specific criteria per General Plan Policv 2-3 1.6 The La Quinta
Housing Element also incorporates policies identif%-ing the M/RC land use categor% for higher density
affordable housing projects. MHDR and I -DR development is permitted in the M/RC areas outside of the non-
residential oyeriav: one such residential type identified is single-family detached. The Village on the Green
protect has an overall density of 5.65 units/acre. and proposes residential development types as permitted in
the MHDR and MDR categories.
The project is in close proximity to designated residential uses, with the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan area.
located across 48'h Avenue to the south. That area is currently_ designated and zoned for Low Density
Residential use (2 - 4 units/acre) and Tourist Commercial (TC). The property to the east. across Jefferson
Street. lies in Indio and is designated on their General Plan 2020 as RM (Medium Density Residential, with
a Mobile Horne/RV Park Overlay). This designation carries a maximum density of 8 units/acre (12 UPA for
mobile home projects), and does not allow commercial or other non-residential uses. The current density of the
existing mobile park uses. overall. is 10.7 units/acre: on the northerly parcel (Indian Wells RV Round -Up) of
16.6 acres. the density is 18.1 units/acre which exceeds the Indio density range for the land use as designated.
the northerly properties also lie in Indio. and are designated MU/SP (Mixed Use Specific Plan Overlay). The
Citv of Indio adopted MUSP-300 in April. 1997 Both the M/RC (La Quinta) and ML/SP (Indio) land use
designations promote mixed -use, with middle to higher density multi -family development.
The Village on the Green project proposes reduced rear yard setbacks. street widths and zero -lot lines in order
to achieve a more community- oriented neighborhood appearance and function. The intent of reducing rear yard
setbacks for the single family detached units is to allow a maximization of the dwelling by orienting the
bedroom and living areas towards side area court yards, reducing the private rear yard area in favor of
increasing the focus on community open areas and the street frontage. This also allows lot sizes to be reduced,
which helps to orient activity areas towards the front and side courtyards, increasing the sense of community
and creating more defensible space. The project incorporates reduced street widths in order achieve a more
pedestrian oriented streetscape, along with traffic calming measures such as offset street alignments and
parking area insets.
The proposal will have no conflicts with anv environmental policies or plans in effect which would apply to
the project. as it is an implementation project pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area 92. There
are no existing or potential agricultural operations or uses which could be affected in any way by this project:
the site has no histoncal evidence of agricultural use or resource potential. Operation of the project will
encourage and facilitate maintenance of existing and future affordable housing opportunities (see Section 3.2),
and its development will not affect anv established community, as all current surrounding developments are
separated by major arterials and project walls.
3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Regional Environmental Setting
The City_ 's population as of January. 1997 was estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 18.931
persons. In addition to permanent residents. the Citv has approximately 9.400 seasonal residents who spend
three to six months in the City (WDL Economic Overview, 1997 Ed.). It is estimated that 30% of all housing
units in the City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.85 persons per occupied unit.
based on the 1990 Census. but the 1997 State Department of Finance estimates a figure of 3.12.
FA97249 \kpd !1
0
Local Environmental Setting
The site is designated Mixed Regional Commercial (M/RC) on the Citv's General Plan Land Use Policy
Diagram. To the east lies the Cite of Indio. x%hich designates N,1ixed Use/ Plan in their General Plan
alone Highway 11 I at Jefferson Street (Indio General Plan 2020. October 191)3). Previous Section 3.1 provides
turther information on surrounding land use.
A - No Impact. The project is not anticipated to significantly increase the local population. Based on the
number of proposed units, an estimated population of 582 persons is anticipated. which represents an increase
of 3 . l °% over the current population. The immediately surrounding vicinity does not have anv existing
commercial or other available services: however. the project developer has indicated that a shuttle van will be
made available to the senior population for access to the La Quinta Senior Center and proximate shopping
areas. In addition, senior services will be made available in the proposed recreation center of the project. The
proposal itself will not exceed anv growth forecasts currently available to or used by the City. nor will it cause
.tin_ change in anticipated growth patterns or numbers. as these forecasts are based on the build out scenarios
in the General Plan.
B - Less Than Significant Impact. The project development may induce growth in the Highway 11 I corridor
area and surrounding areas, due to extension and upgrade of existing infrastructure in the site vicinity_ and the
presence of additional population base to support commercial expansions.
C - No Impact. The City's Redevelopment Agency has acquired three sites specifically targeted for affordable
housing development. one of which is this site. The other two sites are at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue
and Washington Street. and the northeast corner of 48' Avenue and Adams Street. Along with addressing
physical blight and economic expansion, the Redevelopment Plan identifies one of the Plan objectives as being
expansion of the community s supply of housing (on a Citv_ -wide basis) including housing opportunities
for low and moderate income households.". Additionallv. Table I of the Redevelopment Project Area #2 Plan
specifically identifies proposed redevelopment projects to include the development of new senior housing
projects and requiring portions of all new development projects to be affordable to low to moderate income
families (LQRPA 42 Plan: Table 1. page 22). This project will serve to further those objectives and implement
housing development under the Redevelopment Plan. In addition, Policv 1.1.5 of the La Quinta Housing
Element states that the City_ shall target developments in the Mixed/Regional Commercial designation, in which
this project is located.
The CAN, and Redevelopment Agency have implemented other affordable projects throughout the Citv, at
varying income levels and demographic orientation. The following briefly lists those projects and programs in
effect to implement the City"s housing goals:
• La Quinta Rental Housing Program (L RHP) - 49 Cove -area single-family homes are
currenty, rented to very low income Section 8-assisted households. These units are spread
throughout the 2 square mile Cove area, which is in the southwest -central area of the City.
• The Seasons - This project incorporates 91 very low income senior apartments and 19 very
low to moderate income single family owner units, and is located on the north side of Calle
Tampico. just northwest of the Civic Center. An additional 31 low to moderate single family
units have not vet been built.
I.A97349 %pd
y
Villa Cortina Apartments - This project was built based on affordable housing tax credits
obta,lned by the developer through the State: the Redevelopment AgencN was not directly
invoived. The project offers 116 very low and low income, 2 to 4 bedroom apartments.
3.3 GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
Regional Environmental Setting
The Citv of La Quetta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans. steep hillside. to relatively
flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City*s soil types are underlain by igneous -
metamorphic rock. as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on
the Vallev floor are made up of very fine gram unconsolidated silty sands.
Local Environmental Setting
The site is approximately 50 feet above sea level, based on the top of bank of the La Quinta Evacuation
Channel (CVWD comment letter). and consists of Myoma series soils. This soil type has rapid permeability
is commonly used for homesites and other urban uses. While it can be used in development of croplands. it is
not considered as prune agricultural soil as classified by the State The site is located within a Ground Shaking
Zone; 4. referenced as a moderate level of shaking activity. There are no active faults in the area (La Quetta
MEA. October. 1992). Much of the information for this Section and its findings are based on the Preliminary_
Geotechnical Investigation of the site. conducted by Neblett and Associates and dated I 1 / 14/97
A, B, C - Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not present any additional exposure to geologic
hazards associated with fault rupture, as no faults have been identified on or in proximity to the site. The site
is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, and surface rupture due to faulting is considered unlikely.
as stated in the project geotechmcal study. The existing physical conditions in the area will not be changed in
a manner which would create any impacts beyond those associated with development of the site in accordance
with the General Plan. and there are no changed circumstances with respect to the environmental conditions
pertaining to geological characteristics of the area, as identified in the LQRPA 42 Plan.
The project is located in a Ground shaking Zone 4. associated with moderate impacts from seismic activity
\s a result_ the site is potentially subject to strong ground shaking effects associated with earthquake activity
on outlying faults. Impacts involving potential seismic activity also relate to possible risk associated with
subsidence: and potential for upset conditions. The pr ject will be required to adhere to seismic reinforcement
and other requirements as called for by the UBC The project grading and sitework shall comply with
recommendations set forth in the Prelimina1yr Geotechnical Investigation of the site, conducted by Neblett and
Associates, dated 11/'14/97. The soil characteristics indicate that ground failure due to such activity is minimal,
based on its use in urbanized development, and liquefaction potential is negligible, as the evaluation does not
identity the site as within an area subject to such potential and the fact that the area groundwater table is quite
deep.
D, E - No Impact. There is no potential for seiche, tsunami or volcanic activity. The site is level and not
subject to slide or mudflow impacts. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel does not affect the property during
drainage flows (LQMEA: site plan).
F Through I - Less Than Significant Impact. Strong ground motion may result in moderate subsidence.
Overall, it is estimated that seismic -induced settlement over the entire site would be uruform and limited to less
i:.\97149 wpd
�' 0
a
than one inch. There will be some change in surface features due to project grading. Such changes will affect
�tabilitv of the site as the natural substructure is modified. Relief on the site ranges from 42 to 67 feet. due to
the sandy hummocks and dunes created from blowsand encroaching on vegetative stands. Soil erosion potential
will increase due to loosening and movement of soil material during development. as occurred during the
trenching imesngauons conducted for the evaluation. Standard erosion control and soil management methods
as identified in the e%aluation and soil reports. and addressed in grading plans required for the site. will ensure
that such impacts will not be significant. All earthwork shall comply with recommendations set forth in the
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation of the site. conducted by Neblett and Associates dated 11/14/97
Submittal of a fugitive dust control plan (FDCP) as required (see Air Quality_) will aid in wind erosion impact
reduction.
3.4 WATER
Regional Environmental Setting
Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous lavers of rock
material) and groundwater basins separate by bedrock or lavers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. Water
-�upphes are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal
and store at Lake Cahuilla. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta
from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging
of groundwater will be a requirement in the near future.
Local Environmental Setting
The � icinity of the proposed project is protected from design storms by the La Quinta Evacuation Channel
flood control facility and other improvements. The site is undulating and incorporates well drained soils. The
site is designated Zone X on the federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps in effect for the area. subject to 500 year
flood events, and is generally surrounded by lands susceptible to 100 year events with average depths of less
than l foot (LQMEA). A preliminary hydrology study was prepared by Southwest Civil Engineering and
Surveying. dated October 1. 11)97.
A - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Current runoff rates will be significantly
increased due to pace, building and hardscape area development. The runoff produced by development of this
site will be retained in the Village Green and also in a nature-scaped open area in the southeasterly_ portion of
the site. which will serve as a project entry/identity based on the natural land form as it exists now. The project
w ill be LNuired to prepare a final drainage plan and comply with NPDES permit requirements as enforced by
the Public Works Department. Drainage and hydrologic parameters shall be consistent with the preliminary
hydrolgo, study prepared by Southwest Civil Engineering and Surveying, dated October 1, 1997, to the extent
applicabie.
B. C - Less Than Significant Impact. The area is currently protected from flood impacts by existing flood
control facilities, specifically the Whitewater and La Quinta Evacuation Channels. Development of the project
will be required to provide adequate storm water protection on site to mitigate flooding impacts to any
surrounding properties. No surface waters exist in the area which could be affected by the projects
development: the CVWD does not permit discharge of project runoff into their facilities, but it is conceivable
that some discharge will enter the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The District has recommended that the Citv
require that units along the channel bank be set back an equitable distance, but has not indicated an acceptable
standard. However, as the Channel is maintained in a natural state it is not anticipated that any runoff which
I'A97349 wpd n ,
maN enter it would cause a significant impact: such runoff will likely be limited to nuisance water from
irrigation activities or occasional breaks in irrigation systems.
D Through I - No Impact. Ground water resource quantity. quality and other characteristics will not be
significantly impacted. as exploratory borings and trcnchmgs taken for the geotechnical evaluation went to a
depth of up to 50 fm-t without encountering any groundwater. Compliance with NPDES requirements attached
to the project permitting will ensure that storm water runoff associated with the projects development will not
create anv measurable impact to water quality. quantity or hazards.
3.5 .SIR QUALITY
Regional Environmental Setting
The Coachella Vallev is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Qualm Management District
(SCAQMD), and is located in the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air
pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SOCAB). Currently. the SEDAB does not meet federal
standards for ozone, carbon monoxide. or particulate matter.
Local Environmental Setting
The Citv is located in the Coachella Vallev, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild
winters. infrequent and low annual rainfall. and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and
localized winds occur throughout the Vallev due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality
conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. In the Coachella Vallev. the standards for PM
10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that become suspended
in the air primarily due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads. The Vallev is currently
designated by the EPA as a serious non-attamment area for PM 10. however SCAQMD anticipates that recent
data will show that the Valley has been in attainment over the last three vears. Based on this. SCAQMD is in
the process of preparing a PM 10 Maintenance Plan in order to have the area redesignated to attainment status.
A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. the project is
not anticipated to create any significant air quality impact. The significance thresholds in the Handbook as
established by SCAQMD indicate that, for a residential project of this type. 166 single family units (86
propose) and 261 apartments (118 proposed) would present the potential for significant air quality impacts.
It could be considered that the apartments, being lower income senior units, are actually in the category of a
retirement community, for which the threshold is 612 units. In any case, an air quality analysis was not required
based on the significance thresholds, thus the air quality impact of the additional development has not been
quantified. Although the project will have some impact to air quality, according to the SCAQMD thresholds,
that impact will not be significant.
Several General Plan policies promote the concept of pedestrian accessibility and alternative travel modes,
which assist in both air quality and circulation impact mitigation (Policies 9-2.1.2. 9-2.1.3, 9-4.1.4). The
Village on the Green project provides adequate pedestrian circulation within and to off -site areas.
Using Table 6-3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, construction emissions are only about 10% of the
quarterly thresholds, when assuming floor areas based on construction at 100% of the largest unit floor plans
(senior apartments. 118 a. 850 s.f each. single-family, 86 ,a 2.100 s.f. each). Short term (construction -related)
impacts will result primarily from clearing, grading and other pre -construction activities. which will generate
1:1\97349 wpd „ .
12
tugitne dust. Prior to an,. soil disturbance or grading activiZ-oes). the developer shall secure approval of a
Fugitne Dust Control Plan (FDCP). The plan shall address all proposed development areas, as well as those
areas which ma}. be disturbed by activity- but scheduled for later development phased). The FDCP shall be
.zubmitted with any clearing, grading. or other site active , request which will disturb. or is related to
development of the site.
the proposed project will expose sensitive receptors to pollutants to a limited degree, but this exposure is
anticipated to be insignificant. The La Quinta High School is the nearest non-residential sensitive receptor, and
is located just over ;12 mile northwest from the site. Residential receptor areas exist further east of the school
(Westward Ho area). northeast (I I I Mobile Park) and east (Indian Wells RV Roundup mobile park) of the site.
Construction -related air quality impacts will occur primanly from grading activities and other soil disturbances.
The required FDCP will address these short -tern construction impacts. Long tern impacts from roadway
emissions associated with the cumulative impacts of growth in accordance with the La Quinta General Plan
\till be far less than that associated with commercial development of the tNpe which would be permitted on this
site under the Mixed Regional Commercial land use designation.
C, D - No Impact. The project has no potential to effect anv climatological change. The proposed residential
uses will have no known potential for objectionable and/or possibly unhealthful odors.
3.6 TRANSPORTATIONWIRCULATION
Regional Environmental Setting
The City's existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed by Riverside Countv and
new and resurfaced roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key_ roadway_ s include State Highway
1 11, Washington Street, Jefferson Street. Fred Waring Drive, Miles Avenue and 50th Avenue. Traffic volumes
in La Quinta experience seasonal variation. late winter/early spring months represent the peak tourist season.
Local Environmental Setting
The project has direct frontage on two major City thoroughfares: 48' .Avenue and Jefferson Street. Current
geometries for 48'.avenue along the project frontage are currently completing construction, and consist of four
travel lanes with raised median. six-foot sidewalk and on -street bicycle lanes (Class II. 5 feet wide): this
configuration is consistent with its designation as a Primary Arterial in the City"s General Plan. Jefferson Street
is currently a two lane roadway with painted divider and no curb/gutter along the project frontage, but is
designated as a Major Arterial 020-foot right-of-way. 4 - 6 travel lanes. Class II 5 foot wide bike lanes. 18-
foot raised median) by the La Quinta General Plan.
The La Quinta General Plan establishes a minimum Level of Service (LOS) " D" for all intersections during
A.M. or P.M. peak hours without adequate mitigation. LOS is a hierarchical classification of qualitative
measures of traffic flow, ranging from A (free flow) to F (unacceptable saturation).
The traffic study prepared by O'Rourke Engineering in November. 1997 for the project provides additional
information where cited for specific project improvements and other criteria.
A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. The project will unquestionably create incremental increases in trips
and congestion. however, the roadway capacities as designed for 48`i' Avenue. Jefferson Street and other major
thoroughfares in the area will be able to absorb this additional traffic. Based on the use assignments supplied
',1\9714y xvpd
13
by the applicant. it has been estimated that approximately 1.678 average daily trips (ADT) can be assigned to
this project. For purposes of the study. all trips were assumed to be vehicle trips: i.e. no consideration was
given to trip reductions due to public transit operations. car pooling, pedestrian or bicycle trips. The study
projected these trips into the projects opening, year traffic and project buildout traffic. which were developed
based on the Citv's etasting traffic model (General Plan). It was detemmned that for the project opening year.
the 48L1' Avenue/Jefferson Street intersection will operate at level of service (LOS) " B" during the A.M. peak -
hour and at LOS C during the P.M. peak -hour. with the project. This intersection will meet signal warrants
x%ithout the project for the buildout year scenario: as a signalized intersection, with the project. it will operate
at LOS D for both peak hours. The area wide traffic generation analvsis data in the LQRPA r#2 EIR is within
the limits of current development trends, based on population and traffic data comparisons with current
information available in the MEA, General Plan and traffic count data, as well as the traffic study prepared
by O'Rourke Engineering in November, 1997. There is no evidence to demonstrate that current traffic
conditions are inconsistent w:th the information as contained in the LQRPA 42 EIR.
:Vmlvses conducted for the westerly project access consider it as a three-way, unsignalized intersection. This
implies it will ultimately be a controlled stop intersection. and is consistent with the information provided on
Page II-12 of the specific plan document. This intersection is presented as operating at LOS A at buildout.
The applicant will be required to dedicate and install all improvements as deemed necessary by the Public
Works Department in accordance with the conditions of approval for the project and anydevelopment
agreements including fair share participation in the siQnalization of the 48' Avenue/Jefferson Street
intersection.
The project incorporates two crivewav locations along 48`h Avenue. Signalization of the 49' Avenue/Jefferson
Street intersection will help to significantly reduce traffic safety impacts from this development. The two access
points along 48`s Avenue are adequately spaced and are designed with a right-of-way width of 84 feet.
Adequate pedestrian walkways are distributed throughout the project to access internal areas as well as
perimeter sidewalks along artenals leading to transit areas. Due to recently discovered archaeological resource
potential. and in addition to addressing concerns of the City of Indio. the project has been redesigned. The
primary entry has been shifted further west to increase distance from the 48' Avenue/Jefferson Street
intersection. and the interior street pattern has been modified due to revisions to the senior apartment siting,
Village Green and Park areas and single family lot layouts. Parking is proposed to be limited to alternating
sides of the 32 foot wide streets with a reduced street width, as reflected by submittal of a general plan
amendment application (which would allow local double -loaded private streets within the project to be a
minimum of 32 feet instead of the currently required 36 feet). The applicant's proposal has the main connector
and loop street north of the Village green area at 36 feet (60 foot ROW) with parking on both sides of the
street, and other internal streets at 32 feet (52 foot ROW) with parking on one side only. There will be a 32-
foot wide street (parking one side only) into the senior apartment site to provide access to the parking areas via
24 foot access driveways for the apartment unit clusters. The overall street system will include a series of offset
parkway "chokers which narrow the 32 foot wide streets on an alternating basis where on -street parking
occurs. This serves to slow traffic entering these areas and provide better delineation of the on -street parking
areas, as well as to create a slight jog in the street to reduce lengthy straight sections of road which can
encourage increased driving speeds. Other traffic safety improvements as typically required of new
development will also mitigate routine traffic hazard impacts commonly associated with any new residential
development, commensurate with development of the site, and should improve the overall safety_ level of the
intersections and adjacent and internal roadways in general.
F \97349 wpd
J (
14
C Through G - No Impact. The crossing of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel at 48t' Avenue poses the
ongoing potential for flooding of 49' avenue during periods of hea«- rainfall. The improvements for 48'
\,venue are nearing completion. and have been designed to address this potential to the fullest extent in
consideration of the iow-flow crossing design employed. The project applicant may be required to participate
in funding these improvements. as determined by the Public Works Department.
There will be no impact to parking capacity due to on -street parking being limited to one side of the street, on
an alternating basis, for the single family units. It is not anticipated that the senior apartments will generate
more than one car per unit, in most cases. on a dav-to-dav basis. There will always be the occasional event in
a private home, but few developments are designed on that basis and it is considered a temporary
inconvenience. While the single family units will attract more vehicles. the available on -street parking is
supplemented with 4 off-street spaces per unit. The project provides parkway "chokers" in several instances.
�\hich not only perpetuate the traffic calming concepts stated as a project objective but also allow for a more
obvious delineation of on -street parking areas. The combined amount of on and off-street parking should
accommodate the anticipated parking demand.
there should be no hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicvclists bev_ and those common to any residential
development. Adequate walking areas, parks and other open areas are provided by the project, and the
limitation of parking to alternating sides of the street will have benefits to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Curb
bulbs and chokers employed in conjunction with the 32-foot wide street sections will help to reduce conflict
by further defining designated on -street parking areas, slowing traffic entering these narrower sections, and
shortening pedestrian crossing areas (i.e narrower streets and crossing points). The project is not required to
provide for alternative transportation infrastructure, or to submit a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) plan. Sunline Transit does not provide transit service in this area. however, they anticipate service to
be available within the next 5 years. The site is not proximate to, nor is it affected bv, water, air or rail traffic.
3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The Citv of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the Citv: the Sonoran
Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the Citv_ are classified as urban or
agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the LQMEA.
Local Environmental Setting
A biologic assessment was prepared by James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants in August, 1997. The subject
area is vacant, with undulating terrain due to the existence of mesquite hummocks. The native vegetation is
desert scrub, but portions of the site have previously been disturbed in recent history by dumping, off -road and
borrow activities. There are no npanan/wetland habitats or streambeds on the site, and there are mesquite dune
sands associated with the parcel due to wind action transporting sandy materials being interrupted by the
mesquite, thereby creating dunes or "hummocks" on the site. The LQMEA identifies the entire site as within
the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard habitat area, for which a federal l0A permit was obtained pursuant
to adoption of the C VFTL Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
A, B - No Impact. According to the biological assessment cited previously, there is potential for wildlife
habitat to exist on the site. Four each of plant and animal species of anv significance were identified as having
the potential to occur on the site. However. investigation did not discover any evidence that these species exist
1:A 97349 wpd
0 U
15
,in the site. Only the Coachella Vallev Fringe -Toed Lizard (CVFTL) was specifically cited as once inhabiting
the site. though no evidence; of its existence there could be found. M tigation fees will be conditioned to be paid
for the CVFTL prior to any land disturbance or grading permits being issued for the site, as required under the
,:xistmg_I OA Wit_ The Palm Springs Ground Squirrel was the only one of these species that was actually
obser%ed. but it is not listed b% the State or Federal government. and is considered common in this region. There
are no significant or otherwise predominant tree stands or other vegetation on the site.
C - Less Than Significant Impact. The biological study prepared for the applicant indicates that mesquite
hummocks. such as those found on the project site, are becoming mcreasingly scarce in the Coachella Vallev
due to development activity and groundwater depletion. The California Department of Fish and Game refers
to such areas as Partially Stabilized Desert Sand Fields, considered to be a rare vegetation element in
California. However. there is no State listing for this habitat as any kind of protected area. In order to mitigate
the impact due to loss of this rare local habitat. the applicant has provided an approximately Z acre area at the
southeast comer of the site, which will serve as a retention basin and project gateway/identity area. Part of the
identitv element for this area is to replicate the existing hummocks and historic vegetation. integrating that
aspect of the existing environment into the project. Based on the provisions of the project design in this area.
the impact from loss of this local resource due to development of this site will be less than significant.
D, E - No Impact. No wetland areas are shown to be on or traverse the site. and the location of the site
adjacent to two major roads, a major drainage channel facility_ and school district facility_ project precludes any
potential migration or dispersal of any wildlife.
3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Areas (SMARA),
as designate by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City Energy
resources use in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District and Southern California Gas Company
Local Environmental Setting
The site does not lie within an identified area sensitive to mineral resources. Soils within the site consist of
Myoma tine sand, these soils are well -drained and permeable. and can be used for agricultural uses though thev
are not considered to be prime agricultural soils in the State soil classification system. There is no immediate
history that the site has been utilized for any specific purpose in the recent past. and no physical evidence of
such use on the site.
A, B, C - No Impact. The proposed project has no potential to impact energy or mineral resources in anv
manner which could be considered wasteful, or of any future value to the region or State. Construction of the
project will be required to meet State energy standards as tNpically enforced by the Building and Safety
Department, and to comply with conservation policies as established in the La Quinta General Plan.
3.9 HAZARDS
Regional Environmental Setting
Although large scale. hazardous waste generating emplo-s-ment is not vet located within the Coachella Vallev.
the existence of cherrucals utilized in dry cleaning operations. agricultural operations. restaurant kitchen
m
cleaning. landscape imgaticn and exposure to large scale electncal facilities may post significant threats to
anous sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside
County: transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place.
Local Environmental Setting
i he project site is vacant and has not been used for any tape of manufacturing, agnculture or other use in the
past. The project is a residential project which is acceptable for location in the underly_ mg commercial land use
designation of Mixed Regional Commercial (M/RC).
k, B, C - No Impact. There is extremely limited potential risk of explosion and/or release of hazardous
substances due to the project, as it is residential and any such risk is associated with potential natural disaster
or accident such as fire, chermcal spill. etc. The project does not have any potential to interfere with any
emergence response plans/programs. based on its location and nature of the project land use. It also is not
considered capable of creating any health hazards.
D - Less Than Significant Impact. Potential exposure of project residents to particulate matter due to �%ind
,:�cnts will occur. as well as to employees at the Desert Sands School Distnct facility to the northwest during
construction of this project (refer to Section 3.5. Air Quality). Mitigation as proposed under the Air Qualitv
impact discussion will be adequate in reducing any potential impacts from construction. Long term impacts
of windblown sand and dust cN ill be diminished as the development is completed and vacant land is converted
to urbaruzed use.
E - No Impact. The site is not in an area susceptible to increased fire hazards relative to brush. grass or trees,
as minimal susceptible vegetation exists in the immediate area or on the site that is in a flammable state.
prrmanly due to surrounding sand deposits.
3.10 NOISE
Regional Environmental Setting
Noise levels in the City are created by a variety_ of sources in and near the City. The major sources include
chicular noise on City streets and Highway_ 111. and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels
are dominated by vehicular noise along the Highway and major arterials. but can be impacted by aircraft noise
from Bermuda Dunes. usually of a short duration.
Loral Environmental Setting
Primary noise sources in the subject area are associated with vehicle traffic from 48' Avenue and Jefferson
Street. The property is vacant and therefore not a current source of noise. The site is currently impacted by
activity at the DSUSD facility to the northwest of the site.
A - Less Than Significant Impact. Increases in noise levels are anticipated due to the proposal, though not
expected to be significant. Roadway noise will increase as traffic volumes increase. The majority of the traffic
volume in this area is and will continue to be related to other projects and pass through trips. Most of the
projects on -site uses will be minimal sources of noise, with park and recreation areas probably the greatest
noise generators. It is not anticipated that the additional traffic volumes attributable to this site's development
\\ill create any significant increases in noise levels from this source. The anticipated noise levels are not
expected to impact existing or future land uses in the immediate area.
I'A97349 wpd
17
B - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Exposure of people to significant increases in
noise levels may occur with the implementation of this project, unless appropriate mitigation is applied. In
compliance with noise mitigation requirements of Section 5.5 (Noise) of the LQRPA 02 EIR a noise
assessment of the project -specific impact potential was conducted. The applicant has redesigned the project
based on projected noise impacts, as identified in the noise assessment which was prepared by Mestre Greve
:associates. These impacts were to the single-family units backing up along 48' Avenue and Jefferson Street.
Projected noise levels along Jefferson Street required that a 10 foot sound wall be constructed to mitigate the
noise impact, with 8 feet required along 48' Avenue. Based on this and other factors as discussed in the
applicable sections of this addendum, the project was redesigned to allow reduced mitigation in order to avoid
the aesthetic impact associated with sound wall designs of the required heights. The redesign retains a
significant archaeological site. and the siting of the single family units places outdoor living areas at the side
ards, with the rear yards designated as service areas along the entire length of 48' Street. With this redesign
feature, the supplemental noise analysis indicates that no mitigation is required for the single family units,
although a six-foot wall will be constructed by the applicant along 48' Avenue up to the eastern edge of the
;cnior apartment area. The project redesign also places the senior units in the eastern portion of the project
area. minimizing their frontage along Jefferson Street, as 50% of the senior units are separated from that
roadway_ by a 28 foot wide interior access road. there are no senior units immediately adjacent to 48' Avenue.
For the senior units eight and nine foot barrier walls are required as exterior living area mitigation for noise
impacts from Jefferson Street and limited frontage along 48`s Avenue The La Quinta Evacuation Channel
provides buffering from the Desert Sands School District facility and other future potential noise -generating
land uses to the northwest. but the north portions of the project are bordered by commercial land use as
designated by La Quinta and Indio.
3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
Regional Environmental Setting
Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside Countv Sheriffs
Department. Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire
Department administers two stations in the City, Station 432 on Frances Hack Lane, and Station #70. at the
intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service.
Local Environmental Setting
Riverside Countv Fire Station 432 and Station #70 are located approximately 2 and 3 miles south of the project
site, respectively, Station #31 is located in Bermuda Dunes on 42nd Avenue and Adams Street, approximately
2 !'7 to 3 miles north of the project site. The Sheriff's office maintains a check -in facility in the City's
Emergency Operations Center. Other governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the
Civic and Senior Centers. The La Quinta branch library operates out of a 2.800 square foot office on Calle
Estado. the City is currently considering options for provision of municipal library services in lieu of the
present County operated system. The La Quinta Chamber of Commerce staffs two offices, one in the Plaza La
Qumta Center on Highwav 11 I and the other on Avenida Bermudas, in the historic downtown Village at La
Quinta. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio. and the
Eisenhower Immediate Care Clinic located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center.
A Through E - Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have varying degrees of impact to public
services. based upcn the comments received. All necessary public services can be provided to the project
i *A973.19 wpd
ithout compromising anv evstmg levels of public service. The Desert Sands Unified School District mamtams
,hat ail ncN% development �allev-wZde places additional demand for school facilities and services %\hich they are
,:urrcntly unable to pro\icie. At present. the oniv tbasible mitigation available is through school fees and land
jedicauon requirements. T-he proponents will have to pa} school fees as established by Desert Sands Unified
school District for residential pLQIects. Fhe proposal is anticipated to house approximate!% 175 to 240 senior
,:itizen residents. NOo mil have access to the La Qumta Senior Center. a 10.600 square foot facility on the
( i%ic renter site. just x%est of the City Hall building. Based on the 1 yy0 population of age being 9 69'o of
the total (1.077). it is estimated that the 191)7 population is around 1.800. assummg a similar percentage. The
number could be more due to establishment of the Senior Center in 1994 and development of 91 senior
apartments nearby m 1996. both of which could have increased that percentage. Hm&ever. the facility has
continued to provide services and has in fact expanded its activities since that time. N%ithout any significant
impact to level or quality of that service being apparent.
3.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Regional Environmental Setting
Ric CaN of La Quinta is s::ned by the Imperial Irrigation District ( IID) for electrical power suppl% and the
Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. General Telephone Exchange (GTE)
provides telephone services for the City. Continental Cablevision services the area for cable television service.
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains
its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. The City's stormwater drainage system is
administered by CVWD. which mauita.ins and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows
through the City.
The Citv is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous. rruxed
municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley
Local Environmental Setting
i'he subject site is undeveloped at present. Street and flood control improvements have been partially
,:onstructed or are in place. along Nwh sewer and water line extensions being in place. Some utilit% trunk
.:xtensions and connections will be necessary to develop the property. The site is immediately adjacent to an
IID substation facility. across 48' Avenue to the south.
A Through G - Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require some degree of alteration
to and/or extension of existing facilities: however. the responses received from the responsible purveyors do
not present anv significant concerns to indicate that major new systems or retrofitting will be necessary to serve
the protect. CVWD has required a well site at the far southwesterly corner of the project. which the applicant
has already accommodated into the project design with no sigruficant site modifications.
3.13 AESTHETICS
Local Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert vallev cove. The Santa Rosa and Coral Reef
mounLuns exist to the soudi and vest of the City. with some limited views to the north of the Indio Hills. Views
of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City
973.4U wpd
v � L
z
1. B - No Impact. The project will not have; anv impact on scenic %istas_ as the site is not proximate or in line
\�ith am scenic %iewsheds as identified in the LQN4EA The height ofthe proposed singie family structures
range from 17 t.) 114 feet. %%pile the senior apartments are 18 to _20 feet in height. The general mass of the
proiect is maintained at a iow profile. and the project architecture incorporates a low -contrasting color scheme
\�hich %gill soften the %isual impact of the structures against the mountain backdrops.
There is no evidence that the project could produce any demonstrable negative effects. from an aesthetic point
o %new The architectural. landscaping and site design components of the project are generalh consistent with
the City's adopted policies of development. as well as the General Plan. There do not appear to be any aspects
of the project which could compromise the aesthetic standards maintained by the City
C - Less Than Significant Impact. As a residential project. the proposal will create some additional light and
,tare. but considering the minimal outdoor lighttg and glare impacts commonly associated with residential
projects of this density and type. it is not considered that lighting will have any significant degree of impact on
the surrounding areas. now or in the future. Current land uses in the immediate area are residential and will
not be impacted by the lighting for this project. The Cite has adopted a -Dark Skv_ ordinance which regulates
!i>rhtins t-,pes and shielding cnaractenstics. Landscaping and other lighting plans will be conditioned for review
to be consistent with the Outdoor Light Control provisions of the Zoning Code for height shielding and ligh=g
t.pe pursuant to approvals b} the Planning Commission and Cif}- Council
3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills. The
settling of the La Quanta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta Histoncal Society in several publications
and museum exiubits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the Califorrua Historic
Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quanta General Plan.
Local Environmental Setting
The proposal is located at the northwest comer of 48' avenue and Jefferson Street. within ' _ mile of Highwav
I 1 l . a developing urbanize commercial area. No historic structures exist in the unmediate area or on site. The
site is generally barren of any significant features and shows no indication of any previous development or other
related activity. A Phase I archaeological assessment was prepared by Carol R. Demcak of Archaeological
Resource :Management Corporation. dated September 10. 1997. and reviewed bv_ the City's Histonc
Presenation Commission in October. 1997. The report findings and information are referenced in the
discussion presented in this Section. Within a one -quarter mile radius of the project area. there have been 14
archaeological sites recorded.
A - No Impact. The project site is not within the limits of the ancient lakebed of Lake Cahuilla. as indicated
on the lakebed delineation map on file in the Community Development Department.
B - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The applicant completed Phase I and II
investigations of the site. Based on the results of this testing, it was determined that a redesign of the project
in conjunction with other identified impacts. would be necessary to insure appropriate nutigauon of the
archaeological impacts. One of the five sites uncovered during Phase II testing is considered "umque" as it is
a deeply buried undisturbed resource site. This area was stated in the Phase II report to cover about 1.6 acres.
The Phase III (data recovery excavation) investigation was recently completed in order to -fulfill the
i.A97349 wpd
10
-.:quirements of .appendix K. California En tronmental Quality .-act. The site plan %Nas subsequentl% revised
>no%% the site as an open. landscaped area. %%hich reflected the assumptions of the Phase III recovers,
,rogram. The preluninan results of Phase III testing indicate that the site occupies approximately a 76 acres.
.uia is to be presencd in place as open space This is consistent %%ith the redesign of the protect as currently
"mfigureti. The pretimmjjZ ana final reports shall be submitted to the Community Development Department
,n accordance ,%ith the time lines set form in the Phase III .archaeological Data Reco%en Program proposal
f \rchaeological Ad%ison Group.
t '. D. E - Fhe cultural resources sur%e,% did not identify any historic resources on the site Development of the
protect has no potential to affect any known cultural Values. and no existing religious uses are associated with
the site.
3.15 RECREATION
Local Environmental Setting
1-lie Cav of La Qutnta nas an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources
.ind facilities and the future needs of the Cit-, The City contains approximatelx 2!1 7 acres of developed
parkland for Quimby Act purposes. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails x%ithin the Citv_ and
designated pedestrian hiking trails
i. B - No Impact. The proposed project v-111 not affect demand for recreational facilities or existing recreation.
i-he LQRPA #2 EIR recognizes that all development activit increases demand on park facilities and other
recreational resources. Consistent \Kith this. the project will provide adequate parkland and other pnvate
recreational and open space: needs for the residents it \gill attract. It is not anticipated that the demand from tlus
project for off -site recreational opportunities. such as City -sponsored recreation-onented classes and activities.
regional park space. etc.. will be other than negligible.
SECTION 4• MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Initial Study for the Village on the Green project identified no potentially significant impacts associated
with the project. The proposed Village on the Green is an implementation project undertaken pursuant to the
La Quinta Redevelopment Plan for Project Area #2.
T-he following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065
of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this initial studv:
a) The proposed Specific Plan and related applications will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment. as the project in question will not be developed in any manner
inconsistent «ith the General Plan and other current City standards. The project does not have
the potential to eliminate an important example of California prehiston•. as extensive
investigations of the site have been conducted as part of the project to implement appropriate
mitigation alternatives. The applicant has agreed to implementing the necessary rrutigation
prior to site development activities and is in concurrence with project conditions relating to
this.
\971-19 �Npd
hj The proposed Specific Plan and related applications will not ha%e the potential to achieve
<h.ort term stoals. to the disadvantage of long term emironmental goals. as the proposed
project \\ill serve to implement the La Quetta Redeveiopment Plan for Project area ;*2
j The proposed Specific Plan and related applications \till not have impacts %%hick are
individually limited but cumulati,,ely considerable \then considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate � icimty. in that the proposed project is undertaken pursuant to
a redevelopment plan for \\hich a final EIR has been certified. and no changes in conditions.
as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21 166. are applicable
d) The proposed Specific Plan and related applications vvtll not have environmental effects that
\gill adversely affect humans. either directly or indirectly. as the project contemplates uses at
a substantially reduced intensity than those already assessed under ultimate development of
the La Quetta General Plan. and «hick were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the
General Plan.
SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES
�. Earlier Analvses Used. The follov.-ing documents NNere used and/or referred to in the preparation of
this assessment:
1 La Quetta General Plan Update: October 1992
La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment: October 1992
Final EIR. La Quinta General Plan Update. SCH y 1122013. October l 9U2
Final EIR. La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area :;2 Plan. SCH 880.11 1 1 1. Jul I y88
La Quinta Housing Element. June 20. 1995
Env ironmental Assessment U � 256. prepared for the La Quetta Housing Element Updatc. certified
June 20. 1U9i
CiR of La Quetta Municipal Code. Zoning Code. adopted July 1996. amended April 1997
8 City of Indio General Plan 2020: October 1993
�i Specific Plan 97-031. Village on the Green project. Catellus Residential Group: November 1997 and
February 1998
10. Riverside County Fire Department. response letter dated 12/ 16/97
11. Riverside County Sheriffs Department. response letter dated 12/3197
12. Coachella Valley Water District. response letter dated 12/ 19/97
13. Imperial Irrigation District. response letter dated 12/3/97
14 Desert Sands Unified School District: response letter dated 12/ 1 /97
1 Preliminary Geotechmcal Evaluation. Northwest Comer of Jefferson Street and Avenue 48. La Quuita.
California: Neblett and Associates: November 14, 1997
16 Preluninary Hydrology Study. Northwest Corner Avenue 48 and Jefferson. Southwest Civil
Engineenng and Surveying: October 1. 1997
17 South Coast Air Quality ;Management Distnct. CEQA Air Quality Handbook: Apnl 1 y93
I8 Traffic Impact Analysis. Residential Development in the City of La Quinta. CA. O'Rourke
Engineering. November. 1997
A971,49 \%vd
,i J L
Biological .assessment and Impact Anai,%sis. La Quinta - Jefferson Street affordable Housinu Protect.
James w Comen Ecolovicai Consultants:.\uvust 25. l yu7
poise .Assessment for the proposed Village on the Green residentiai project. `lestrc UrcN c .-associates.
Februar\ I uuK
archaeologicai .-\ssessment of -acre Parcel in La Ouinta (La Quinta Quad). Ri\erside Count%.
Califoriva: Carol R. Demcak. Archaeological Resource Management Corporation: September 10.
'2 Proposal for Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery Program - Ca-RIV-6059. Village on the Green.
\rchaeological Ad\ isory Group. March 1 UU8
Interim Statement on .-\rchawlogical Program for Village on the Green project. La Quinta. CA, April
16. 1998
,4 City of La Quinta. .-ancient Lake Bed Delineation Map. La Quinta Communm Development
Department
1'hese and %anous other documents on file \tith the Community Development Department \sere used in the
preparation of this Laitial Stun\
8. Impacts Adequateiv Addressed. Potentially significant impacts as identified in the initial stud\
checklist have been adequately addressed . based on mitigation to be incorporated into the project
approval or %-%hich ha,,c been implemented b\ redesign of the project. The Redevelopment Plan and
EIR for Project Area #2 previously assessed impacts associated with full buildout of the Project Area.
The proposed protect is within the scope of development levels analyzed in the EIR certified for the
La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area #2 Plan. Potentially significant impacts N%ere identified with
respect to the following areas:
• Water
• Noise
• Cultural Resources
C. 'Mitigation Measures. Project -specific mitigation measures have been incorporated. as potentially
,igniricant impacts %%ere identified %.hich \\,ere addressed through project redesign and project
conditions. These measures are contained in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP)
Prepared by Date:
/1-, C-
Wallace H. :Nesbit
-associate Planner
Y-Zr- �J?
.\`477,49 upd
LO
cY)
O
O
('7
O
rn
It
cp
CL
Q
oo'
a7
N
Z
U
LLJ
cc 0
a. J
A
A
y
O
CD
dt
C'M
r-
rn
U
LE
Z
Z
U
uw
a..
0 U
w
a
Q
0
Q
C7 w >-
W U m ':
W
Q
� w
C7 p U
W
Uj
F-
S �
Z �
O U
U
w
cr
z I
o I
U
Z
O
a
c7
Z
O
Z
O
c
Z OLLZ
O
F- m �
Q
O � �
Z Z
00
CC
w
� CO a:
H
U 5
W Z
S w
`o
w W Z cm
cn W O O O cn
a Q Q Z w °x'
Z
LLJ W C7
F_OWC
OJZ cn cc
w O_ = W o_ 0 a�
LL
0 ~ 0 > o OWC o
W
S Q Q E w � m cn a)
!- -I Q
(n W .. o
LU cn Z 0 w r0 Z
L
I
�
I
c
ca
O
Z
u
a)
a) U
2N
W
O
E
-0 U
O O7
Z)
d1
U '—
M: LCU
O
CL
0 Y
~
_a.
C m
cn
O
.-
U
=
cn
CL
w
W
Q
N
ptn
O
W
O
Z
m
Z C7
co
Q
F
w >-
U m
Z �
Q w
a U
k
} w
E
O
p Co p
C U
C
Q
y .
F—
C- U
N
U
O
cr ai .. L m
m
co O cn
m
O '—
CL >
,
V^ ,°^
/ V r�
„
�L
O O
r
U
U •C
co U
co
C O
'C N
a. L
a_ n. L
p•
C O
r
f0
E
m
2
Ll
O
C
w
m O
� O
c
rn F_
N
N
Z Z
O
C
O.
>O
E
Cl.
�?
CLU0
acn
O
U CD
O O
C
vi
N «'
y
O
Ol
U
U U
CD 0
aj cn
N
a`+ O
O O N
U 1
of
O Q
0
(7 W
� �
O
to
O
CIO a)
W
•_ U- C
LU
L
L O
U O
z
`�
C
y C
cn
w
°
co
°
m U
m
., v c
3
>
U
w
C
C
cCo a�i
cn CM rn
w
N O -Y. �
—
—
E
Q
E O °
N co �
zi
J
°
Z
O
°
F—
°
0
O
co
L1J
�'
_
O
Q U
O CL C
U �—
M
U. v) of
r
Q E
'
Z a
Q w
n- U
W
T
O U
J
� y
MCI
�
� -p
y co _ �
Ln
cr
w
1
- C
w
p
-
au
y z
a
_
o
a
O
? � cu
L o
-O
Ua.U0
f 'D
'
C7
y ro ro
C cn
L
cn
o
> ..
cn L
O a� vi
0_ ..
Z
C y
y
ma y
o
U
c0
O a)
~
L
_
a) CL
O ' a
On O)
C: CD o
0
0 E o
C. 0 0_
a a -0
ca
c
y
y
I W
�
y
O
O
0
o
Z
>
Y
c
Oa.
''
0 y
U
a
w
cc
U
o
U
O
CD
U
at
CL C]
Q y
U y
y
a) >
-0
p7
C
L C
L L
C
O
U c0
O
_
O U
" I�
Z
CL tJ
�+
U y
o
.�, .`
N-
O7
r
to
a c9
—
C N
a� p
O O 'r
..
a
co
I^
— y
C
O
Q
m
—
=
N
y
� `-
E> r
cUn
►_- CC
co
ca
C�
ai
= f° ca
io > 0
a
O
y
z-
c�-
cn
c
U.
cn
n
W
c
m
T<
a
b
>
d
c
p
Q
D
C,W
(n X
tn
L a7
m >
U
C.
2
y
W
U
cn
.. J
C
a
C
W
o
co
>
y
co
o
W
3 m o
U
o a
c j
a
C
t-
a
V
a
n
c
>
cn
> a5
C o
cn o
O
0
�
O
-
W
-1
c
O
O
U
Q
C U U
�_ _
=
c0
a
to
S]
N t0
O
m
O
O
W
C cD
O O y
N�
0
m
y •�
M
O
CL n7
ca
a
y
-j 6
Z
O
F-
CM
I-
E
U U
M
0-0 an
a-. `_-
W
�
I
Q
i
I
Q 0
� U
W
O =
a
I
Ia
�
5
ll.l
F-
CO
CL
�
L d
U �
c> > v
_ _
v
O
Z
O`
"
- c
I
O
m
n c ro -
(/i O. U ro
C
c0
I
r_
L O
U y
(n F-
Z
O
a0
o
U
d
r
U
> C
c�0
Q1 O
Z
U O
ro
ll., �
O
ro a
L
`'
ro
_
d
W
.• C
a
>
=
U
Q
Vi
m N
C)
N
> 11
} Q
),
f .
z >,
C a•
`
a0
Q
vi
°
O C
` CO m
W
Q
J
(fl
a'
O
ro
a. — U
Q
(�% c,
U
U
m
a
ro
M
d
ro
c
c
ro•
_
�U `n
s
in
C
a
CDtr3
.j a'
(n
O
z
m
O
ro
n
W
N
n. o Fn
I
Q
w >-
U m
Z 0
Q w
a U
� w
O J
J
Y
Y
� N
C o O
U C
w
- 4)
U
LL >
CJ °
O_
J a- .
m Y C
Z
a y °
�
N
> E
o y
n. a
ca
E CL E
c
�
c E
i m
a) a
C7
_o
a)
w Z
m ai
CL
0
m O
C
a
O .�
E
LU
O a)
CL u 0
Q _
> .
° O
O
U
C o
a
U
_
H
c0 m
CL
.,
ai
°
cNo
(n d
cn
C� W
Z
O
.. >
C7
c
CD °
C
c
° N
C i
co
LL
U
`n
++>
�cn
QZ
L, co
�
°
U
C U
F- O
o
(A
U
CL a
N
Q
c
� c
�
C
,^
<
cn
m
Y
1 E
-acr
cn
E ED
to
ch
N
-j '.S
O
Z
Cc
O
2 E
aai
U cNo o 5 ,`
�v5
\ � |� � (� �
)
E r-)
0
R CC)
>
U 0
cn
M
g
\
/\
\
>
LLJ
cc
.
j
7:� ;7-
/
>
(D
0 m IF >
>\
/X
U LL I -0
— CD
0 CL
cu
0
a-
C:
Cc
a) a)
0
ul Z
\
\
.
0
m>
>
CL
uj
::3
cL
c 3
C:
u CL
cu
z
L) M
m
C:
0
0
CL
E
0
UA
C)
5--:
UJ
U cc
C:
U M
a)
cn M _g_—
c LL
>
M
—
0
cu
CD C:
0 0
uj
m
cl
5
-0
(n cr m u
0 cm M
cL
/
0
m
\ k
k
E CD
®
/
U
m>
>
co
® u
LU
CD
cn
E in
w
0 0 o
(3)
—
LU
> c)
ca TZCDCV)
—j :7— 0
0
CL
CL IL
c
m
Z
m
O
�
Q
W
U
F' =
W
O
N
Z
U
o
W
W
m
a
ad 0
} m
G
tii
cCv O
a�
O
•
M
Q'
cf
Z W
CL
U
a)
M
O
a)W
O
Q
C
M
O
Z
m
O
.0
n. E
W
O
Z
!
_
m
¥
�
�
3
�
� $
GO
dm
�e
\¥
f o
c
.
CIO[
uj
\
!
_
%
k E
cvi /
c
m $
§
/
k
¥
\
,m
/
a) in
@ 'c
®
Lu
/
:
/ at
0
�
\
i \
XLU
/
k /
« Scnc
c
\ m5
�
..
G
° 2
2,
/ q
«
2
C_ 2
u
_ c
/
ƒ
k
/ CD 0
q —
U.1co
�
5 G
«
Q 2
/ k
co
0
E
? 3 {
4 �.
w >••
U m
Z Q
Q w
J Y
CL U
� w
O =
U U
cU
° co
CC
cl
CL
CL
,....
Qc(o
Q
a
m
n.
I
N
n
E
4]
O
Cl.
a
iC7
m
m
z
c
0
0
0
0
C c
C
Q ♦�
OL
ca
CL
_I
? D =
m
_
m Q
m cu 0
>
Q)
in
:::
:>: s>i••.
w
:•:><::
o> >
m >
U CLm
U
w cu W
c cn
C:
ocn
U
U
cnC
d-
O c 0
`L
co
OI O
Z
O
co
CL
N
ca cu
Cl. >
>
c
cts
°
�.
E N
E
cn
E °'
o> °'
rn
c
o
o
cn
°
C
c(n
C7 W
c
T
9
.cn
O c� >°
C
o
C
0
o
aci m"
CD
`- E
> Q
°�
c>
c
O
c ai m
n• `-
cu E
c
W
—
CM
cn
cm LL
a
E
cD
Q
to
a�
cn
1a
y �,
o
E
LU
N
m
C
°
>•
>
E
`°
a
W
°� U
CL (°n
CD aD
n
CD
O
O
cm
CD
H
C
av;
_
EQ
aN
m
Z
,c—,
�
c
U
t9
c
cCa
Ci
m
cn
co
p
N
(n
X
C n
O X
�
m
�.
E
:o
o
Q
W
0 N cu>
O' N°
'-
cn cn
c
O
m
cn
cn
O
� °'
a °'
O
_
.E
O cn
CL c m 0
U 3
p
c
n
w ! I
Q
D
w >-
U m
Q 0
]C
a U
U
N
c0 c9 O p N
L
U
O C O O
Q.
U w
� cc N
N
i
CD
a C C
cu O O
o
0
O
U
v-
O U
Q
Q
E L
M lL m n.
a
ri w
O N
c Q.
N C C
O
D
M CD U U .�
N L?
ui
— — CD
N
U M M c0
O
LU
Q
LLd
rn
C O_ ..
cm
a+ N �.
w
E
410 � `N
di
O
L W N
F-
U
cC E E
un
a
t- °'
w
a� m
N
m
O
W
O QQan.
t�
J U
m m .E cc
Q CC .-. n cn
WC
? OJ
a+
C N
C
N ` cn
O
Cc
" U
Z
cv
a
a
-0
O
a cn ... b
E
(n
0
-
a
O cn
c c
w
c a a
o
Co
U cc p
y
c0
CL C
�O
cn
aten
C C
Q
C co
"
U
L
'= O
.
O
�W
E
L11
O C O
CrCU
J
O U O
>
N
W
C
U
=
� �
N
cn o m
_
cq
Q
a
E .> O
r.
of E
OU
to
W
i Q
m
ram.. cn
2
O
M-
U to m
w
i
r
Q
❑
a
lL }
U t1�
Z ❑
Q LU
J ]C
o- U
i 5 w
� p U
U
CO O
Q
O uO
w
O
rn r
U
o (n O
U � O
(n ccu .L
w
O
N
(�
U
c9
O L
O
NCL
O c
O �
C "
c0 w
a
C c0
Lf)
O O
y
�
u-
w Z
n.
O
m O
> C
F-
O c0
cc
> c
a
W
07 E
':<•:
: s3's
E a
LN
. . . . .
+
U_ 4;
_
O N
L
•3 C
Z
V
cn CD o
U
(D
O
U
ro
>. >
N
1-
acn
a
c m
tO�
w
E
—
O
O�
U
f
+• !-
C
to
N O
C
Q
U
m
U
"-
U
CU °
ca
a
w
Q
w
Q
m
n.
.�
c O
UJ
L u1
N
a
= >^ c
0
cn
w
Q
CL
m -
s m
co
�
_
m o
U
ch
E
F— c�
cn
w
LCL
cn
W
c`o
,�-
M
O
Z
N Oa) c
-j cc
O
O
F- cr
cu 0 0
cL n`_
Q
w >-
U a0
Z ❑
Q w
J Y
a U
� w
O =
U U
to U N N N
U a. CLEr
Q
C ...
O O O +; O
LU
':K
~
�
— Q L C
O `
CDc9 O —
U
.. N
UCH > c0 N�
�_ o •- N uj
I U U E rn _
p
c`o
U
J
C7
c >
Z
N •`J
� U
►-
a�
°� c
c
m
o ro
o
m E
LL Z
a)
n
w
O
O CL
a)
Z z
:f.... s
E OL
-
E n
: >:f..
yGj
U O
U a.
0
O
�
cv
i
Q '
a)
Y-
::
(n
o a)
aD O
N U
Z
= a•
Q'
O_
w
cm
CL
E =
- p
_ api
co ca
_
co
~
E in
o a)
L)
= c
L
Ui
a�
�.
(Ao
RJ
m
N
O
W
acn Z
O
_ O
O .N
L
(=W
CL
N
❑
ca N
` V) m
E
} Q
.J
�U—
C"
Ci
a L
C L O
C p
cm
c
W
Q
cm
E(3)
CL to
U
o
Q
to U
q
CL
E •o >
M
,
cm
to
o -
m °= a�
C
a
o) .-
J
°
�,
U
>
N
`a �
a) .
c
_ cm
� p
rn
O
U
o
«- m
cv
a
p-
U
D
a� E
O
°
«. E
E>-
co
,
0
`o m
�
l'
L
0
Q
OU O
E
N
cu
($
7
O
p
t�
p N
W
O +'
O
U a)
U
O U
rr
a. m
Z
O
F— s
cA ° w
T a.
w
c`o
Q
� � I
c; m
z�
ct cl, I
EL
U i
LLl
I
.x
Z
ro
a
O
L)
1-
a �,
D
(� W
a vi
Z
U
o
(n
>- a
co
O
Li W
F.,
.-
O
W
�
W
U %.
Cu
E U
a�
CL
cLn
U
w
r
.-
o
E°
o
M
Z
®
J co
Z
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-057
APPLICANT: CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP/
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta. California, did, on
the 12th day of May. 1998. hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider modifying the Circulation
Element by adding new street width option to the "Local Street" and "Cul-De-Sac" categories on
fable CIR-2 (as shown on Exhibit 13) to allow private residential streets to be as narrow as 28 feet
xvide. curb -to -curb. it adequate off-street parking is provided, and if the CC&R's for the
development adequately restrict on -street parking and ensure parking restrictions are enforced by the
homeowners' association, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Village on the Green is an implementation action under
the La Quinta Redevelopment Plan for Project Area 42. An EIR was certified for this Plan by the
City Council (State Clearing House 488041111). Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21090, all
actions taken to implement a Redevelopment Plan are deemed a single project and no further
environmental review is necessary beyond analysis of project -specific impacts. Therefore an
Environmental Assessment as an Addendum to the EIR was prepared to determine whether the
conditions referenced in Public Resources Code Section 21166 are present, and
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Impact
Report for Redevelopment area No. 2 :addendum thereto. 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 -Finding of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said
General Plan Amendment:
The new narrower street widths for private streets are appropriate because parking
restrictions, which are enforced by the homeowners' association, are placed on one or both
sides of the street depending on street width to ensure safe unimpeded two-way traffic.
2. The conditions outlined in Public Resources Code 21166 are not present.
NOW. TI IEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta. California, as follows:
11:,C1iRISTI\PCRES0GPA98-077
Plannm, Commission Resotunon 98-
general Plan Amendment 98-057
l-hat the above recitation is true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission
in this case:
l hat it does herebv recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 99-; 5 7. Addendum
to the EIR for Rcde�elopment Project Area No. 2. indicating that the proposed General Plan
Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts as mitigated by the
recommended Conditions of approval:
chat it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described General Plan Amendment
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 i _'th day of May. 1998. by the following vote. to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER. Chairman
City of La Quinta. California
,\ fTEST:
JERRY HERMAN. Community Development Director
Citv of La Quinta. California
I':,CHRISFFPCRESOGPA98-o57
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28601 TO ALLOW A 90-LOT
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 86 LOTS
FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, FOUR LOTS FOR 118
SENIOR APARTMENTS AND LETTERED LOTS "A"
THROUGH "G" ON APPROXIMATELY 34.4 ACRES
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28601
APPLICANT: CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP/LA QUINTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
%V IEREAS. the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta. California, did on
the 12th day of :viay. 191)8. hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to review the request for a 90 lot
subdivision with l--ttered lots located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 48th Avenue,
more particulariv described as:
A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 29 TOWNSHIP
5 SOUTH RANGE 7 EAST
SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN
WHEREAS, the proposed Village on the Green is an implementation action under
the La Quinta Redevelopment Plan for Project Area t#2. An EIR was certified for this Plan by the
City Council (State Clearing House 48041111). Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21090, all
actions taken to mplement a Redevelopment Plan are deemed a single project and no further
environmental review is necessary beyond analysis of project -specific impacts. Therefore an
Environmental Assessment as an Addendum to the EIR was prepared to determine whether the
conditions referenced in Public Resources Code Section 21166 are present.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the EIR for Redevelopment
:area #2 and addendum thereto: and,
WHEREAS at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make
the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said
Tentative Tract Map 28601:
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan, Zoning Code, and
Subdivision Ordinance.
P^pc Res I728601.%kpd �� r
Planning Commission ReSOILtlion 98-
The property is designated Mixed. Regional Commercial. Per General Plan Policy 3.1.6
the proposed High Density Residential and Medium High Density residential uses are
allowed. The Housing Element also has policies requiring a mixture of housing types and
densities -,uided by Specific Plans %%Rhin the Mixed, Regional Commercial area. The
proposed density is 5.9 du,acre. which is well within the density allowed for HDR-N IHDR
uses. :,i Specific Plan processed concurrently with the Tract Llap establishes the
development standards and is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the General
Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met.
13. I'he design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta
c ienerai ?fan and any applicable specific plans.
All streets and improvements in the project, as conditioned, will conform to City standards
as outlined in tEe General ['Ian, Subdivision Ordinance, and The `'illaue on the Green
Specific Plan. All on -site streets are private and designed in accordance with (Chapter 3.0)
Of the General Plan with the exception of the General Plan Amendment request to reduce
private streets from 36 feet to 32 feet and 28 feet given certain requirements are met.
C. The design of the subdivision, or the proposed improvements, are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat.
The vacant site is suitable for development based on the project's Biology Study included
in the Environmental Assessment prepared for this proiect. Development will not cause
substantial environmental damage, or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat provided
mitigation measures are met.
D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likelv to cause serious public
health problems.
The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved. will not cause serious public health
problems because they will install urban improvements based on City. State, and Federal
requirements.
E. The design of the subdivision. or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.
The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each residential lot. The project
will be instrumental in causing new area -wide public infrastructure improvements to be
constructed, which will benefit both existing development and other future development,
including but not limited to street improvements and public utility improvements.
11:1pc Res rT'8601.wpd
I'lannin,* Commission Resolution 98-
1:. Fhe conditions outlined in Public Resources Code 21 166 are not present.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE- IT RESOLVED by the Manning Commission of the City
of I_a Quinta. California. as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the finds of the Planning
Commission in this case:
That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 28601
or 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
Planninu Commission. held on the 12th day of May. 1998. by the followinu vote. to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER. Chairman
Citv of La Quinta. California
:ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN. Community Development Director
City of La Quinta. California
P pc Res FT 28601.N%pd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 28601
1IAN' 12, 1998
t 'pon their approvai by the City Council, the Cite Clerk is directed to file these Conditions of
Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which
they apply.
Tentative Tract Map 28601 shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§ 66410-
66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision :Map .act) and Chapter 13 of
the La Quinta Municipal Cede (LQ1NIC).
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building
or use contemplate,:. by this approval. the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from
the followi_ag public agencies:
• Fire '.Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit. Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District
• Imperial Irrigation District
• California Regional Water Qualitv Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans.
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 include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans
submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the
applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for
review by the Public Works Department.
4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted
Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
P: `.C11RISTIIPC COATT28601
�r
Plannine Commission Resolution 98-_
Conditions of Approval
TT 28601 - May 12, 1998
PROPERTY RIGHTS
All easements. ri`Ths of wav and other property rights required of the tentative map or
otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of
improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said
dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map, parcel map,
or a waiver of parcel map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant
easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all
essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels.
6. Prior to approval of a final map, parcel map or grading plan and prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary, or permanent 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.
7. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights ofway. or access
easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant
shall provide approved alternate rights of way, or access easements to those properties, or
notarized letters of consent from the property owners.
8. The applicant shall dedicate public and private street right of way and utility easements in
conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as
required by the City Engineer.
O. Dedications required of this development include:
V Off -me Streets
1. Jefferson Street - 60 feet half street width, except for southerly portion from
:Avenue 48 centerline to 370 feet north, which shall be a 80 half street width.
2. :avenue 48 - 55 feet half street width.
B. On -site Streets - The street widths shall be as shown on the tentative map.
Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes,
bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans.
If the City Engineer determines that public access rights to proposed street rights of way
shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights
of way, the applicant shall grant temporary public access easements to those areas within 60
days of written request by the City.
P:\CHR1ST1\PCC0ATT28601 J
P!annme Commission Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval
FT 23601 - May 12. 1998
the applicant shall dedicate 1040ot public utility casements contiguous with and along both
sides of all private streets.
i 1. Mlle applicant shall create perimeter setback lots. of minimum width as noted. adjacent to the
following street rights of way:
V Jefferson Street - 20 feet wide.
13. Avenue 48 - 20 feet wide.
Minimum widths may be used as average widths if meandering wall designs are approved.
Required setback areas or lots shall apply to all existing and proposed street frontage of the
parcel or pcscels heing subdi%idea including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and lots
dedicated or deedea to others such as water well and power substation sites.
Where public sidewalks are placed on privately -owned setback lots. the applicant shall
dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots.
1 I�he applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to the following streets from lots abutting
the streets:
.•.Jefferson Street
B.Avenue 48
Direct access to these streets shall be restricted to access points listed hereinafter or as
approved by the City.
1 The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility
lines and structures. drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas.
14. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this
property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any
final maps; covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by
the City Engineer.
FINALMAP
15. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad tiles of the
complete map, as approved by the City's map checker. on storage media and in a program
format acceptable to the City Engineer. The tiles shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices
so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
P:`CHRISTnPCCOATT28601 �'J
Planntne C.)mmtsston Resolution 98- _
Conditions of Approval
TT 28601 - Mav 12, 1998
If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a the format which can be converted to AutoCad,
the Citv Engineer may accept raster -image tiles of the map.
IMPROVENIENT PLANS
16. Improveme:nt plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36"
media in the categories of "Rough Grading." "Precise Grading." "Streets & Drainage," and
"Landscaping." .�11 puns except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City
Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development
Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are
sinned.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals. sidewalks, bike paths, gates and
entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage
plans. the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water
Distnct (CVW'D). lEhe combined plans shall be signed by CV�VD prior to their submittal for
the City Engineer's signature.
"Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation. lighting, and
perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer.
17. 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.
18. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the
applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage
media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices
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 including approved revisions to the plans.
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 tiles of the plans.
IMPROVEMEN-" AGREEMENT
19. 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.
P:`,CIIRISTr PCCOATT:8601 �j
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval
TT 28601 - Nlav 12, 1998
Improvements to he made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or
ohstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
10. If improvements are secured. the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement
costs. 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 utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall
be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable
improvements. however, tract 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.
1. If improvements are phased with multiple tinal maps or other administrative approvals (plot
plans, conditional use permits. etc.). off -site improvements and development -wide
improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be
constructed or secLred prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the
City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and
satisfied pr-or to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase
unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer.
2. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for applicant's
required share of improvements which have been or will be constructed by others
( participatory improvements).
Participatory improvements for this development include:
%. Existing traffic signal at Jefferson Street/Avenue 48 - 25%
B. Avenue 48: north half of existing street improvements - 100°'0
C. Jefferson Street: west half of future landscaped median - 100%
The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the participatory improvements may, at the
City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program if
this development becomes subject to such a program.
GRADIN r
�;. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The
land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water. erosion
control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Forks Departments.
P: CHRISTITCCOATT28601
Plannine Commission Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval
I'T 28601 -May 12. 1998
4. Prior to occupation of the proiect site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and
receive approval of a Fu�.titive Dust Control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
LOMC. In accordance %tiIth said Chapter. the applicant shall tumish security, in a form
acceptable to the City. in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of
the permit.
-15. I'he applicant shal_ comply with the Citv's Flood Protection Ordinance.
26. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the
"soils report") with the grading plan.
27. :k `?rading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of
the Citv Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The -rading plan shall conform with
the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer
or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required
of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the
Health and Safety Code.
28. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at the interface of this
development with abutting properties and of separate tracts and lots within this development.
Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for
lots within a tract. but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not
exceed five feet. If compliance with this requirement is impractical, the City will consider and
may approve alternatives %khich minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
'9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing
the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual
building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation
approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if
any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted
at different times.
DRAINAGE
30. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the
following:
31. The design of the development shall not cause anv increase in flood boundaries, levels or
frequencies in any area outside the development.
P:\CHR1STI\PCC0ATT2860I
Plannine Commission Resolution 98-
Conuitwns of Approval
rT 28601 - Vtav 12. 1998
sto=vater falling on site during the peal- 14-hour period of a 100-year storm ( the design
storm) shall he retained vvithin the development unless otherwise approved by the City
l:nianneer. Fhe tributary drainate area shall extend to the centerline ofadjacent public streets.
stormwater shalt normally he retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins or
other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2'1 acres in size or
I
arger or %ti aere the use of ,:omtnon retention is determined by the City Engineer to be
impracticable. If indi� idual-lot retention is approved. the applicant shall meet all individual -
lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24. LQMC.
,4. 'Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated overflow outlet
and into the historic drainage relief route.
Storm drainage historically_ received from adjoining property shall he received and retained
or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
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.
,7. Ifnot specified otherwise in Specitic Plan 97-031. the retention basin slopes shall not exceed
1. If retention is on individual lots, the retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If
retention is �n one or more common retention basins, the retention -depth shall not exceed six
'3. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. A tricklin4: sand filter and leachfield of a design
approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. the sand filter) s)
shall be sized to percolate gallons per house per hour. I'he leachfield line(s) shall be sized
to percolate 20 gallons per house per day.
•9. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g.. the La
Ouinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriffs Department), all areas of common
retention basins shall be visible from the adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be
constructed around retention basins except as approved by the Community Development
Director and the City Engineer.
40. Ifthe applicant proposes drainage of stormwater from a design storm directly or indirectly to
public waterways, the applicant and. subsequently, the Homeowners' Association shall be
responsible for any sampling and testing of the development's effluent which may required
under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program and
for anv other obligations and,'or expenses which may arise from the such discharge of the
development's stormwater or nuisance water. The tract CC & Rs shall reflect the existence
of this potential obligation.
P : ` CIiRISTP, PCCOATT28601
Plannine Commission Resolution 98-
Conditions of :approval
FT 28601 - Mav 12. 1998
t 'TILITIES
41. All existing and proposed utilities within or adiacent to the proposed development shall be
installed underground. oitage power lines which the power authority v011 not accept
underground are exempt from this requirement.
42. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be
installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified
reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer.
STREET :AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
I -he City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the
program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation ofany final map or issuance of a certificate
of compliance for any waived final map. the development or portions thereof mav_ be subject
to the provisions of the ordinance.
If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the applicant
shall be responsible "or all street and traffic improvements required herein.
44. I -he follow :ng minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General
Plan street type noted in parentheses:
V OFF -SITE STREETS
Jefferson Street - Construct 514eet half of 10246ot (curbface to curbface)
improvement plus a 6-60ot wide meandering sidewalk.
Avenue 48 - Construct a 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
B. ON -SITE PRIVATE STREETS
The on -site residential street shall be constructed per the concepts shown on Sheets C3
and C6 in Specific Plan 97-031.
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 Enumeer.
45. .access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follolis:
A. Full turn access to Avenue 48 from Street A.
13. Right turn only (in and out) access to Avenue 48 from Street F.
P:`C11RISTI`PCCOATT_'86Q1
Planning Commission Resolunon 98-
Conditions of Approval
TT 23601 - May 12. IQ98
-Ifs. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings
and devices. raised medians it required. ,treet name signs. sidewalks. and mailbox clusters
approved in design and location by the t'.S. Post Office and the Citv Engineer. N/lid-block
street lighting is not required.
47. Fhe Citv Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such
as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions. street width transitions, or other
incidental work "hich ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated
with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices.
49. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by
registered professional engineers) authorized to practice in the State of California.
Improvements shall he desiuned and constructed in accordance with the t.QMC, adopted
Standard and Supplemental Drw,\ Ings and Specifications. and as approved by the City
I:nuineer.
41). Street right of way geometry for cuss de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform
with Riverside County Standard Drawings tt800.::801. and »805 respectively unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
�0. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and
constructed with vertical curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey
nuisance water without ponding and to facilitate street sweeping.
1. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall
consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction
traffic). I he minimum pa,. ement sections shall be as follows:
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c.14.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0" 15.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be
designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic
volumes.
Fhe applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base
materials. Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab
results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the
submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed For
construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be
reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be
scheduled until mix designs are approved.
P:\CIIRISTI\PCCOAT7"r8601 i
P?annlnR Commission Resolution 98- _
Conditions oI Approval
FT 28601 - Mav '12. 1998
l=inal inspection and occupancy of homes or ether permanent huildings within the
11-velopment Mill not be approved until the homes or permanent buildings have improved
access. including street and sidewalk improvements. traffic control devices and street name
;inns. to publicly -maintained streets. If on -site streets are initially constructed with only a
portion of the full thickness of pavement. the applicant shall complete the pavement when
directed by the City. but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten percent
of homes Within the tract.
i.A`DSCAPItiG
�3. Perimeter walls and required landscaping for the entire perimeter to be enclosed shall be
constructed prior to final inspection and occupancy of any homes within the tract unless a
phasing plan or construction schedule is approved by the City Engineer.
- -4. Fhe applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas or i.ots
along the following streets:
.k. Jefferson Street.
13. :avenue 48
��. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots. landscape setback areas. medians. common
retention basins. and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development
Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall he submitted to the Public
Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved
for construction until thev have been approved and signed by the City Engineer. the Coachella
`'alley Water District. and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
56. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the
right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
57. 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 5-
feet of curbs along public streets.
�8. t'nless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. common basins and park areas shall be
designed with grades and turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -
mounted equipment.
59. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility_ plans are coordinated to -provide
visual screening of above -:round utility structures.
P: � CHRISTITCCOATT28601
Planntne Commission Resolution 98- _
Conditions of Approval
FT 23601 - \-tav i2. 1998
111 '13LIC SERVICES
oo. the applicant shall provide public transit amenities as required by Sunline Transit and/or the
Enuineer. I'hese amenities shall include. as a minimum. a bus turnout location and
passenger waiting shelter along the following, street:
.V Jefferson Street
the location and character of the turnout and shelter shall be as determined by Sunline Transit
and the City Engineer.
OVALITY ASSURANCE
(11. the applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval
of the Citv Lrimneer.
6the subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement. sampling, and testing not
included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide
evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. Testing
shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer,
after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized.
63. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors. as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide,
sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign
accurate record drawings.
04. I'pon completion of construction. the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans which were signed by the Citv Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings
shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on
each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy
of the draw-ngs. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the
Citv to reflect the as -constructed condition.
MAINTENANCE
65. Fhe applicant shall make provisions for continuous and perpetual maintenance of all required
improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by the City.
FEE.S :AND DEPOSITS
66. the applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makes application for plan checking and permits.
P:\CIIRISTI\PCCOATT128601
P?annine Commission Resolution IJS-
Condttions of Appro•�at
TT'_8601 - "fay l'. 1L)98
67. Prior to apprtwal oi' a final map or completion of am approval process for modification of
boundaries of the property subject to these conditions. the applicant shall process a
reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pad the cost of the
reapportionment.
NIISCEILA EOI'S
08. .applicant agrees to indemnify. defend, and hold harmless the Citv of La Quinta in the event
of anv legal claim or litigation arising out of the Citv's approval of this project. The City of
t.a Ouinta shall hale the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion.
P:\CHRISTI`PCCOATT28601 � w i
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITE' OF LA Qt'INTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
SPECIFIC PLAN 97-031
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 97-031
XPPLIC ANT: CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP/
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta. California, did on
the 12th day of %lay. 1998. hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Specific Plan 97-031 to
allow a mixed use residential development consisting of 118 Senior Apartments and 86 Single
1=amily Residences on 34.4 acres, located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 48th
\venue. more particularly described as:
\ PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 29 "TOWNSHIP
SOt "I'll RANGE 7 EAST
SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN
WHERE kS. the proposed Village on the Green is an implementation action under
the La Quinta Redevelopment Plan for Project Area #2. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
certified for this Plan by the City Council ( State Clearing House 1;88041 1 1 1). Pursuant to Public
Resources Code 21090. all actions taken to implement a Redevelopment Plan are deemed a single
project and no further environmental review is necessary beyond analysis of project -specific impacts.
Fherefore an Environmental Assessment as an Addendum to the EIR was prepared to determine
whether the conditions referenced in Public Resources Code Section 21166 are present: and,
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission has considered the EIR for Redevelopment
Area ;7-2 and addendum thereto. and.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
argument, 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 97-031:
That the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta
General Plan in that the property is designated Mixed/Regional Commercial which permits
the residential uses proposed for the property and is consistent with the goals, policies and
intent of the General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. A
General Plan Amendment is being processed concurrently to reduce street widths from 36
feet to 32 and 28 feet.
P: CHRISTP,pc Res sp 97-031.�%pd
7,01 r
Mannme t ommission Re.solunon 0-
,,necitic flan 97-I)31
Mat the Specific Plan xxiil not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health,
safety and general %�elfare in that development per the Specific Plan will provide for
extensive public improvements and conforms to good land use practice by encouraging a
comprehensive approach to development of a mixed use senior apartments and single family
detached residential neighborhood.
the Specific Plan is compatible with the zoning of adjacent properties in that the site is
bounded by compatible residential uses will ensure potentially negative impacts, such as
noise and lighting. as they will be reduced to a level of insignificance by landscape buffers,
walls. site contigurations and shielding to prevent glare and spillage are incorporated into the
project. Residential uses to the east (across Jefferson Street), consists of a mobile home park
in Indio and residential.
1. Fhe Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the subject property provided the measures
of the EIR and Conditions of Approval are met. The EIR is a detailed plan for development
in a specific area. I'he La Quinta Storm Channel serves as a buffer from the Desert Sands
School District Administration Center. A six foot perimeter wall will separate the Senior
Apartments from Indio's commercially designated property.
Fhe conditions outlined in Public Resources Cod 21166 are not present.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case:
That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Specific Plan 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 12th of May. 1998. by the following vote, to wit:
:AYES:
NOES:
:1BSENT:
ABSTAIN:
P: CHRISTFpc Res sp 97-031.%tipd
r ",l�Uli
,, J u
P!,inninu ( onlmi»ion ReNMuuon 08-
�recuic 11!sn )'-1)31
RICH BUTLER. Chairman
Cite of La Quinta. California
1TTEST:
JERRY HERMAN. Community Development Director
Cite of La Quinta. California
P: CIIRISTI pc Res sp 97-031.\�pd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF .APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 97-031
itAY 12, 1998
t JENERAL
t 'pon their approN al by the Cite Council, the City Clerk is directed to file these Conditions of
Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which
they apply.
Prior to issuance of the grading permit. the applicant shall revise
prototype unit specified for Lot 1 shall be changed so that the courtyard is in the
front or sidevard and shall not be located in the rear yard, adjacent to avenue 48.
13. the monument Signs proposed for the medians shall be deleted and the brass lettering
shall be placed on the perimeter �,vall.
C. "I'he %-illage Creen shall have a 3:1 slope with a 14'o cross slope.
%,11SCELLANE01'S
3. applicant agrees to :ndemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Ouinta in the event
of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of
La Quinta shall have :he right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion.
P: �.CHRISTI\PC COAS P97-03 I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-618 FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THREE PROTOTYPE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSES (EACH WITH TWO
DESIGN .ALTERNATIVES) AND THREE PROTOTYPE
SENIOR APARTMENT UNITS AND ASSOCIATED SENIOR
RECREATIONAL FACILITY.
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-618
APPLICANT: CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUPILA QUINTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
W IERLAS. the Planning Commission of the City of La Ouinta. California, did on
the 12th day of :/1av, 1998. 'gold a duly noticed Public Hearing to review the development plans for
three prototype single family residential houses (each with two design alternatives) and three
prototype senior apartment units and associated senior recreational facility, more particularly
described as:
PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST HALF
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 29 TOWNSHIP
5 SOUTH RANGE 7 EAST
SAN BERNARDINO :MERIDIAN
\VaIEREAS. the proposed Village on the Green is an implementation action under
the La Quinta Redevelopment Plan for Project Area ;;2. An EIR was certified for this Plan by the
City Council ( State Clearing House #88041111). Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21090, all
actions taken to implement a Redevelopment Plan are deemed a single project and no further
environmental review is necessary beyond analysis of project -specific impacts. Therefore an
Environmental Assessment as an Addendum to the EIR was prepared to determine whether the
conditions referenced in Public Resources Code Section 21166 are present: and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the EIR for Redevelopment
Area #2 and addendum thereto: and.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any. of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make
the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Site
Development Permit 97-618:
P:`CHRISTI\Res SDP 97-618.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Site Development Permit 97-618
the proposed residential development is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the
propem is designated tilixed, Regional C ommercial (%t RC). The Land Use Element ( Policy
_3.7) of the 1992 (general Plan I'pdate allows residential uses. fhe project is consistent
with the goals. policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan land Use Element ( Chapter
�) provided conditions are met.
]'he proposed residential development is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Village on the Green Specific Plan in that the project is a permitted use and will comply with
the development standards and design guidelines provided conditions are met.
the residential development will be consistent with the City's Zoning Code and the Village
on the Green Specific Plan provided conditions are met.
1. the site design including the vehicular and pedestrian circulation of the proposed project
contributes to the high quality of residential development on in the Citv.
["he landscape design along Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street generally conforms with the
C itv's Landscape Design Guidelines. The Adams Street landscape setback is also of a high
quality landscape design.
the architectural design of the project is compatible with development on avenue 48 and
Jefferson Street in that it is a similar scale of other developments in the area, the building
materials will be aesthetically pleasing, and provide a blend of varied surfaces and variety
of textures. provided conditions are met.
The sign design of the project will provide a neighborhood identity using common elements
ot'size..:otor. and materials and will be complementary_ to the City entry signs approved for
Ilighway 111.
S. The conditions outlines in Public Resources code 21166 are not present.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission
in this case;
That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Site Development Permit 97-618
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED. APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City
Planning Commission, held on the I -1th day of May, 1998. by the following vote, to wit:
P:`CHRISTI\Res SDP 97-618.wpd
�J V
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Site Development Permit 97-618
\YFS:
NOFS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BI'TLER. Chairman
City of La Ouinta. California
\TTFS I':
JERRY HER'vlAN. Community Development Director
Citv of La Quinta. California
P:`CHRISTI`.Res SDP 97-618.wpd
JV��
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLI:TION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-618
MAY 12, 1998
GENERAL
The development shall compiv with the City's Zoning Code, Village on the Green Specific
Plan 97-031 (on file in the Community Development Department), the approved exhibits and
the followine concitions.
2. Exterior lighting for the project shall comply with the City's "Dark Sky" Lighting
Ordinance. Lighting plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department
Director prior to issuance of building permits. All exterior lighting shall be down -shining
and provided with shielding to screen glare from adjacent streets and residential property.
3. Provide adequate trash and recycling areas for the senior apartments for approval by the
Community Development Department Director prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. The plan will be reviewed for acceptability by applicable trash company prior
to review by the Community Development Department Director.
4. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, or ground disturbance, mitigation
measures as recommended by the Archaeological Assessment for the site shall he completed
at the applicant/developer's expense. This consists of having an archaeological monitor on
site during grading and earth disturbance operations. A final report shall be submitted prior
to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of the first building.
5. Handicap access, facilities and parking shall be provided per State and local requirements.
6. Prior to any site disturbance being permitted, including construction, preliminary site work
and/or archaeological investigation, the project developer shall submit and have approved
a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP), in accordance with Chapter 6.16 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code. The plan shall define all areas proposed for development and shall indicate
time lines for phasing of the project, and shall establish standards for comprehensive control
of both anthropogenic and natural creation of airborne dust due to development activities on
site. Phased projects must prepare a plan that addresses control measures over the entire
build -out of the project (e.g., for disturbed lands pending future development).
7. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as determined
by the Building and Safety Director.
P: `CHRISTBPCCOASDP97-h 1 S
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 98-618
May 12, 1998
8. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the applicant shall pay the required
mitigation fees for 1-he Coachella Valley Fringe -Teed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program,
as adopted by the City. in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land.
Q. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written
report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those
Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of SP 97-031, and EA 97-349. Prior to the
issuance of a building permit. the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the
Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of
Approval and mitigation measures of SP 97-013 and EA 97-349. The Community
Development Director may require inspection or other mitigation monitoring measures to
assure such compliance.
10. All roof and wall mounted mechanical -type equipment shall be installed or screened with
architecturally compatible material so as not to be visible from surrounding properties and
streets to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and/or Planning
Commission. Working drawings showing all proposed equipment and how they will be
screened shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
GENERAL
11. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is directed to file these Conditions
Of Approval with he Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to
which they apply.
12. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval of the underlying Tentative Tract
Map 28601 which conditions are included herein by reference.
13. Prior to the issuance of grading, improvement or building permits, the applicant shall obtain
permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
- Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
- Community Development Department
- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) (Water & Sewer)
- Imperial Irrigation District (IID) (Electricity)
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
— Caltrans
P:' CHRISTITCCOASDP97-6l8
Planning Commission Resolution 98-__
Conditions of Approval
Site Develooment permit 98-618
May 12, 1998
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
turnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans.
For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of
the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior
to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of an
approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan.
FIRE MARSHAL
14. Fire hydrants in accordance with CVWD standard W-33 shall be located at each street
intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot
frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 gpm for
a two hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of the
streets directly in line with fire hydrants.
Fire flow and flow duration for dwellings having a fire area in excess of 3600 square feet
shall not be less than that specified in UFC Table A-III-A-1.
15. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer will furnish one blueline copy of
the water system plans to Fire Department for review/approval. Plans will conform to the
fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans will be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local
water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water
system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Department."
16. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an
individual lot.
17. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of the
model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire
Department for review prior to the issuance of building permits.
18. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire
Department override system consisting of Knox Key operated switches, series KS-2P with
dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Know Company. Improvement plans
for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review/approval
prior to installation.
P:' CHRISTI' PCCOASDP97-h18
Plannmq Commission Resolution 98-
Condittons of Approval
Site Develooment Permit 98-618
May ? 2, 1998
19. If public; common type use buildings are to be constructed, additional fire protection may
he required. Fire flows and hydrant locations will be stipulated when building plans are
reviewed by the Fire Department.
20. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150 feet of
all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. Fire apparatus access roads shall have
an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance if not
less than 13-feet 6-inches. Actual road width requirements shall be in accordance with City
Roadway Design Smndards.
Dead-end fire apparatus road in access of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved
provisions for the turning around fire apparatus.
MISCELLANEOUS
21. The perimeter wall adjacent to Jefferson Street shall include a two foot berm with an 8-9
foot wall.
22. :applicant agrees to indemnify. defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event
of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the Citv's approval of this project. The City of
La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion.
3. The prototype unit specified for Lot 1 shall be changed so that the courtyard is in the front or
sidevard and shall not be located in the rear yard, adjacent to Avenue 48.
'-l. I'he monument signs proposed for the medians shall be deleted and the brass lettering shall
be placed on the perimeter wall.
P:`CHRIST1' PCCOASDP97-h 18
J � �
I ll�� T * � .�. I�,sll f t'..• , - � ,�l�l��f��1,1
1 1 t 11 r
�C•IM�;i Ir
t �
Atli
err �.�.�•' �; - _0 o cU
to `;M e "
'.t •III/i'�.•�' � � f � I � � � ;�; :� 41� ,� 1 �� c
r�,,li. ��f/�r !— . I) �II 11 1' 3. � �' �� ' ,��) it � � • •�"
l/i�- �I ► + !I!1 !� ��.'�..f. it t��a .1�
Jaa,fjs Iuosjatjar,
cu
C. s
o l! C3 ca
cl
ro,
C ,
L
V o » 1
c
cc
at
.. '.�' oeoki swled 'aunQ
1 �-
ATTACHMENT
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO.2
State Clearinghouse (SCH) 88041111
Prepared for:
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
P.O. Box 1504
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California 92253
619/564-2246
Prepared by:
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
414 West 4th Street, Suite E
Santa Ana, California 92701
714/541-4585
J U LY, 1988
;JU
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Project Summary
The 3116 acre proposed La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 experienced
development dating back to the early 1920's. The seemingly unrestricted, therefore,
unplanned development occurred at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains in areas that
are protected from severe winds and other hostile elements. Beyond the characteristics
associated with haphazard development Project Area No. 2 also exhibits major
infrastructure deficiencies, unusual lot configurations, and non -productive utilization of
land resources.
The Redevelopment Project is intended to reverse physical, social and economic
liabilities resulting form conditions in the Project Area through a wide range of Agency
authorities and activities. Such activities may include the provision of public facilities and
improvements in the Project Area; the redevelopment and promotion of new
development and the reuse of land consistent with the La Quinta General Plan; the
solicitation of owner and tenant cooperation and participation in revitalizing the Area; and
the use of a wide variety of direct and indirect financial assistance to effect
redevelopment and revitalization generally.
1.2 Environmental Summary
Anticipated environmental effects resulting from Project implementation, together with a
listing of the major mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects, are
summarized on the following pages. This summary is an excerpt from Section 5.0 of this
report.
1.3 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved
Fiscal and social impact assessments of the proposed Redevelopment Project are
:1pically requested by various taxing agencies. In accordance with the provisions of
CEQA, this EIR concentrates upon the environmental impacts of the proposed
Redevelopment Project, and not upon the social or economic impacts, except those that
may result in physical impacts upon the environment. It should be noted that CEGA
does not require analysis of fiscal impacts as a part of the environmental assessment.
However, in accordance with Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code
Section 33344.5), the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency has prepared a Preliminary
Report on the proposed Project which is intended to be distributed to affected taxing
agencies. The Preliminary Report includes information on specific projects proposed to
be undertaken in the redevelopment of the Project Area, a description of how the Project
will be financed, and estimates of Project costs and revenues. In addition, the Agency
intended to fulfill its legal obligation to consult with all taxing agencies regarding any
fiscal impacts the Project may have pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33323.
15 r"')
, rquntm dMw\wd1.2 2
W
U
Z
Q
U Z
ti O
3 Q U
yU.~ E E
05 c c�
J m U € V
uj > � c rn f rn
Q r m C a m c
o � c 7@
w c ea cu
w
E
C
N C
W m = p
L p� CT > C O y C U O
q
Z �a a E0$' 3w E N
F c m32 c GE
d 4cm
_
m 0 p y C L y .. Vl N
F na� �y mRm o�� (njm
>`�- EcN$ r-�v` p EcN�
j� 0 y d d U 0 U Q p�j 0 O m U
O ��peo� c �"c� �� wc
p0 a o 0z 32E c-N�.�.sn�i
c E 00 Z [�� iiin o �' o Z t�� cc
rn s
.. N _ V
�0 3 N c m
�.c c_vsc o'$�
N .. a, N N O E
8 0 O O m� � 0
4) C � O
= O 32
- G
y O C7 U O m m
v m y L� E N m� m a
Q '3 O m M O m C C cm O
vy cE Ec
JoCc75
r c X a co$ E'z E*mc6GE
rA f
w t°S-7c O
O E m-8°np X
W Zia 'm �
cs. r- m
O cn E E o rcD E E c m c E w E y
m E O $ = O M V d
N E C Of
w g a c0 < w.f°c c� c a o 3 m t-a M CD rE o ..
r
C
c ra en c
to �
N C = to C
O C
` tylf • � ....
a �
C E tm
gas ~
3 � e
C R9 U
�C
Or _
O N _ 'p � �n O
hE mc�� O
Zvi i
N E= N C Us CDC —
"o$ E E
79 ace
N N = to ... "D ..
eoE0. 0 L uN
U E N ar tzt �p m -8 e = 'g C O
U0_ar asoE _ate CD 0 u2 -=
(0 " CD
C 0 aEr � p 3� °° c 3.2 2 e°
v
002 �t�sc Ec °�'�cy c"ar
to E II. B. E U Z U N to
CD U 3
e
E r. eey Q d
N �—`�a n't C) is O
m ca
.�.. � O � ZS m ►. ,�
m m L c o o
�c m2 '§cm
0 0 0 o �a
0
C m U O La N
` M
mT. �a Ot-8 m E2 d CD
0y = C C_ > O CO O
�M Q ID8 N 3 m� = La
r�
e 3'0 0 =*9 p o� E
tar Q a.. u —O <o z a ►my
W
U
Q
O
U)
W
J
m
U
a�
c�
N
fU�
L1.
E
W
N
N
E�
G
N
�v
C
C
92 c
cu c
O N
CD
Z cc c
m
N '_ t
oC 78 E m Nc
o=� mac c L cc
O O C C) C C= C U
cm y E� o � 0
_ m
m3 OUttO mN CU2 'c0 Ci =�oZ1 mm V
o_=
yOQ_ 208-8aV
U�CC �Z O CD a i a
o
%
L7
Om �eady� %'mac
0ID
.c¢ �emoE"m cc o `��«CM
°mod ��E� C
NEB t5 m� oC mZ'�=�..
c y Q .. CD'$ a �i v C N
T> u �W = G C -6� 72
O 2 y
a`acic`o ;10L)0)—tn ci�Ea.a 5aS z LL c-1CL
m
m m U s 3
is cm 5Cm ==m
y Eo � c c o 0 0rL
vi C y t¢ m
H C O m €
o eo ooa H ��� mC�
N c`p �Dj L d dJ Of m �•
C:9 O
E C E o �� m •--1 c m
L o N E o, ee a y o t° o c
..
y ea LU m m d .a � r E � :n �
cc
fir-Z gE oUr '
E v m
dc a m dm �= Ls `V
o Z
�t
m m
M 2—Q/
¢ a"CccE a u.UH IL �s3 caa�m�
U
m
a
�u
U
C
m
C
0
U
cn
W
U
w
cn
_U
J
Ln
d.
m
15
M >
m
� m
c �
m v
ed
N t7
WO
E w
«
E
co
tm t tm of
C rn CD
C N tRt E
cn = c 3c0E
m m
rn � e0
CD= !0 A
to -- U N to
w O C aCL
m p
N O
N N N E 8-5 C N p
U y pm0 cnEb N ►.
!p C p �: m �p 4:
�ppC CD y y m U Ol
« Cl C mj E « rS= >mE
O to O
_CL
r> O° CD
a° m
=z«3y U
; n a�mo> co Q Q
i
`O
V O N O C N V C m E cn
z° u. z° °'�o >E
C` .. m m m° cr m= m
wma �-o 'S°m �3 Clb
«
oto as
o c
E Ea N
v� co
tom=ami mo 0 �.p`c2
CA
O cNc�0 L
�aa> O mN�«l0 Ceo"m
tL CC—LuCD w Oc�� E H o ICE o am
m °c >piM�A
° a va c=� y d v cmi �s "" y a a75 a v71 y a
«
U m m C Q V Ri N m N m m V m C a: 0 X m U
N m
cco ova 5°.< � t9 Zc A_a_cg wwooa 3E3 w 0CL
« _
NON, i�t0 �z`�mm OC �_ �at m LE'M m$-� � m
Y W t0 � yp L O m m W m O e_�� NC « .m. m« j m 0 y :.
Gp E Q a 0` tv W W m W C O a 3 U D m tJ?' cu
c
0
u
cn
w
H
C
z
Q
M
W
z
w
a�
m
m
eo
a
a�
U
U
ftf
C
cSf
O
U
a.,
d
2L � a Q.
E E �
R
IM r c cM
E d a,
a7
m U 'E O E
O y N 2 cst p ep
y 0 cm U ..
z m; a 5 m•c
T �z� o CD b
cm
E v�y� H cti y
U y E 0 9 T7 U pf O L In
d m C y y ( Up
00
"�g'�w moo,
0
Q t
Z Z Q F-- to c� Z t] d 0 Df .: to y
m
O O V
�
-° r 3 E
72 '-ac y
� y
0,c � m c v 3�d =m �
CD
�a my E
o ®� ;c ° M "2 moo
m m N Q Cn a '2
O y O E CD
¢ 4S R3
pq
p C (AA U t � tip aci C' °' C Z 'L CISE
2.2
¢� E C G m y o►-Ha .2;a LaLaw f 2 m E U-0CLl o
_�
A COPY OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
IN THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 12, 1998
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-622
APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY
OWNER: CITRUS DEVELOPMENT, LLC (ALICANTE ON THE CITRUS)
ARCHITECT: SOUTH COAST ARCHITECTS
REQUEST: COMPATIBILITY APPROVAL OF NEW 4,084 SQUARE
FOOT RESIDENTIAL PROTOTYPE PLAN.
LOCATION: WITHIN CITRUS COURSE SUBDIVISION ON NORTH SIDE
OF 52TH AVENUE, WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET
(ATTACHMENT 1) ON CENTRING AND LIGO (IN FUTURE)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED FROM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 (A) OF
THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 2-4 D.U./ACRE)
ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
BACKGROUND:
Site Background
Tract 24890 makes up the residential lots surrounding the Citrus Golf Course and
allows 562 residential lots, of which approximately 93 have been developed. The
development consists of single family detached and duplex units and custom single
family detached residences on the western portion of the site.
Previous Planning_ Commission Review
The City Council on January 21, 1997, at the request of KSL Development Corp.
approved for construction in the Citrus Project, the Ryder Collection, Heritage
Collection, and Masters Collection prototype units (approved in PGA West). These
pAstan\pc rpt sdp 98-622
residences will vary from 2101 to 4542 square feet. Variations of one of the Heritage
(3771 square feet) and one of the Masters Collection (4542 square feet) prototype
plans were approved for the applicant on September 23, 1997. Construction of these
units has begun on Cetrino.
Request
The applicant is requesting approval of a new plan for construction in the Citrus.
Proposed is a unit with four bedrooms (or three bedroom plus den), four bathrooms,
and two car garage plus golf cart space, containing 4,084 square feet of living space
and 782 square feet of garage space (Attachment 2). Two different front elevations
are provided, one utilizing a combination of gable roofs at varying heights and one with
a combination of gable and hip roofs at varying heights. The garages are separated
into a one car and one car and golf cart space configuration. The car/golf cart space
is side loaded with the single space facing the street.
The exterior elevations maintain the Mediterranean design of the existing and approved
units and use a combination of tower structures, arches, and other similar features.
Exterior materials consist of tan stucco, with a darker trim and two color red clay roof
tile. Steel gates and block walls are proposed to be utilized for the unit.
Public Notice
This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on May 2, 1998, and mailed
to all property owners within the Citrus Project. To date, no correspondence has been
received.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
ISSUE 1- Development Standards For Compatibility Review
The Zoning Code ,specifies standards or findings that must be met to grant
compatibility approval. This request complies with those as noted below:
1. No two story units are proposed in the subdivision. Therefore, there will be no
impacts on existing residences.
2. The applicant proposes to use block walls which will match the existing walls
in the subdivision to provide compatibility.
3. The proposed residences are similar to the modified Heritage and Masters
collection prototype units approved in September, 1997. The design changes
are compatible with those and the existing units in terms of architectural
materials, style, and colors.
p:\stan\pc rpt sdp 98-622
4. The recommended approval and Code requires a minimum of one 24" box size
tree in the front yard.
5. The proposed 4,084 square foot unit is between the existing and approved
residence size range of 2439 and 5000 + square feet.
ISSUE 2 - Staff Comments
The Zoning Code requires that all four bedroom (or three plus den) plans have a three
car garage (minimum 30' wide by 20' deep total) which the plan does not provide. The
plan will have to be revised to provide the full three car garage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , approving Site Development Permit
98-622, subject to Findings and Conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Plan Exhibits (larger than 8 1 /2" by 11 ")
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Plannin6 Manager
p:\stan\pc rpt sdp 98-622
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-622, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS, PROVIDING COMPATIBILITY APPROVAL OF
A PROPOSED 4,048 SQUARE FOOT PROTOTYPE UNIT
FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE CITRUS
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-622
APPLICANT: CITRUS DEVELOPMENT, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 12'h day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Citrus Development, LLC for approval of a 4,084 square foot prototype unit
in the Citrus, located generally west of Jefferson Street and north of 52"d Avenue,
more particularly described as:
Portions of Tract 24890
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit is part of Oak Tree West
Specific Plan 85-006 which has been determined to be exempt from California
Environmental Quality Act requirements under the provisions of California Code
Section 65457 (a); and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of
said Site Development Permit:
1. No two story units are proposed in the subdivision. Therefore, there will be no
impacts on existing residences.
2. The applicant proposes to use block walls which will match the existing walls
in the subdivision ro provide compatibility.
3. The proposed residences are similar to the modified Heritage and Masters
collection prototype units approved in September, 1997. The design changes
are compatible with those and the existing units in terms of architectural
materials, style, and colors.
4. The recommended approval and Code requires a minimum of one 24" box size
tree in the front yard.
P:\STAN\pc res sdp 98-622.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
5. The proposed 4,084 square foot unit is between the existing and approved
residence size range of 2439 and 5000 + square feet.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 98-622 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions labeled Exhibit "A",
attached hereto;.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 12t' day of May, 1998, 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
P:\STAN\pc res sdp 98-622.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-622
CITRUS DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MAY 12, 1998
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This approval is for a 4,084 square foot prototype unit, for which plans are on
file in the Community Development Department .
2. The landscaping/irrigation plans for the units shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for review and approval. The plans
require Community Development Department, Coachella Valley Water District,
and Riverside County Agricultural Commission approval before they will be
considered final. The plans shall include at least one 24-inch box size tree per
lot with other trees and shrubs provided similar in design and size to those
existing.
3. Lawn areas shall either be hybrid Bermuda (summer) or hybrid Bermuda/Rye
(winter) depending upon the season in which it is installed. All trees shall be
double -staked to prevent wind damage. All trees and shrubs shall be watered
with bubblers or emitters with all landscaping improvements installed prior to
final occupancy of the house involved.
4. The material of the perimeter walls around lots shall be compatible with the
existing wall materials including a steel picket gate used for pedestrians.
5. With the exception of a model complex, sizes of new units constructed shall be
no less than ten percent smaller than the smallest unit or ten percent larger than
the largest previously designated for that lot. Designated residence sizes shall
be based on the site plan approved under Tentative Tract 24890, on file in the
Community Development Department.
6. Three garage spaces shall be provided with the unit with each space a minimum
10 feet wide by 20 feet deep.
p:\stan\coa sdp 98-622 1
AT'PAGtIMEPlT
•
•
CASE. MAP
CASE Nm 'Z'ITE 1-I)EVIE.L.013WN'T
SCALE:
_HM I f 98 622
LOCATION MAP I N T %G4
r
PH #i._
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MAY 12, 1998
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (ANNUAL REVIEW)
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SECOND ANNUAL REVIEW FOR A MASTER
PLANNED COMMUNITY OF 880 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND
GOLF COURSE FAIRWAYS ON 220 ACRES PURSUANT TO
CONDITION #7 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 91-105
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MADISON STREET
AND TO THE SOUTH OF PGA WEST, ON THE WEST SIDE OF
MADISON STREET (60 ACRES TO THE WEST AND 160 ACRES
TO THE EAST)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INCORPORATED
GENERAL
PLAN
DESIGNATION/
ZONING/
SPECIFIC
PLAN
DESIGNATIONS: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND RESIDENTIAL PER
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017
BACKGROUND:
Specific Plan History
On December 3, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolutions 91-104 and 91-105,
approving a master planned development of 880 units around golf course fairways on 220
acres south of PGA West (i.e., Specific Plan 90-017). This planned community was
designed to be incorporated into the PGA West development by the connection of streets
and golfing facilities (Attachments 1 and 2).
The adopted Specific Plan for this community outlines its long term development pattern
for this resort residential project. The proposed single family lots and private streets are
consistent in size with the PGA West Specific Plan development standards. Access to the
STPCSPI7REV-23/RESOSPI7-23
CONDSP17-23 1
site will be from existing (or future) streets within PGA West and Madison Street. Street
and other infrastructure improvements are required for this project as subdivision maps are
processed.
In 1995, the site was mass graded to construct portions of the existing Tom Weiskopf golf
course. The golf course opened for play in 1996.
Annual Review Requirement
Condition #7 of Resolution 91-105 requires an annual review of the plan by the Planning
Commission. The condition states: "The developer/applicant shall be required to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Specific Plan. The
developer/applicant of this project hereby agrees to furnish such evidence of compliance
as the City, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require." The Planning
Commission approved an annual review for SP 90-017 on April 11, 1995, requiring another
compliance review in 1997.
Annual Review Request
On April 13, 1998, staff received a booklet from KSL Desert Resorts requesting an annual
review for SP 90-017. A copy of this booklet is attached (Attachment 3). Development
standards better defining development standards for construction of future housing units
is now included. The internal circulation plan now mirrors the existing circulation pattern
created with the construction of the Tom Weiskopf golf course.
Public Notice
The annual review request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 1, 1998.
All property owners within 500-feet of the site and those owning property in PGA West
were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice.
Staff Comments
The applicant has shown good faith compliance with the terms of the Specific Plan in that
no residential development has occurred. The only development within the Specific Plan
has been the golf course. Internal circulation was reconfigured due to the design of the
golf course and the internal circulation map was modified accordingly.
Condition changes recommended by staff are attached. These recommended changes
are necessary to update the Specific Plan to current development standards. Condition
#7 proposes another review by the Planning Commission in four years. Staff is
recommending deletion of three of four conditions duplicating the need for a Fugitive Dust
Control Plan.
STPCSPI7REV-23/RESOSPI7-23
CONDSP17-23 2
RECOMMENDATION;
Adopt Resolution 98-_, approving a second annual review for Specific Plan 90-017,
subject to the recommended Conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map Exhibit
2. Original SP 90-017 Exhibit
3. Annual Review Booklet (Planning Commission Only)
Preparect by: Submitted by:
t.
Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
STPCSPI7REV-23/RESOSPI7-23
CONDSP17-23 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
SECOND ANNUAL REVIEW FOR A MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY OF 880 UNITS ON 220 ACRES LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MADISON
STREET AND TO THE SOUTH OF PGA WEST, AND ON
THE WEST SIDE OF MADISON STREET PURSUANT TO
CONDITION #7 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 91-105
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017
APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 12th day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for the second annual
review of SP 90-017, a master planned community of 880 units around golf course
fairways on 220 acres, generally located at the northeast corner of Avenue 58 and
Madison Street and to the south of PGA West, and on the west side of Madison Street
pursuant to Condition #7 of City Council Resolution 91-105, more particularly described
as:
Portions of Sections 21 and 22, Township 6S, Range 7E,
S.B. B.M.
WHEREAS, on April 11, 1995, the Planning Commission approved the first
annual review for SP 90-017 stating another review as necessary within two years; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
3rd day of December, 1991, approve Specific Plan 90-017 and certify its accompanying
EIR permitting development of 880 single family houses on 220 acres by adoption of
Resolutions 91-104 (EA) and 91-105 (SP); and
WHEREAS, in compliance with Condition #7 of Resolution 91-105 good faith
compliance has been made in the implementation in that the only construction occurring
within the Specific Plan is the Weiskopf Golf Course. Internal circulation has shifted to
accommodate the design of the golf course and the circulation map has been updated
accordingly.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
RESOPCSP17KSL-23
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Specific Plan 90-017 (2nd Annual Review)
KSL Desert Resorts, Inc.
May 12, 1998
2. That it does hereby approve a second annual review for SP 90-017 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Planning Commission, held on this 12' day of May, 1998, 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
RFSOPCSP17KSL-23
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2ND ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
* Mitigation Measure of Final EIR for SP 90-017
+ Condition modified by Planning Commission on September 10, 1991
Condition modified by City Council on December 3, 1991
= Modifications recommended by the Community Development Department
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.= The development shall comply with Exhibit "A", Specific Plan 90-017 (Annual
Review Booklet), the Final EIR and the following conditions.
2.= Exterior lighting for the project shall comply with Section 9.100.150 of Zoning
Ordinance. Plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use
contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances
from the following agencies:
• City Fire Marshal
• City of La Quinta Public Works Department
• Community Development Department
• Building and Safety Department
• Coachella Valley Water District
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Imperial Irrigation District
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be
presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City`s
adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building
permits.
5. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as
determined by the Building and Safety Director.
+6. Prior to any initial final tract map approval, the Applicant/Developer shall prepare an
overall plan or program for the provision of comfort station locations for all
maintenance employees. This plan or program shall indicate station locations and
-1-
RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2N3 ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
design parameters and standards, and shall be subject to review by the Community
Development Department. Said plan or program shall indicate methods of providing
such facilities, the parties responsible for so doing, and means for enforcement of
procedures set forth in the plan or program.
7.= The Planning Commission shall conduct annual reviews of this Specific Plan. During
each annual review by the Commission, the Developer/Applicant shall be required
to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Specific Plan. The
Applicant/Developer of this project hereby agrees to furnish such evidence of
compliance as the City, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require.
Evidence of good faith compliance may include, but shall not necessarily be limited
to, good faith progress towards implementation of and compliance with the
requirements of the Specific Plan. Upon conclusion of the annual review, the
Commission may determine that the Applicant has made good faith
compliance/progress and may set a future review date at their discretion. The next
annual review date for this project shall be May 12, 2002.
B. The Applicant/Developer shall submit an off -site improvements and on -site build -out
phasing schedule and map at time of the first request to approve a final tract or
parcel map. This schedule and map shall be subject to review and acceptance by
the Public Works Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL
*9. All adopted mitigation measures, as recommended in the Draft/Final EIR, shall be
incorporated into all future project approvals relating to SP 90-017 where applicable
and/or feasible. It is understood that certain measures will not be applicable to
certain site specific proposals, however, all development within the Specific Plan
area shall be verified as in conformance with said Specific Plan and the mitigation
adopted within the Draft/Final EIR. The Specific Plan Draft and Final EIR shall be
used in the review of all project proposals in the SP 90-017 area. Said mitigation
measures are hereby incorporated into these conditions by reference.
+*10.Prior to any site disturbance, the Applicant/Developer shall initiate a lake bed
delineation study, to be based upon the paleontological survey contained in the DER
as Appendix "G". The study shall determine the extent of the ancient lakebed for
purposes of implementing a pre -development data recovery program within the limits
of the delineated lakebed. This delineation study shall be submitted to the City for
monitoring approved and future area projects. If the Developer of this project
initiates development activity, then the pre -development data recovery program shall
be undertaken prior to any site disturbance. The Applicant/Developer may be
reimbursed by other area developers within the area defined by the lakebed study.
IWA
RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2"' ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
The Applicant/Developer shall propose a method of reimbursement (such as cost per
impacted acre in the lakebed area, etc.) to the City for review/acceptance.
Conversely, if other area developer(s) initiate development activity, and are similarly
conditioned, this project will be required to reimburse said developer(s) in
accordance with the provisions of a reimbursement program.
If the program is undertaken by this project, then paleontological monitoring of
grading shall be required for cuts made during construction activity. Full time
monitoring shall be required, given the ubiquitous distribution of paleobiological
remains on the project site. The mitigating shall be done under the supervision of a
qualified vertebrate paleontologist knowledgeable in both paleontological and
archaeological sampling techniques. This program shall include a report identifying
contact personnel who will be working on -site, the proposed time schedule for
grading monitoring, the qualifications of the persons assigned to do such monitoring
and the method to be used in reporting on compliance to the City. This report shall
be approved by the City prior to the Developer authorizing any work on the program
itself.
*11. Applicant/Developer shall work with Waste Management of the Desert to implement
provisions of AB 939 and AB 1462. The Applicant/Developer is required to work with
Waste Management in setting up the following programs for this project:
A. Developer shall prepare a plan to provide enlarged trash enclosures for
inclusion of separate facilities for storage of recyclables such as glass,
plastics, newsprint and aluminum cans.
B. Developer shall provide proper on -site storage facilities within the project for
green wastes associated with golf course and common area maintenance.
Compostable materials shall be stored for pick-up by Waste Management,
or an authorized hauler for transport to an appropriate facility.
C. Curbside recycling service shall be provided in areas where no centralized
trash/ recycling bins are provided or utilized.
PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES/RESOURCES
City Fire Marshal:
12. All water mains and fire hydrants providing the required fire flows shall be
constructed in accordance with the City Fire Code in effect at the time of
development.
-3-
RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF A_PPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2ND ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
13. The level of service required for this project should be aligned with the criteria for
Category fl-Urban as outlined in the Fire Protection Master Plan and as follows:
A. Fire station located within three miles
B. Receipt of full 'first alarm" assignment within 15 minutes. Impacts to the Fire
Department are generally due to the increased number of emergency and
public service calls generated by additional buildings and human population.
A fiscal analysis for this project shall be prepared to identify a funding source
to mitigate any impacts associated with any capital costs and the annual
operating costs necessary for an increased level of service. The analysis
shall include consideration of the Applicants other proposals (SP 90-015 &
SP 90-016) as well as existing and approved area projects. Said analysis
shall be subject to review and approval by the Riverside County Fire
Department and the City of La Quinta.
Coachella Valley Water District
14. Specific Plan 90-017 is within Improvement District No. 1 of the Coachella Valley
Water District (CVWD) for irrigation water service. Water from the Coachella Canal
is available to the area. The Developer shall use this water for golf course and
landscape irrigation. During project development all irrigation facilities shall be
designed to utilize reclaimed water sources when such sources become available.
: - , i a - - - - -: . - - :N:'i
Lo"IL-IL-1-tiL li
- ; iiii I li, H4 g%�161; 1, IN 0
Electric Utilities
16. All existing and proposed electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, which are
adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities.
Schools
*17. Impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of AB 1600, Section
53080 and 65995 of the Government Code or the then existing legislation and/or
local ordinances adopted pursuant thereto or any applicable Mitigation Agreement
entered into by the Developer and the District. In addition, the City, Developer and
the Coachella Valley Unified School District shall cooperate in exploring
alternatives to provide lands or facilities to the District, through joint use
agreements, dedications, or Mello -Roos District formation.
RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2"' ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
Recreation
*18.= Applicant/Developer shall pay a parkland mitigation fee based upon requirement
of 2.57 acres, as determined based upon the La Quinta General Plan standards
and the analysis in the Staff Report for SP 90-017 (1991). Determination of this fee
shall be accomplished as set forth in Chapter 13.48 of the La Quinta Subdivision
Ordinance. Fees are payable to the Community Development Department prior
to final map approval by the City Council.
Traffic/Circulation Improvements
*19.= Applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements in
conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and as required by the
City Engineer, as follows:
A. Madison Street -Primary Arterial, 110 foot full width; 55 feet on each side of
centerline between 58th Avenue and northern project boundary
B. 58th Avenue - Primary Arterial, 55-foot half width;
The public rights -of -way shall be dedicated by grant deed pursuant the
improvement phasing plan on file with the City Engineer.
20. The on -site private streets shall be constructed in 37-foot wide access easements
granted to the homeowner's association.
o2l.= Improved landscaped setback lots of noted width adjacent to the following street
right-of-ways shall be constructed when the adjacent street improvements are
installed as follows:
A. Madison Street, 20-feet wide as per 19A above;
B. 58th Avenue, 20-feet wide.
The Madison Street setback lots shall include provision for an equestrian trail.
Design of this trail shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Commission.
22. Vehicle access rights to Madison Street and 58th Avenue shall be vacated except
for the residential access shown on the Circulation Plan in the Specific Plan.
o23. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement ordinance
which is intended to distribute the improvement cost of major thoroughfare
-5-
RESOLUTION 98 _
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2"' ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
construction evenly and fairly on undeveloped land. If the ordinance is adopted, all
land division maps prepared pursuant to this Specific Plan shall be subject to
payment of fees, or construction of improvements in lieu of, as set forth in the
ordinance, provided the ordinance is adopted 60 days prior to recordation of the
map. The fees shall be paid, or agreed to be paid, prior to recordation of the map.
If in the event the major thoroughfare improvement ordinance is not adopted, the
cost of designing and installing traffic signals on off -site streets shall be as follows:
A. Madison Street/Avenue 58: 25% fair share responsibility;
B. Madison Street/Main Gate: 50% fair share responsibility;
C. Avenue 58/Secondary Gate: 100% fair share responsibility.
24. Turning movements of traffic accessing the residential Specific Plan areas from
adjoining public streets shall be as follows:
A. Madison Street
1. Residential Area Main Gate - Full turning movement permitted
2. Residential Secondary Gate - Full turning movement permitted.
*25. Bus turnouts and bus waiting shelters shall be provided on Madison Street, 58th
Avenue as may be requested by Sunline Transit when street improvements are
installed. Street improvement plans shall be reviewed by Sunline Transit Agency
prior to final City approval.
+*26. All street improvements shall be installed in accordance with the General Plan, the
La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, City Engineer's
requirements and shall include all appurtenant components required by same.
Miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing
improvements where joined by the new improvements shall be designed and
constructed as required by the City Engineer to assure the new and existing
improvements are appropriately integrated to provide a finished product that
conforms with city standards and practices. This includes tapered off -site street
transitions that extend beyond specific plan area boundaries and join the widened
and existing street sections.
The on- and off -site street improvements shall be phased in a manner that is
consistent with on -site subdivision maps and internal circulation needs of the
specific plan area.
The following specific street widths shall be constructed to conform with the
RESOLUTION 98-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2ND ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
General Plan street type noted therewith:
A. ON -SITE STREETS
All private local streets - full width Local Street, 36 feet wide between
curb faces;
2. Entry streets - divided street, 20 feet wide between curb faces for
each roadway.
STREETSB. OFF -SITE
thoroughfarethoroughfare improvement ordinance which "s intended to distribLte
the improvement cost of major
fairly on undeveloped 'and at the tome the 'and *9 subdivided or
otherwise developed for beneficiall use. If the ordi jopted, a"
'and d" is within this project shall be subject to exaction b
- - : : : a
recordation of thentap.
If in the event, the major thoroughfare improvement ordinance is not
adopted, the off -site street improvements for this project shall be as follows:
Madison Street (portion contiguous to specific plan boundary) - Full -
width Primary Arterial street improvements, 110-foot option.
2. Avenue 58 (portion contiguous to specific plan boundary) Half -width
Primary Arterial street improvements, 110-foot right of way option.
27. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured
prior to constructing or joining improvements
+*28. The Applicant shall provide an overall plan illustrating or describing provisions to
allow multiple modes of non -motor vehicle travel throughout the entire specific plan
area. This plan may utilize combinations of golf cart paths and tunnels, pedestrian
walks, bikeways, etc. , to achoeve this. These systems shall be designed to provide
overall project access. This plan shall be submitted at the time of the initial tract
map submittal, for review by the Planning Commission.
+*29. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a secondary/emergency access to the
easterly adjacent north forty acres (APN: 761-170-005). Proposed location of this
access shall be shown at the time of the initial tract/parcel map submittal, with the
access design to be reviewed and approved with the first adjacent tract map. This
ma
RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2No ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
access shall be subject to review and approval by the City Fire Marshal, the City
Engineer, and the Community Development Department.
HYDROLOGY/GRADING/DUST CONTROL
30. All project grading shall be done in a manner that permits storm flow in excess of
the retention basin capacity to flow out of the project through designated emergency
overflow outlets and into the historic drainage relief route. Similarly, the project
shall be graded in a manner that anticipates receiving storm flow from adjoining
property at locations that has historically received flow.
*31. Storm water runoff produced in 24 hours by a 100-year storm shall be retained on
site in landscaped retention basins or other approved retention areas on the golf
course. The maximum water depth for any retention area shall not exceed six feet;
basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be
zero inches per hour unless Applicant provides site -specific data that indicates
otherwise. Other requirements include, but are not limited to permanent irrigation
improvements, landscape plants and materials, and appurtenant structural drainage
amenities all of which shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
The tributary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible shall extend to
the centerline of any public street contiguous to the site.
*32. A thorough preliminaryengineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation
shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with any rough grading
plan in the specific plan area. The report recommendations shall be incorporated
into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer
and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan.
*33.= Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit a
comprehensive blowing dust and sand mitigation plan on the entire site to the
Community Development Department for review and approval pursuant Chapter
6.16 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. This plan shall include, but not to be
limited to, consideration of the following means to minimize blowing sand and dust:
implementation of Uniform Building Code requirements, development phasing,
retention of existing trees, cultivation of interim groundcover or crops, the
conservative use of water trucks and sprinkler systems and use of soil binders.
*34. Applicant is encouraged to maintain all land within the project boundaries in
agricultural status until such land is graded for development, provided that such
agricultural production is economically feasible. In the event said undeveloped land
WE
RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2ND ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
is not continued or placed in agricultural production, Applicant shall plan and
maintain said land in appropriate ground cover to prevent dust and erosion and to
provide an aesthetically pleasing environment.
35. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who
is on Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during
construction of the project grading and improvements to certify compliance with the
plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or
designated by the Applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the
following certifications and documents upon completion of construction:
A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans
that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were
properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during
construction for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work
shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted
hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer".
B. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a
separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents
the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each lot in the tract,
state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation,
and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by
tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted
at different times.
C. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings
of the site grading and all improvements installed by the Applicant.
----- - - - - -- -- - -- - --- - - --- --
LAND USE
37. Street dedications, bikeways, easements, improvements, landscaping with
permanent irrigation system and screening, etc., to satisfaction of City, shall be
provided by Applicant/Developer for any site(s) where dedication of land for public
utilities and/or facilities is required.
RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2N) ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
38.= Any proposed main access entry gates shall be subject to separate site
development permit reviews to insure adequate stacking/queuing space, fire
access, etc. Plans including guard houses or similar structures will also be subject
to Planning Commission approval.
39.= Separate Site Development Permit review of any maintenance facility site(s) shall
be required by the Planning Commission as a public hearing.
+40. Building heights for residential uses shall be subject to height limits specified in the
= Specific Plan, except that no building or structure, regardless of use, exceeding one
story (24 feet in height), shall be allowed within 200 feet of any perimeter property
line/public street frontage. All building heights shall be measured from finished
grade elevation. All other residential structures shall be limited to two stories, not
to exceed 28 feet.
41. Perimeter security walls shall be subject to the following standards:
A. Setback from right-of-way lines along Madison Street, and 58th Avenue shall
average 20 feet.
-B. All wall designs, including location and materials, shall be subject to review
by the Community Development Department. Wall design(s) along Madison
Street shall include any necessary provisions/allowances for equestrian trail
areas as required in Condition #21.
*C. Perimeter wall designs shall incorporate noise abatement requirements as
set forth in the Final EIR for SP 90-017.
-42. A 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk shall be constructed in the northerly, easterly
and westerly parkways and landscape setback lots of 58th Avenue and Madison
Street respectively. Sidewalk design along Madison Street shall take into account
the required equestrian trail.
o43.= Applicant shall provide a blanket easement that covers the entire landscaped
setback lots for the purpose of a meandering public sidewalk and equestrian trail
along Madison Street and 58th Avenue, as necessary.
Landscaping Requirements
44. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect
for the landscaped lots. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall
-lo-
RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2"' ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
be in conformance with requirements of the Community Development Director, City
Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these
officials prior to construction.
45. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare detailed irrigation and landscaping plans for
required perimeter landscaped setbacks along arterial roadways. These plans shall
be coordinated with the street improvement plans for the corresponding arterials,
and shall be subject to review by the Community Development Department, Public
Works Department, and Planning Commission prior to review by Coachella Valley
Water District.
. ;
-- i:::
M
:
:
:
;
ilk
-
;
: :
*47. Prior to the approval of building permits, the Applicant shall prepare a water
conservation plan which shall include consideration of:
A. Methods to minimize the consumption of water, including water saving
features incorporated into the design of the structures, the use of drought
tolerant and low-water usage landscaping materials, and programs to
increase the effectiveness of landscape and golf course irrigation, as
recommended by Coachella Valley Water District and the State Department
of Water Resources.
B. Methods for maximizing groundwater recharge, including the construction of
groundwater recharge facilities.
-11-
RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 (2N) ANNUAL REVIEW)
MAY 12, 1998
C. Methods for minimizing the amount of water used for on -site irrigation,
including the use of reclaimed water from sewage treatment facilities. The
water energy plan shall be subject to review and acceptance by CVWD prior
to final approval by the City Engineer.
+48. Applicant/Developer shall submit a typical landscape plan for all golf course
landscaping, which shall be designated to feature drought tolerant plant species,
and the latest water conserving irrigation technology. The plan(s) shall be subject
to initial review by the Planning Commission, with a subsequent final review and
acceptance by Coachella Valley Water District prior to landscape construction.
Evidence of CVWD acceptance shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department.
Maintenance
49. Applicant shall provide an Executive Summary Maintenance Booklet for the street,
landscape irrigation, perimeter wall, and drainage facilities installed in the Specific
Plan area. The booklet should include drawings of the facilities, recommended
maintenance procedures and frequency, and a costing algorithm with fixed and
variable factors to assist the homeowner's association in planning for routine and
long term maintenance.
Miscellaneous
50.= Developer/property owner agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the
City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to
select its defense counsel in its sole discretion.
-12-
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1
EW
F -
T
C
II - 9
ATTACHMENT 2
zz
Lr
Li
PH #F
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MAY 12, 1998
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28522
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF
14.46 ACRES INTO 18 ESTATE SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER
COMMON OR STREET LOTS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF
SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002 (AMENDMENT #3) AND SPECIFIC PLAN
90-017
LOCATION: ON THE EAST SIDE OF RIVIERA AND APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET
NORTH OF FUTURE HERMITAGE ABUTTING THE EXISTING TOM
WEISKOPF GOLF COURSE
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER; KSL LAND CORPORATION
DEVELOPER: THE WOODARD GROUP (MR. STUART WOODARD, A.D.A.)
CIVIC
ENGINEERS: M.D.S. CONSULTING (MR. STANLEY C. MORSE, P.E.)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28522 IS WITHIN BOTH THE PGA WEST
SPECIFIC PLANS (SP 83-002 AND 90-017). THE PROJECT IS
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 65457(A).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (SCH. #83062922 AND
90020727) WERE CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 1984 AND
1991 FOR EACH SPECIFIC PLAN RESPECTIVELY. NO CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CHANGED CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH
WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT EIR
PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING/
SPECIFIC
PLAN
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/RL (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) AND RESIDENTIAL PER SPECIFIC PLANS 90-017
AND 83-002 (AMENDMENT #3)
STPC28522-23
RES028522-23, CONDTTM28522-23 1
BACKGROUND:
Site Background
The PGA West Resort and Club is made up of numerous tentative tract maps which have
been approved since the 1984 approval of Specific Plan 83-002. Existing housing in PGA
West range in size from 1,283 square feet to over 5,000 square feet with many houses
being attached or detached one story units. Started in 1986, PGA West is a country club
community of 1,600 residences and five championship golf courses (5,000 units are
allowed per the Specific Plan).
The latest amendment, approved by the City Council in 1996, under Resolution 96-67,
updated the plan's graphic and text elements and revised the conditions for consistency
with the City's General Plan.
Specific Plan 90-017 History
On December 3, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution 91-105, approving a master
planned development of 880 units on 220 acres south of the PGA West Resort and Club
(i.e., Specific Plan 90-017) in conjunction with certification of an Environmental Impact
Report. This planned community was designed to be incorporated into the PGA West
development by the connection of streets and golfing facilities.
Site Information
The vacant site was mass graded a few years ago during construction of the existing Tom
Weiskopf golf course. The area to the south of the project site is planned for single family
houses under Tentative Tract Map 28603.
Protect Request
This map proposes to create 18 single family and various other nonresidential lots on
14.46 acres in the southeast section of the PGA West Resort and Club development within
the boundaries of Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017 (Attachment 1). Site access occurs
on Riviera. Individual single family custom houses are proposed.
The project density is approximately 1.24 dwellings per acre. All residential lots will front
onto a private cul-de-sac street (Lot "G") measuring a minimum 37-feet in width or larger.
The proposed single family lots vary in size from 19,817 square feet to 33,231 square feet
(26,524 square feet average). Access to the project is gated at Lot "C" approximately 250-
feet east of Riviera. Various landscape lots have been provided to enhance the
streetscape appearance (Lots A-F).
Public Notice
This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 1, 1998. All
property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice
as required by Title 13 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
STPC28522-23 2
RESo28522-23, CONDTTM28522-23
Additionally, the applicant requested that public hearing notices be mailed to all property
owners within PGA West to insure that all property owners in the area are made aware of
their development application. This expanded noticing request exceeds the City's
requirements under the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Public Agency Review
All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department.
All agency comments received have been made Conditions of Approval for this case.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES:
Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Specific Plans 90-017 and 83-002, Zoning
Code and the Subdivision Ordinance the following overview of the project is provided:
Issue 1 - General Plan Consistency/PGA West Specific Plans (SP 83-002 and 90-017)
The City's General Plan designates the subdivision as Low Density Residential (2-4
dwellings per acre) which allows single family housing (e.g., attached or detached housing
units). Current development approvals reflect a lower number of housing units planned
within both Specific Plan areas (5,000 units within SP 83-002 and 880 units within SP 90-
017). No units are built in SP 90-017 and 1,600 units are built within SP 83-002.
Therefore, adding 18 residential units will not exceed the allowed number of units analyzed
in the EIR's.
The adopted Specific Plans for the mixed use communities outline that this area shall be
developed with single family housing units. This map proposes lots of greater than 19,816
square feet which exceeds the plan's minimum requirements of 6,500 square feet for each
Specific Plan. The proposed single family development is consistent with the City's
General Plan and Zoning Code as designed.
Traffic generation from the development is expected to be 180 vehicle trips per day or less.
The number of vehicles is .003% of the vehicles planned for the ultimate buildout of SP 83-
002 and SP 90-017. The street circulation plan is consistent with the requirements of both
adopted specific plans and will connect with Riviera, an existing north/south private street.
Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements
Lot "G", a proposed private street, provides access to the site from Riviera. The proposed
street is a minimum width of 37-feet (curb to curb) to 50-feet as established by the General
Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. Street and other infrastructure improvements are
required for this project. Impacts associated with development of the project can be
mitigated through adherence to the recommended Conditions.
Issue 3 - Health and Safety
All necessary infrastructure improvements for this project will be constructed as required
by the attached Conditions. This includes water, sewer, streets, and other necessary
STPC28522-23 3
RES028522-23, CONDTTM28522-23
improvements. All electric services will be installed in underground piping and will meet
all requirements of the service agencies (gas, electric, water, etc.). The health, safety and
welfare of residents is ensured based on recommended Conditions.
CONCLUSION:
This development promotes balanced and orderly growth of both the PGA West and 90-
017 Specific Plans. The tract map provides a sense of place and incorporates a unique
gated community of custom houses in the south portion of PGA West, which the existing
golf course provides for both passive and active forms of recreation.
The tentative tract map, as Conditioned, is consistent with adjacent development in the
immediate area, and in conformance with City and Specific Plan requirements. Findings
for a recommendation for approval as noted in the attached Resolution can be made.
RECOMMENDATION:
Continue this case to May 26, 1998; or
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_, recommending to City Council
conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 28522.
Attachments:
1. TTM 28522 - Reduced
2. Large Exhibits (Planning Commission Only)
Y
�ropared by:
Grumg-Trdbs�cWll, Associate Planner
1
STPC28522-23 4
RES028522-23, CONDTTM28522-23
Submitted by:
Y
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A 18 SINGLE FAMILY
AND OTHER COMMON LOT SUBDIVISION ON 14.46 ACRES
LOCATED EAST OF RIVIERA AND 350 FEET NORTH OF
HERMITAGE IN PGA WEST RESORT AND CLUB
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28522
APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 12th day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for KSL Land
Corporation for a 18 single family residential and other common lot subdivision on 14.46
acres, generally east of Riviera and 350-feet north of Hermitage in PGA West, more
particularly described as:
A portion of Parcel 2 of Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-208
recorded November 15, 1996 (APN: 761-090-050 and 761-
080-075)
WHEREAS, the City Council, by approval of Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-
017, established two master planned communities, one with 5,000 residential units and
second with 880 residential units, oriented around five golf courses in conjunction with
commercial and hotel related land uses. Overall, the adopted Plans offer guidelines
promoting a balanced and functional mix of land uses consistent with the City's General
Plan; 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
for said Tentative Tract Map 28522:
Findinq Number 1 - Consistency with General Plan:
A. The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The Land Use
Element of the General Plan allows residential land uses. The project is
consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan
Land Use Element (Chapter 2) because attached and detached residential
units are permitted. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element.
Finding Number 2 - Consistency with Specific Plans (SP 83-002, Amendment #3 and SP
90-017) and City Zoning Ordinance:
RF,SOPCTTM 28522-23
Planning Commission Resolution 98-.
Tentative Tract Map 28522
A. The proposed single family lots exceed the minimum size requirement of
6,500 square feet. Specific Plan 83-002 allows 5,000 houses and SP 90-
017 allows 880 houses oriented around golf courses and other resort
commercial land uses. The proposed 18 residential lots will not impact the
overall growth and development of PGA West.
B. The proposed single family lots are consistent with the City's Zoning Code
in that development standards and criteria contained in the PGA West
Specific Plans supplement and/or replace those in the City's Zoning Code.
Detached single family houses will be built as required. Conditions are
recommended ensuring compliance with both the PGA West Specific Plans
and Zoning Code.
Finding Number 3 - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act:
A. Tentative Tract Map 28522 is within both the PGA West Specific Plans (SP
83-002 and SP 90-017). The project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act per Public Resources Code Section 65457(a).
Environmental Impact Reports (Sch# 83062922 and 90020727) were
certified by the City Council in 1984 and 1991 for each specific plan
respectively. No changed circumstances or changed conditions exist which
would trigger the preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Public
Resources Code 21166. No additional mitigation monitoring is required.
Finding Number 4 - Site and Landscape Design:
A. The proposed site design conforms with the design guidelines identified in
SP 83-002 and 90-017 and provides a harmonious transition between other
approved residential houses in PGA West.
B. The proposed common landscaping will be privately maintained. The
landscape design complements the surrounding residential areas in that it
enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area.
C. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed land division.
Finding Number 5 - Site Improvements:
A. Stormwater runoff will be diverted to the existing golf course to ensure off -
site properties are not impacted from seasonal storms.
B. The proposed private street serves all proposed lots and connects to other
existing streets in the PGA West development. Internal access is provided
RESOPCTTM 28522-23
Planning Commission Resolution 98-.
Tentative Tract Map 28522
as required ensuring public safety vehicles proper access to this residential
area.
C. Infrastructure improvements such as gas, electric, sewer and water will be
extended to service the site in underground facilities as planned under the
Specific Plans. No adverse impacts have been identified based on letters
of response from affected public agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required for
Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017, as amended;
3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Environmental Impact Reports
for the Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017, as amended, assessed the
environmental concerns of this tentative tract;
4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 28522
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Planning Commission, held on this 121 day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
RF.SOPCTTM 28522-23
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Tentative Tract Map 28522
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RF,SOPCTTM 28522-23
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28522
KSL LAND CORPORATION
MAY 12, 1998
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is directed to file these Conditions
of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to
which they apply.
2. Tentative Tract Map No. 28522 shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§
66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and
Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC).
3. This map approval shall expire and become null and void within two years of approval
unless an extension of time is granted according to the requirements of Section 13.12.150
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building
or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances
from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District
• Imperial Irrigation District
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans.
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 include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans
submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the
applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for
review by the Public Works Department.
5. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted
Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
A:CondTTM28522KSL.wpd Page 1 of 10
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or
otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of
improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said
dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or
parcel map or a waiver of parcel map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to
dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and
reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or
parcels.
7. Prior to approval of a final map, parcel map or grading plan and prior to issuance of a
grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent 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.
8. The applicant shall dedicate private street right of way and utility easements in
conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and
as required by the City Engineer.
9. Dedications required of this development include:
Private Streets: Single -loaded section - 33-foot width or as necessary to backs of curbing;
double -loaded section - 37-foot width (to backs of curbing); double -loaded section with
median - 50-foot width (to backs of curbing).
Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn
lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans.
If the City Engineer determines that public access rights to proposed street rights of way
shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the
rights of way, the applicant shall grant temporary public access easements to those areas
within 60 days of written request by the City.
10. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along
both sides of all private streets.
11. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common
areas.
12. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this
property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any
final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are
approved by the City Engineer.
UCondTTAI28522KSL.,Apd Page 2 of 1
FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S)
13. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the
complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program
format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu
choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to
AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
14. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36"
media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and
"Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the
City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community
Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction
until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates
and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and
drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley
Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their
submittal for the City Engineer's signature.
"Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting,
and perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer.
15. 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.
16. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the
applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage
media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu
choices 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 including approved revisions to the plans.
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.
u1CondTTM28522KSL %pd Page 3 of 10
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
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 approved estimates of
improvement costs. 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 utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies
shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V.
cable improvements. However, tract 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 (plot
plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide
improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be
constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be
completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings
within the phase unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer.
20. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for
applicant's required share of the off -site improvements associated with the PGA West
Specific Plans (SP 83-002 and SP 90-017) as specified in the off -site -improvement
phasing plan being prepared at the time of approval of this tentative map.
GRADING
21. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances.
The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water
erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments.
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, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, 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.
L:\CondTTM28522KSI..wpd Page 4 of 10
23. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance.
24. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report
(the "soils report") with the grading plan.
25. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval
of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform
with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils
engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any
are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section
17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document,
bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that
lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad
elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between
the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively
if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the
following:
27. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design
storm) shall be retained within the development or on adjacent golf course areas unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
UTILITIES
28. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall
be installed prior to the hardscape improvements. The applicant shall provide certified
reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
29. The City is contemplating adoption of a revised infrastructure fee program. If the program
is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a certificate of
compliance for any waived final map, the development or portions thereof may be subject
to the provisions of the program.
30. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses:
A:\CondTTM28522KSL.wpd Page 5 of 10
PRIVATE STREETS AND CULS DE SAC:
1) Double - loaded - minimum 36 feet wide (between curbfaces or flowlines)
2) Double - loaded with median - minimum 18-foot travel lanes
3) Single -loaded - minimum 32 feet wide
4) Cul de sac curb radius - 45'
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, and other
features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths
as determined by the City Engineer.
31. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization
markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and
mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City
Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
32. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries
such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other
incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely
integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices.
33. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by
registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California.
Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted
Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City
Engineer.
34. Street right of way geometry for culs de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall
conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
35. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and
constructed with vertical curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to
convey nuisance water without ponding and to facilitate street sweeping.
36. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall
consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building
construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows:
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
A:\CondTTNf28522KSI,.wpd Page 6 of t
The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall
be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and
traffic volumes.
The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base
materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design
lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the
submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for
construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations
can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations
shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved.
37. Final inspection and occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the
development will not be approved until the homes or permanent buildings have improved
access, including street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street
name signs, to publicly -maintained streets. If on -site streets are initially constructed with
only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement
when directed by the City but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten
percent of homes within the tract.
LANDSCAPING
38. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas and medians
shall be prepared by a landscape architect and be prepared based on the water
conservation measures in Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development
Department. Construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for
review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction
until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley
Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
39. Slopes shall not exceed 3:1 unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
40. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements
of the City Engineer.
41. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
42. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all required
landscaping in a healthy and viable condition as required by Section 9.60.240 (E3) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
UCondTTX128522KSI,.wpd Page 7 of 10
QUALITY ASSURANCE
43. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
44. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not
included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to
provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications.
Testing shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City
Engineer, after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been
permanently stabilized.
45. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide,
sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign
accurate record drawings.
46. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings
shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on
each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the
accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously
submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition.
MAINTENANCE
47. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous and perpetual maintenance of all
required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by the
City.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
48. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.
49. School impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of AB 1600, Section
53080 and 65995 of the Government Code or the them existing legislation and/or local
ordinances adopted pursuant thereto or any applicable Mitigation Agreement entered into
by the Developer and the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). In addition,
the City, Developer and District shall cooperate in exploring alternatives to provide lands
or facilities to the District, through joint use agreements, dedications, or Mello -Roos District
formation.
50. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted
Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
\CondTTM28522KSL.wpd Page 8 of 10
FIRE DEPARTMENT
51. Fire hydrants in accordance with CVWD standard 33-A (Super fire hydrant, 6" X 4" X 2.5"
X 2.5") shall be located at each street intersection paced not more than 330 feet apart in
any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant.
Minimum fire flow shall be 1,500 g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot reflectors
shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with fire hydrants.
52. Applicant/developer will provide written certification for the appropriate water company that
the required fire hydrant(s) are either existing or that financial arrangements have been
made to provide them.
53. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy
of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform
to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans will be signed and approved by the registered Civil Engineer and the
local water company with the following certification: "/ certify that the design of the water
system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Department."
54. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an
individual lot.
55. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of the
model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire
Department for review prior to issuance of building permits.
56. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire
Department override system consisting of Knox Key Operated switches, series KS-2P with
dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Improvement
plans for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review
and approval prior to installation.
MISCELLANEOUS
57. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents
for plan checking purposes.
58. Applicable conditions of Specific Plans 83-002 (Amendment #3) and 90-017 as amended
shall be met prior to building permit issuance.
59. The layout and design of the tract access gates shall be approved by the Community
Development Department after review and approval by the Fire Department.
60. The project's Homeowners Association (HOA) will be organized to administer and maintain
common open space, private roads, security, and architectural consistency pursuant
L\CondTTM28522KSL.wpd Page 9 of 10
Section 12.0 (Phasing and Implementation) of SP 90-017 and as required by SP 83-002.
61. On -site signs (temporary or permanent) shall comply with Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
62. Temporary on -site sales facilities are subject the requirements of Section 9.60.250 of the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., Minor Use Permit).
63. Detached guest houses within the tract shall comply with the requirements of Section
9.60.100 of the Zoning Ordinance.
64. Parkland mitigation fees are required to be paid for houses built within SP 90-017 on Lots
1-7 and 15-18.
65. Developer (or property owner) agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of
La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of
this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its
sole discretion.
k:\CondTTM28522KSL.wpd Page 10 of 11
ATTACHMENTS
:I H #I* G
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 12, 1998
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-620
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INCORPORATED
REQUEST: APPROVAL TO ADD A GOLF MAINTENANCE BUILDING
(2,660 SQUARE FEET) AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
FACILITIES TO THE EXISTING CITRUS COUNTRY CLUB
MAINTENANCE FACILITY.
LOCATION: 78-752 AVENUE 52 (NORTHEAST CORNER OF CALLE
RONDO AND AVENIDA NUESTRA)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 98-356 FOR THIS PROJECT. BASED UPON
THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS
BEEN PREPARED.
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE)
SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION: RESIDENTIAL
ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: OPEN SPACE (CITRUS COUNTRY CLUB)
SOUTH: ACROSS AVENUE 52, UNDER CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE
COUNTRY CLUB (THE TRADITION)
EAST:- OPEN SPACE, VACANT AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSES
(CITRUS COUNTRY CLUB)
WEST: ACROSS CALLE RONDO, VACANT AND EXISTING HOUSES
BACKGROUND:
The Oak Tree West Specific Plan (SP 85-006) permits 2,245 residential units, golf courses,
and a small amount of office commercial at the southwest corner of Avenue 52 and
Jefferson Street (Attachment 1). The Citrus Country Club, a portion of this master planned
community, is approved for approximately 570 single family houses around an existing 18-
hole golf course. To date, approximately 100 housing units and the community clubhouse
have been built.
In 1986, the City of La Quinta approved Plot Plan 86-285, permitting construction of a 6,300
square foot golf maintenance building, on -site parking, outdoor storage area and fuel
dispensing areas on a one acre property at the northwest corner of Calle Rondo and
Avenida Nuestra. ,Access to the facility is provided via Avenue 52, and from the north via
Citrus, a private street within the Citrus Country Club.
A six-foot high perimeter wall provides screening of the on -site activities and reduces noise
impacts to surrounding properties. The existing building is approximately 18-feet high with
low sloping (3-in-12 pitch) flat concrete the roof.
Proiect Proposal
The applicant requests approval to construct a 2,660 square foot maintenance warehouse
building to supplement the existing maintenance warehouse building (Attachment 2). The
new building, consisting of offices and warehouse/storage areas, is located on the east side
of the irregular shaped property and measures approximately 28-feet wide by 95-feet long.
The proposed building is located approximately 55 feet from the Citrus residential
properties. An equipment washing area is shown to the northwest of the new structure in
conjunction with outdoor plant storage areas to the southeast. Six parking spaces are
proposed to the west of the plant storage area.
California -Mediterranean architecture is proposed for the new building. Exterior surfaces
are cement plaster painted desert color tones with clay barrel roofing tile. The overall
height of the building is approximately 18-feet for the main structure and 23-feet for the
centrally located tower element. The building is 10' to 20' from the northeast property line.
Four roll -up service doors, measuring 9-feet high, are located on the north and south
building elevations.
STRPTSDP620KSI, 22, RESOPCSDP620-22, CONDPCSDP620-22
Public Hearing Notice
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on April 17, 1998, for the May 12,
1998, hearing. Property owners in the immediate area have been mailed a copy of the
public hearing notice.
Staff Comments and Findings
The new building is appropriately sited based on existing improvements. Staff supports the
building design and its related facilities based on the following findings, subject to
conditions:
1. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the goals and policies of
the La Quinta General Plan in that maintenance facilities have been determined to
be ancillary to the primary use of the property which is low density residential with
golf related services.
2. The expansion of the existing Citrus Country Club golf course maintenance facility
is consistent with the provisions of SP 85-006 as amended and the Zoning Code,
which permits ancillary facilities for the country club.
3. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this case ensuring that the project will
not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the
surrounding area to supplement the Environmental Impact Report that was certified
by the City Council for SP 85-006 in 1985.
4. The one story building complements the existing maintenance building and both
have a residential appearance with full pitched tile roof and variations in roof height.
The proposal is consistent with the architectural integrity of this private development
and complies with the "Desert Architecture" guidelines of SP 85-006 as amended,
provided plaster surrounds are installed on the south building elevation around
window and door openings.
5. The proposed building is located away from existing residential houses outside the
Citrus Country Club to be sensitive to their privacy needs. A minimum 10-foot wide
setback has been provided behind the building to provide greater separation
between the new building and the future houses planned within this gated
development.
6. Existing perimeter masonry walls and new and existing landscaping buffer the golf
course maintenance warehouse facility adequately to facilitate this minor addition.
7. No signs are proposed with this application.
STRPTSDP620KSL-22, RESOPCSDP620-22, CONDPCSDP620-22
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Adopt Planning Commission resolution 98-_, approving a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact (EA 98-356) for Site Development Permit 98-620; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission resolution 98-_, approving Site Development Permit
98-620, subject to conditions.
Attachments
1. SP 85-006 Exhibit Map
2. Location Map
3. Large Maps (Planning Commission Members)
Pr,6pared by:
Greg Trou ., ej, Associate Planner
STRPTSDP620KSL-22, RESOPCSDP620-22, CONDPCSDP620-22
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-356,
FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-620
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-356
KSL DESERT RESORTS, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 12th day of May, 1998, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on the
Environmental Assessment for Site Development Permit 98-620, a request by KSL
Desert Resorts, Inc. to expand their existing maintenance facility at the Citrus Golf
Course, by addition of a 2,660 square foot building; and,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community
Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 98-
356) and has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit could not have
a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, held on May 12, 1998, upon hearing
and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be
heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify the
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Site Development Permit will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community, either directly or indirectly, in that
no significant impacts have been identified, and less than significant impacts
can be addressed by adherence to standard City development requirements.
2. The proposed Site Development Permit will not have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed
in any manner inconsistent with the Oak Tree West Specific Plan, General Plan,
zoning and other current City standards. The project does not have any
potential to eliminate any important example of California prehistory, as the site
was developed in 1986 as a maintenance facility and has therefore been
disturbed to the extent that no such resource potential exists.
Planning Commission Resolution 98 -
3. The proposed Site Development Permit does not have the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals, as the proposed project will not alter the type or significantly alter the
intensity of the maintenance use already existing on the site, and for which
infrastructure improvements have already been completed.
4. The proposed Site Development Permit will not have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that the proposed project,
is a consistent representation of the project type already approved and
physically implemented for the site under the current Oak Tree West Specific
Plan, and applicable General Plan land use and zoning designations.
5. The proposed Site Development Permit will not have environmental effects that
will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as the
proposed addition is consistent with the maintenance use already assessed
under ultimate development of the Oak Tree West Specific Plan, and
incorporated with the Environmental Assessment previously certified in 1985
for said Specific Plan. The existing maintenance facility use was also
considered in the La Quinta General Plan EIR, certified by City Council in 1992.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 98-
356 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the
Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on
file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12th day of May 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Resolution 98 -
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-356
Prepared for:
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-620
KSL DESERT RESORTS
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
April 21, 1998
C :\C orel\Wrkgrp\1:Adocs\ea983 56. wpd
4V
i
Environmental Checklist Form
EA 98-356
1. Project Title:
Site Development Permit 98-620; Citrus Golf Course maintenance facility expansion.
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, Associate Planner
760-777-7067
4. Project Location:
Northeast corner of Calle Rondo and 52nd Avenue.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
KSL Desert Resorts, Inc. - 56-140 PGA Blvd., La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact: Scott Dalecio - 760-564-1088; FAX - 760-564-4880
6. General Plan Designation:
LDR
7.
(Low Density Residential, 2 - 4 units/acre)
Zoning:
RL
(Low Density Residential)
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.)
This project encompasses approximately 1.3 acres, and proposes a separate building
addition of 2,660 s.f. A 6,300 s.f maintenance building currently exists on the site.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings):
The project site is developed with an existing maintenance facility. The area proposed
for the building addition is currently used for outdoor storage of landscaping materials
and equipment. Residential uses are designated around the entire site; to the north and
east are one custom home, vacant residential pads and golf course associated with the
Citrus, part of the overall Oak Tree West specific plan area. To the southwest is The
Tradition project area; a maintenance facility has been approved in this project area,
to the southeast of the proposed addition site. The existing Desert Club Tract #5 lies
to the west across Calle Rondo, which is partially developed with single-family
homes.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement): City of La Quinta
C:\Core1\Wrkgtp\F.Adocs\cklst356.wpd - l -
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.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. N
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 the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared. n
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. F
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed. 11
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 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.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
For
-2-
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening
analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -
site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration
[Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII 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. See the sample question below. A
source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited
in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\F.Adocs\cklst356.wpd
'ample question:
L
IL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1, 6)
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a
USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further
explanation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,5)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1) 1 1 1 1 X
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1, site plan) I I I I X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1 - 4) 1 1 1 1 X
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)? (aerial) X
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? (1)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (1,4,12)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1, 4)
IIL GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
_L
C:\Corcl\Wrkgp\EAdocs\cklst356.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
a) Fault rupture? (1 - 3 )
b) Seismic ground shaking? (1 - 3)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (I - 3)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (2)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (2)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill? (1 - 3 )
g) Subsidence of the land? (1 - 3)
h) Expansive soils? (1 - 3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (2, site review)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? (Site plan)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding? (2,8)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
:1
I X1
M M
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (aerial photo) i I X
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Site
plan)
I � X
C:\Corel\Wrkgtp\F;Adocs\cklst356.wpd
V.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X
(site plan)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge X
capability? (2, site plan)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (site plan)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (2, site plan)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water supplies? (2)
AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (1,2)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2, aerial)
M�=
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change
in climate? (Site plan)
X
d) Create objectionable odors? (Site plan, application)
VL TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
C:\Corel\Wrkgtp\EAdocs\cklst356.wpd
-E
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact impact
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Site plan) X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (site plan) X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Site plan)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (5, site plan)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Site plan)
M�M
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1, site plan) I t I I X
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Aerial, site plan) I I I I X
VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1 - 4) X
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (1 - 4)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.)? (1 - 4)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (1 - 4)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1 - 4, aerial)
I MW
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\cktst356.wpd -
VIII.
FKA
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1 - 3)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X
(Site plan)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? X
(1 - 3) 1
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? X
(Site plan, application)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (1, site plan) X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X
(Site plan, application)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X
(Aerial, site plan)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X
(10, site plan, aerial)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Site plan, application, aerial)
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\cklst356.wpd
-F
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Site plan, application,
aerial) I I X
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? (10)
b) Police protection? (11)
c) Schools? (Application info)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Site plan)
e) Other governmental services? (1,3, site plan)
XIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result
in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (12, site plan, application)
b) Communications systems? (Application)
M�m
1 -1 -1 1 X]
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1, site X
plan)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Site plan, application)
_C
C : \Core l\ W rkgrp\i? Adocs\cklst3 5 6. wpd
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Storm water drainage? (Site plan, application) I I I Xt
f) Solid waste disposal? (Site plan, application) Xt
g) Local or regional water supplies? (1, site plan) X
XII1L AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2, site plan) I I I I X{
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Site plan, Xt
application)
c) Create light or glare? (Site plan, application) X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (I - 4, 9, site plan) I I I X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1 - 4, 9, site plan) I L I I X{
c) Affect historical resources? (1,2, site plan) I I I I x
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? (Site plan, application) X
C:\Core]\Wrkg[p\EAdocs\cklst356.wpd -1 C
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impart
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? (2, site plan, application) I I I I X
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities? (1, site plan)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1, site plan)
XVh 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 to 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?
- - I - I X -1
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
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\FAdocs\cklst356.wpd
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately
analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
REFER TO ADDENDUM SECTION 5
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.
REFER TO ADDENDUM SECTION 5
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.
REFER TO ADDENDUM SECTION 5
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\cklst356.wpd -1 2
2
Section
1
2
3
4
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Project Overview 3
1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 3
1.3 Background of Environmental Review 3
1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
2.1
Project Location and Environmental Setting 4
2.2
Physical Characteristics 4
2.3
Operational Characteristics 4
2.4
Objectives 5
2.5
Discretionary Actions 5
2.6
Related Projects 5
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5
3.1 Land Use and Planning
6
3.2 Population and Housing
6
3.3 Geological Problems
7
3.4 Water
8
3.5 Air Quality
9
3.6 Transportation/Circulation
9
3.7 Biological Resources
10
3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources
10
3.9 Hazards
11
3.10 Noise
11
3.11 Public Services
12
3.12 Utilities and Service Systems
12
3.13 Aesthetics
13
3.14 Cultural Resources
13
3.15 Recreation
14
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 14
EARLIER ANALYSIS 15
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ea98356.wpd
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of La Quints is the Lead Agency for the proposed project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment.
The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to make
a decision on the proposal.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, the City of La Quinta Community Development
Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and
scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed Oak Tree West (Citrus course) golf course
maintenance facility expansion. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA
Guidelines, include the following:
To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for a project;
To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse impacts
before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration
of environmental impact;
To assist in the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues
that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project;
To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project;
To provide documentation for the findings in a negative declaration that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment,
To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and
To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Oak Tree West (Citrus course) golf course maintenance facility expansion was deemed subject
to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of its potential for project impacts. The Community
Development Department has prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and certification by the
Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta.
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\hAdocs\ea98356.wpd
El
1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Initial Study checklist does not indicate any potential for significant environmental impacts. As a result,
only site -specific conditions have been incorporated into the project approval requirements, and a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. No mitigation measures are
proposed relative to any of the issue areas as referenced on the checklist.
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella
Valley. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and
Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal and county lands to the south. The City of
La Quinta was incorporated on May 1, 1982.
The proposed project consists of expanding an existing 1.3 acre golf maintenance facility, by addition of a
2,660 s.f. building. The existing site incorporates a 6,300 s.f. maintenance building, on -site parking and
outdoor storage and fuel dispensing areas. Access to the facility is via 52nd Avenue. The entire site is screened
from surrounding properties by a six-foot high stucco masonry wall and landscaping. The existing building is
approximately 18 feet high.
Residential uses are designated around the entire site; to the north and east are one custom home, vacant
residential pads and golf course associated with the Citrus Country Club, part of the overall Oak Tree West
specific plan area. To the southwest is The Tradition project area; a maintenance facility has been approved
in this project area, to the southeast of the proposed addition site. The existing Desert Club Tract #5 lies to the
west across Calle Rondo, which is partially developed with single-family homes.
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed maintenance building addition consists of offices (800 s.f) and warehouse (1,860 s.f) areas. It
is located on the northeasterly side of a triangular -shaped property, and it's dimensions are 28 feet wide by 95
feet in length. An equipment washing area is located northwest of the new structure in conjunction with outdoor
storage areas to the southeast. The building exterior will be covered in cement plaster, and will have a barrel -
style clay tile roofing. ]Height of the structure is 18 feet for the main building and 23 feet for a central raised
dormer -style element. Roll -up service doors at 9 feet in height are built into the north and south building
elevations. These elevations face towards the interior of the Citrus Country club, to the northeast, and to 52"a
Avenue on the southwest.
2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The addition is proposed to continue maintenance operations at the Citrus Course, operated by KSL Desert
C:\Corel\Wrkgip\EAdocs\ea98356.wpd
Resorts. Access will remain from 52' Avenue for delivery, employee and other servicing traffic. The proposal
offers 32 parking stalls, dumpsters for clippings and trimmings, material storage bins, outdoor plant material
and equipment storage areas, and refueling area. In order to have operational maintenance activities well
underway before the course opens to golfers, these types of facilities generally start around 5:00 a.m. in order
to prepare and load equipment for transport to work areas. Actual landscaping work begins around 6:00 a.m.
2.4 OBJECTIVES
The objective of this addition is to enhance the ability of the maintenance crew to continue caring for the golf
course operation, and improve the quality of the grounds and maintenance operations.
2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government agency is
the City of La Quinta) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The
proposed maintenance facility addition and related zoning changes will require discretionary approval from the
Planning Commission for the following:
• Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the Site Development Permit (Resolution
action); and,
• Approval of the Site Development Permit (Resolution action).
2.6 RELATED PROJECTS
There are no related projects to this proposal under review at present. Plot Plan 86-285 was approved by the
Planning Commission in May, 1986 for the existing 6,300 square foot maintenance facility. On February 17,
1998, the La Quinta City Council approved Amendment #2 to Specific Plan 85-006 (Oak Tree West), allowing
smaller single family lots of not less than 6,000 square feet. A compatibility review for new unit types (Site
Development Permit 98-621) within the Citrus Country Club was approved by Planning Commission in April
1998, for the Peters - Hover Company. This did not propose any additional units to those currently approved,
only new unit designs. Site Development Permit 98-622 is presently under compatibility review for Marvin
Homes, to allow an additional unit design in the Citrus Course residential area under development by that
builder.
SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal. CEQA issue areas are
evaluated in this addendum as contained in the Initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the
environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions as they presently exist within the City
and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards
adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA, Appendix G. However, this
proposal does not involve any new impacts beyond those previously identified in the original Environmental
Assessment prepared for the overall Oak Tree West Specific Plan area, as approved in October 1985.
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ea98356.wpd
0
3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The
Valley is abundant with both plant and animal life. Topographic relief ranges from 237 feet below mean sea
level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The Valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto, Santa Rosa, Orocopia,
and San Bernardino Mountain Ranges. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the Valley.
Primary industries are tourism and agriculture. The area is primarily characterized by a low density, resort
based land use pattern with several thousand acres in golf course uses.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject area is developed with residential uses on individual lots, and there is a significant amount of
vacant, finished residential land within the boundary of Oak Tree West. The current General Plan land use for
the area is Low Density Residential (2 - 4 units/acre). Areas surrounding the project site to the south and west
are residential, private country club (Tradition project), and residential infill subdivision (Desert Club Tract
#5).
A Through D - No Impact. The project as proposed is consistent with the current land uses in the La Quinta
General Plan and the Oak Tree West Specific Plan. The existing maintenance facility was approved in May
1986 and completed in early 1987. Additional accessory buildings and uses associated with the facility are
considered to be consistent, such as those represented under the proposed project description.
The proposal will have no conflicts with any environmental policies or plans in effect which would apply to
the project area. There are no existing or potential agricultural operations or uses which could be affected in
any way by this project; the site has no historical evidence of agricultural use or resource potential. The site
has been utilized for golf course maintenance operations for the past 1 I years, and is not considered
incompatible with surrounding land uses in the vicinity as the use has been determined to be permitted in
conjunction with country club uses in the RL zoning district. The proposed addition will have no effect on any
established community or physical boundary(ies) of same.
3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Regional Environmental Setting
The City's population as of January, 1997 was estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 18,931
persons. It is anticipated that the City's January 1998 estimate will be close to 20,000 permanent population.
In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 9,400 seasonal residents who spend three to six
months in the City (WDL Economic Overview; 1997 Ed.). It is estimated that approximately 30% of all
housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.85 persons per occupied
unit, based on the 1990 Census, but the 1997 State Department of Finance estimates a figure of 3.12.
Local Environmental Setting
The site is proposed for addition of an accessory maintenance facility structure of 2,660 s.f, in conjunction
with an established golf course maintenance use which has been in operation for the past 11 years as part of
a residential country club development. As of 10/1/96 only 93 permits had been issued since the initial tract
map 24890 was approved in October of 1989; from 10/1/96 to 4/1/98 (18 mos.), only 10 permits have been
issued.
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ea98356.wpd
7
A through C - No Impact. The project is not anticipated to affect the local population in any manner.
Substantial growth in the area is not anticipated, directly or indirectly, as the proposal does not include any
housing component nor any commercial uses which could generate additional housing or otherwise affect
existing housing. The proposal will not exceed any current growth forecasts currently available to or used by
the City, nor will it cause any significant change in anticipated growth patterns or numbers, as these forecasts
are based on the build out scenarios in the General Plan. The proposal, as stated previously, will only provide
increased golf course maintenance capabilities exclusively for the Citrus Country Club area. As the addition
is on a portion of an existing golf course maintenance facility site, it will not displace any existing housing.
3.3 GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has a vaned topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans, steep hillside, to relatively
flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types are underlain by igneous -
metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on
the Valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands, due to the alluvial deposits from
tributary drainage areas of the mountains.
Local Environmental Setting
The site is approximately 37 feet above sea level, and consists of Indio series soils, though there may be other
soil types which were imported as part of grading fill activity. Indio soils generally are well drained, with
moderate permeability. Indio series are considered prime agricultural soils by the State SCS (LQGP Final EIR
1992), however, there are no agricultural uses operating in the area. The site is located within a Ground
shaking Zone 3, referenced as a moderate level of shaking activity. There are no active faults in the area;
inferred faults show no evidence of Holocene activity, i.e., within the last 11,000 years (La Quinta MEA,
1992). The site was previously graded in conjunction with residential building activity associated with TR
25499.
A, D Through I - No Impact. The project will not present any additional exposure to geologic hazards
associated with fault rupture, as only inferred fault traces have been identified in proximity to the site. The site
is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, and surface rupture due to faulting is not considered a
significant hazard, due to the absence of known active faulting within the City boundaries (LQGP Final EIR
1992). The existing physical conditions in the area will not be changed in any sigmficant manner; the site is
currently level and graded for development.
The soil characteristics indicate that ground failure due to seismic activity is minimal, based on its common
use in urbanized development and the condition of existing buildings in the area. There is no potential for
seiche, tsunami or volcanic activity. The site is level and not subject to slide or mudflow impacts. There will
be some very minor change in surface features due to project grading on a site -specific basis. Such changes
will only affect stability of the site where the natural substructure is modified. Soil erosion potential will
increase due to loosening and movement of soil material during development. Standard erosion control and soil
management methods as identified in the project soils report, and addressed in the grading plan required for
the facility, will ensure that such impacts are negligible. Soil instability and expansion generally do not occur
within the City due to the physical nature of the underlying geology and sand soil units (LQMEA, 1992). There
are no unique geologic or other physical features in the site area.
C :\Corel\Wrkgrp\F.Adocs\ea983 56.wpd
B, C - Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located in a Ground shaking Zone 3, associated with
moderate impacts from seismic activity. Zone 3 envelops over 90% of the existing City boundaries. As a result,
the site is potentially subject to some ground shaking effects associated with any earthquake activity on outlying
faults. Impacts involving potential seismic activity also relate to possible risk associated with upset conditions
(LQMEA; 1992). Such activity will be influenced by the magnitude of any seismic influence and cannot be
predicted. The City of La Quinta requires adherence to the UBC standards for seismic design in all new
construction; it is not anticipated that ground shaking impact will exceed the design standard for seismic
construction in new structures.
The site is identified as being within a potential liquefaction area (LQMEA; 1992), but soil consolidation due
to previous grading activity has likely stabilized existing soil conditions and liquefaction is not considered to
be of significant impact potential
3.4 WATER
Regional Environmental Setting
Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layers of rock
material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. Water
supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal
and stored at Lake Cahuilla. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta
from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment.
Local Environmental Setting
The Citrus Country Club area is protected from design storms by the La Quinta Evacuation Channel flood
control facility and Bear Creek Channel improvements completed in 1987. It is also protected by on and off -site
improvements along the project perimeter (Calle Rondo ditch, golf course lake system, etc.) The site is
particularly level and soil characteristics indicate well drained soils. The site is designated Zone X on the
federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps in effect for the area, determined to be outside the limits of a 500 year flood
event (FEMA FIRM, 8/ 19/91).
A Through I - No Impact. Current runoff rates will be incrementally increased due to pad, building and
hardscape area development associated with the facility's expansion, but will be negligible relative to the extent
of the existing facility. The implementation of the zoning revisions and Guidelines will not alter the occurrence
of these impacts; they will occur with or without them. If the proposed revisions are implemented, they may
increase the rate of growth in the area. Compliance with NPDES requirements attached to all future project
permitting will ensure that storm water runoff associated with the project's development will not create any
measurable impact to water quality, quantity or hazards.
The project will be required to provide adequate storm water protection on site to mitigate flooding impacts
to any surrounding properties. No surface waters exist in the area which could be affected by the project's
development, nor is there any potential for the minor structural addition to affect the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies.
3.5 AIR QUALITY
C:\Corel\WrkgrpTAdocs\ea98356.wpd
0
Regional Environmental Setting
The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), and is located in the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air
pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SOCAB). Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal
standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter.
Local Environmental Setting
The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild
winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and
localized winds occur throughout the Valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality
conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. In the Coachella Valley, the standards for PM
10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that become suspended
in the air primarily due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads. The Valley is currently
designated by the EPA as a serious non -attainment area for PM 10; however SCAQMD anticipates that recent
data will show that the Valley has been in attainment over the last three years. Based on this, SCAQMD has
prepared and adopted a PM 10 Maintenance Plan in order to have the area redesignated to attainment status.
A Through D - No Impact. The scale and potential impact on air quality dictated that an air quality analysis
is unnecessary. It is anticipated that only an incremental impact can be associated with addition of a 2,660
square foot structure at an existing golf course maintenance facility; the increase between existing and ultimate
operational air quality impacts are insignificant. Construction impacts to air quality will be negligible, and
filing of a fugitive dust control plan as a condition of approval per requirements of Chapter 6.16 of the City's
Municipal Code will offset any measurable impact to surrounding residential development. There will be some
minimal odor potential due to fertilizers and various related organic and chemical compounds used in the
maintenance operation, but it is not seen as significant concern due to the facility's past operational history.
3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Regional Environmental Setting
The City's existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed by Riverside County and
new and resurfaced roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway
111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, Miles Avenue and 50th Avenue. Traffic volumes
in La Quinta experience seasonal variation; late winter/early spring months represent the peak tourist season.
Local Environmental Setting
The site has access from 52"d Avenue for employee and delivery traffic to the maintenance facility.
The La Quinta General Plan establishes a minimum Level of Service (LOS) "D" for all intersections during
A.M. or P.M. peak hours without adequate mitigation. LOS is a hierarchical classification of qualitative
measures of traffic flow, ranging from A (free flow) to F (unacceptable saturation).
A Through G - No Impact. The addition of 2,660 square feet of maintenance and office area for the existing
facility will have minimal increases in trip generation and congestion. No changes in the circulation pattern and
general parking provisions on or off -site are proposed, and there is no evidence that the operation of the
maintenance facility as approved and proposed for expansion would be an incompatible use. Parking and
access requirements have been met by the proposal and have not been a concern in the past during its operation.
The proposal is entirely within the existing site; as such there are no identifiable potential impacts to
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\LAdocs\ea98356.wpd
10
pedestrians or cyclists from any hazardous conditions which could result from the addition.
The proposal, being located inside of a private country club development, is not required to provide for
alternative transportation infrastructure, or to submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan,
based on the scale and intensity of development anticipated and the minimal number of additional employees
anticipated. The site is not proximate to, nor is it affected by, water, air or rail traffic.
3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City, the Sonoran
Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as urban or
agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the LQMEA.
Local Environmental Setting
The site is developed with an existing maintenance facility and surrounded by graded, urbanized residential
land. It is located adjacent to a major arterial roadway (52"d Avenue) and is proximate to a developed and
operational golf course There are no riparian/wetland habitats or streambeds on the site. The LQMEA identifies
the site as within the range of the California Ditaxis, and the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard (CVFTL),
for which a federal l0A permit was obtained pursuant to adoption of the CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP). However, the site is not within the mitigation fee area as identified in the adopted HCP
A Through E - No Impact. There is little to no potential for wildlife habitat to exist on or around the site due
to its urban characteristics and the existing facility. The range of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard
(CVFTL) is identified as extending into the area, but the topographic and physical makeup of area soils and
vegetation, in combination with existing urban development and influence, indicate that it is unlikely for this
species to inhabit the area. The CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) also does not include the site area
within the habitat mitigation fee area as delineated. The California Ditaxis was considered a Species of Special
Concern at the time of completion of the LQMEA and the General Plan. This is a non -listed status, and the
species has not been sighted within it's identified range since 1984. The City has not required any mitigation
related to this species in the past. No wetland areas are shown to be on or traverse the site, although there is
manmade habitat created by development of the golf course and lake drainage system. However, the existence
of an established road system, surrounding golf and residential development and existing site development
precludes any potential migration or dispersal of any wildlife.
3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
La Qumta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Areas (SMARA),
as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Energy
resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District and Southern California Gas Company.
Local Environmental Setting
The site does not he within an identified area sensitive to mineral resources. Soils within the site consist of Indio
series, which are well -drained and moderately permeable; Indio soils are considered to be prime agricultural
soils in the State Soil Classification System. The site has been used as a golf course maintenance facility for
C:\Corel\Wrkgip\EAdocs\ea98356.wpd
almost 12 years, with no mining or similar activities having ever occurred.
A, B, C - No Impact. The proposed maintenance addition has no potential to impact energy or mineral
resources in any manner which could be considered wasteful. Construction of the building addition will be
required to meet State energy standards as typically enforced by the Building and Safety Department.
3.9 HAZARDS
Regional Environmental Setting
Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within the Coachella Valley,
the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen
cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may post significant threats to
various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside
County; transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place.
Local Environmental Setting
The site is used for golf course maintenance, and has several ancillary features such as fuel dispensing
facilities, outdoor material storage areas as well as the use of various biochemicals, fertilizing agents, and other
organic and chemical materials; these constitute the most significant risk potential.
A Through E - No Impact. There is extremely limited potential risk of explosion and/or release of hazardous
substances due to the project; any such risk is primarily associated with potential natural disaster or accident
such as fire, chemical spill, etc. The project has no potential to interfere with emergency response
plans/programs, based on the nature of the project, intensity of the proposed expansion of the land use and past
operational history. It also is not considered capable of creating any health hazards, as there are no changes
to permitted uses, area land use patterns or operational characteristics. The site is not in an area susceptible
to increased fire hazards relative to brush, grass or trees, as minimal susceptible vegetation exists in the
immediate area or on the site that is in a flammable state, primarily due to the developed state of the site and
surrounding areas. Compliance with Chapter 6.16 for dust control will minimize minor dust impacts.
3.10 NOISE
Regional Environmental Setting
Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include
vehicular noise on City arterials and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels
are dominated by vehicular noise along the Highway and major arterials, but can be impacted by aircraft noise
from Bermuda Dunes and Thermal Airports, usually of a short duration.
Local Environmental Setting
Primary noise sources in the subject area are associated with vehicle traffic within and surrounding the project
area, predominantly from 52"d Avenue. The property development patterns in the area (vacant residential) do
not currently constitute a significant source of noise. However, there are several residential areas in and around
the site which are considered as noise sensitive.
A, B - No Impact. No significant increases in noise levels are anticipated due to the proposal. Any increases
will be incremental relative to the existing conditions. Roadway noise will increase as traffic volumes increase.
The majority of the traffic volume in this area is and will continue to be related to established and developing
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ea98356.wpd
12
residential around the project site, such as areas inside the Citrus Golf Course, The Tradition and other
residential areas. Most of the project's on -site uses currently are a source of some noise, with operation and
repair of equipment, truck delivery and loading/unloading traffic probably the greatest noise generators. It is
not anticipated that addition of the proposed building and the associated expansion of the maintenance
operations will create any significant increases in noise levels from this source above the existing situation. The
anticipated noise levels are not expected to impact existing or future land uses in the immediate area, based on
the orientation of the building's activity areas, six-foot perimeter wall and landscaping, and siting of the facility
on the property.
3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
Regional Environmental Setting
Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's
Department. Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire
Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, and Station #70, at the
intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service.
Local Environmental Setting
Riverside County Fire Station #32 is located''/z mile west of the project area, and Station #70 is approximately
3 miles to the southeast. Station #31 is located in Bermuda Dunes on 42nd Avenue and Adams Street,
approximately 5 miles north of the project site. The Sheriff's office maintains a check -in facility in the City's
Emergency Operations Center at City Hall. Other governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City
staff at the Civic (City Hall)and Senior Centers. The La Quinta branch of the County library system operates
out of a 2,800 square foot office on Calle Estado. The La Quinta Chamber of Commerce staffs an office in the
Plaza. La Quinta Center on Highway 111. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial
Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Clinic located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping
Center.
A Through E - No Impact. The proposal will have no impact to public services, as the proposal does not
substantially alter planned land use, circulation patterns, permitted uses and other factors which could impact
public services. All necessary public services are available to the site; it is not anticipated that the proposal's
implementation will alter existing levels of public service. The Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD)
maintains that all new development valley -wide places additional demand for school facilities and services
which they are currently unable to provide. At present, the only feasible mitigation available is through school
fees and land dedication requirements. Projects proposed and approved by the City will have to pay school fees
as established by DSUSD at issuance of building permit(s).
3.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (I1D) for electrical power supply and the
Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. General Telephone Exchange (GTE)
provides telephone services for the City. MediaOne provides cable television service.
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains
its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. The City's stormwater drainage system is
administered by CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows
C :\Corel\WrkgrpTEAdocs\ea98356. wpd
13
through the City.
The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed
municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley.
Local Environmental Setting
The site is currently served by all required utilities. Street and flood control improvements have been
constructed or are in place around the Citrus golf course area..
A Through G - No Impact. All utility systems are available to the site to accommodate the proposed addition
and expansion of the maintenance facility. Existing services for the current facility are adequate to provide
service to the proposed additional maintenance building.
3.13 AESTHETICS
Local Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. The Santa Rosa and Coral Reef
Mountains exist to the south and west of the City, with some limited views to the north of the Indio Hills. Views
of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. The Village area
has some of the best overall City viewsheds of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef mountain ranges. Detailed
information on historic resources throughout the City are contained in the City of La Quinta Historic Resources
Survey dated October 1, 1997 and prepared by Mellon and Associates.
A, B, C - No Impact. Impacts on scenic vistas relate primarily to building height. The proposed structure is
limited to 20 feet in height by existing conditions of the Oak Tree West Specific Plan, of which this proposal
is a part. The building's overall main roof height is 18 feet, with a central roof dormer at 23 feet. These heights
have been determined to be consistent with the 20 foot height limit assigned to the specific plan area, as
architectural projections, such as tower elements, are allowed.
There is no evidence that the project could produce any demonstrable negative effects, from an aesthetic point
of view. The architectural, building and site design components are based on the existing maintenance facility,
and as such they are generally consistent with the development of that use. There are no aspects of the proposed
expansion which could compromise the aesthetic standards maintained by the City.
Overall, development in accordance with the proposal will result in an incremental amount of light and glare,
but the impact potential is negligible when considered with the existing maintenance facility. The City has an
Outdoor Light Control ordinance which regulates lighting types and shielding characteristics. Landscaping and
other lighting proposals will be reviewed during the project design review process, to be consistent with the
Outdoor Light Control provisions of the Zoning Code for height, shielding and lighting type.
3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills. The
settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta Historical Society in several publications
and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the California Historic
Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan.
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ea98356.wpd
14
Local Environmental Setting
The site has no historic structures located on or near the property. An existing maintenance facility occupies
the area proposed for expansion, which is essentially an unimproved area east of the existing structure, used
for storage. The prior use of the property as agricultural land use, and its existing developed condition indicate
no cultural resources are associated with the site.
A Through E - No Impact. The site is within the limits of the ancient lakebed of Lake Cahuilla, as indicated
on the lakebed delineation map on file in the Community Development Department. Projects proposed in these
areas may be required to perform preliminary paleontologic and archaeologic investigations, depending on
record search results, to determine the impact potential associated with any given site. The project site has been
developed and was in agriculture prior to 1986, which precludes any potential for resource recovery or further
impact to cultural resources. There are no historic structures present on the site or in the immediate vicinity
which could be impacted. Development of the project has no potential to affect any known cultural values, and
no existing religious uses are associated with the site.
3.15 RECREATION
Local Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources
and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed
parkland for Quimby Act purposes. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City and
designated pedestrian hiking trails. The Frances Hack Park is located in the Village area along Avenida
Montezuma. immediately east of its intersection with Eisenhower Drive. The park is approximately 2 acres.
The City is currently constructing a public pool with associated facilities at Fritz Burns Park, which is at the
southeast corner of Avenida Bermudas and 52" d Avenue, just south of The Village boundary.
A, B - No Impact. The proposed expansion will not affect recreational facilities or existing recreational
opportunities. It does not create demand for or supply of additional recreational resources.
SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
No significant or potentially significant impacts were associated with the proposed Site Development Permit
98-620, expansion of the Citrus Golf Course maintenance facility.
The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065
of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment:
a) The proposed Site Development Permit will not have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent
with the General Plan, current approved land use and any current City standards. The project
has not been identified as having the potential to eliminate any important example of
California prehistory.
b) The proposed Site Development Permit will not have the potential to achieve short term goals,
C:\Corel\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ea98356.wpd
15
to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. The proposed project will have no
additional impact potential beyond those related to the existing maintenance facility.
c) The proposed Site Development Permit will not have impacts which are individually limited
but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the
immediate vicinity, in that the proposed project is a limited expansion of an existing approved
golf course use, the cumulative impacts of which were considered in Environmental
Assessment 85-034 prepared for the overall Oak Tree West project (Specific Plan 85-006).
d) The proposed Site Development Permit will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project does not contemplate a substantially
increased land use intensity than that already existing and as approved by the City pursuant
to Plot Plan 86-285.
SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES
A. Earlier Analyses Used. The following documents were used and/or referred to in the preparation of
this assessment.
1. La Quinta General Plan Update; October 1992
2. La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment; October 1992
3. Final EIR, La Quinta General Plan Update; SCH 91122013; October 1992
4. Environmental Assessment 85-034, prepared for the Oak Tree West Specific Plan; certified October
15, 1985
5. City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Zoning Code; adopted July 1996, amended April 1997
6 Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June
1985
7. Wheeler's Desert Letter; Economic Overview of the Coachella Valley, 1997 Edition, Vol VII, June
1997
8. National Flood Insurance Program; Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of La Quinta, CA, Community
Panel No. 060709-0010-B, revised 8/ 19/91.
9. City of La Quinta, Ancient Lake Bed Delineation Map, La Quinta Community Development
Department
10. Riverside County Fire Department; response letter dated 3/16/98
11. Riverside County Sheriff's Department; response letter dated 3/11/98
12. Imperial Irrigation District; response letter dated 3/ 16/98
These and various other documents on file with the Community Development Department were referred to in
the preparation of this Initial Study.
B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. As it was determined that no significant impacts can be anticipated
due to adoption and implementation of this proposal, there are no environmental issues identified which
can be addressed relating to this proposal.
C :\C orel\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ea98356. wpd
16
C. Mitigation Measures. Project -specific mitigation measures have been incorporated, addressed through
project conditions. These measures are contained in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program
(MMP).
Prepared by: Date:
�r-
Wallace H. Nesbit
Associate Planner
C:\C orel\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ea98356. wpd
0
Qa
CI
WJ
0
0
U.
U.
0
0
a.
2
0
0
E
co
Eoi
CN
LO
0
co
00
(M
n-
o
(n
LO
"a
c
c
lL
w
z
9
0
cn
CD
(0 a)
Lo 0
CY) -j
ob (n
a) se
M
0
z
6
z
4
z
0
w
Lu
-j
a Q
LU
uj
LU > . . . . . . .
ca
z
LLI
av
LLJ
im
0
U-
ul z
Fc
z z
00
CO)
uj
..........
C13
rn
z
LU
U)
ul Z
0
U) IL
>
uj
0
r;
CO cn
-6
D
CL :3
CD
>
E
0 C:
cr
E
uj
j=
Q C
0
(n r-
LU 0
z
0
LU w-=3
2 z
Lai
uj
uj>-
C.) Im
Z
.. X
C)
ul
he
L.0
0
uj
. . . . . . . ....
cr
0
LL
uj
Z Z
00
uj
............. .........
z
C7
C 0
0
0
co I--
CD LL,
-a L)
0 0)
oa
C.)
CO U)
Z
:3
0 0
LU
0
LU
> cu E
CL
LU =1
O
CL
w
I-- E cox
cr
0
CL
0 .—
CL
E
LU E
0
1 E
LU 0
z
0 iD co
z
W"
uj
cl
LU >"
CD
z
<
LLJ
0 x
UU
LU
C-)
u
00
T E
c
a. m
4,j C
0
>
Lu
(D
0
00
C
LU
E tj
A E
O 0 a)
a. u a
o
-:3
4j
w
0- W-
%�-
. C -
<
-1
w
E -a
0
cr
UJ
0
a
C
a)
CC
Coo
cc
CL
b-
E
U)
Vcmw
:3
E
-j
<
-C
UJ
<
c c
CD
U) ca<
C
C
U)
0
i
r
CJ
>
(D
M
(1)
> a)
Lii
V)
-C
ca
U0
(D
LLI
C
CL
L)
CD
U)
cn :3
E
uj
<
.0 ::3
CD
cn 0
4) "
0
w
0
0
(1)
LU
—A
z
0
0
U)
T!
:;�
b
a
7j
LLI
LU >.
z
Ul
C.)
U.,
0 X
illtii
U
MIMRWI�
CD
>
RE
M
C
im
CO -0
M
c V
.7
.5
T3
iitifflliliii
C/)
Uj
:D
Uj
6
>
It
E
CL c
(D
-0
>
0 >
n
M
xMM
"a
U CL
L) 0
c 0
c
WON
MWE
co
c
w w
cc
as
o cn
E
c:
a)
o
>
0
of
is
w -
cl
Ems
:iMM&
m:;:i:
MM
M:m;j:j:
cc 'M
:mJM*
c
MMM*
0
ism
0
4-
(D
:::::M:M
r- 0)
0
a
sti!
iiiRE"iiii
+;
41
U)
CD
sw
c
ISM
L 2
Miii
ism
a. 0 a
a- a
a .6
9
ROSS
-i
1
E
MON
I lii�
.
iiom
M*M*i
:ig
C
9M
(D
ccO
i9f
U-
1
itf ii
a
0 co
LU
:t
-Niiiiiiiiiiii
sj:
M
U CL
-1 w
i:i
(D
C6
si
0
Z Z
its=
cn
00
MEN
jii
j::
a)
an
0
Ui
0
>
LU
0- 0
St c
a
ca
4- Co
M
U
0
�
0)
c
D
4�
c . Lo
CL
:3
4) 0
co
E
0
LU
!-(D a)
CD
tM
(6
:3 Cc cc
cd
A)
-a
cr 3: 4�
CD c
CO)
cn
CD
x
LU
CD
:3
w
= 2 C)
M
0
2
(n
-C M co
c
M
LU
4�
Q
+5 a)
(n
>
, +0-
c
Uj
C-)
>
-6
LU
3: M
0
co
0
t�
+
M 0
U)
E
Uj
cL
c
0
G
t-
cc
—
E
a M
0
0
0
'a)
0
LU
0 0 cD
=
a)
vi
z
O
F—
U U +1
CL .!L
-9
La
LLI
uj >.
C.) m
I
V)
lie
Z 0
Lu
%-
0
CL
a.
cr
. . . . . . . . . .
..... .....
U
co
-C
U
>
c
m
E
0 w
CM 4,
CD
i*K:K.K
.0
CIL 0
0
cm
C
E cn - — >
nCm'CD
c
O
U-
ui
-j
Co 0
—0
(D (D
K
>O
z z
00
>
0
LLI
cr-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E 20
0 :3
u CL
CD
>
0
>a)
:3
%P Rf
"a
ED 0
LL
C:
.0
co
CL
ca
CL
O LL,
ul
0 u
>
LL
CO)
Co LL
> —
:3 C6
4�
0 C
L-
Lu
t
cl cu (1)
0
m
CL
CL
cu c
O
UAo
E
co
r 0
>
o + -0
c :3
co
CL
I--
.r,
m 0
E
LU
+� c
(D
cc 'a
CL 4-
LO
0
Cc +,0
ui
CD a)
S- +,
cli
z
O
OL
a- Fn
MW
w
Q
0
W }
U m'.
Z
Q w
�l Y
w
Z
Y N
�
O
Q
},
O
�
C
w
N
F-
�
a)
U
U >
— O
CL
C �
C
of
O
C
— C
Z
o� O
C �p
—
F-'
O U +,
C
a) N
h $j:
O O
� C —'
C. C.
c0
E —
C
a)
C E
°C
O
O
E —
w
Z
3
c0 >
w—
m
050
—
Ll
Z Z
»«':
p 0
�
�c
L T c
G
tq
O +'
— a)
c
E
w
m
c)
= ca
E ,Q C.
O N
cL U 0
cn
mcn
m
a)
o 0
Z
C
0
a�
O
�p U
Q
�^
p)
U) d
,^
v'LLI
Z
p�
C7
a)
c
C
N
®
W
U
� >
Z
H
N
a)
+=
U
(A
Q Z
p
o
W
Cc —
-Co
Q�
OF
Q
N
..�
W
41
t7
-C � +•%
U)
N
V
n
Q
cco
p
F
>.
E
E
w�
Q
� c`a
E .. a
E
M
Z
0
2
E
U co 0
I
u
LLI
UJ >.
LLI
be
LLJ
/
/
\
�
�
�
Lij
�
� /
� /
� /
LU Z
Cl) F—
z
00
CL
LU
�
� /
� /
� \
z
CO)
0
uj
LU
0
LU
C
ca
cu
k
0
a)U
+-j
2
LLI
acc
co
CD
0
41
LU
Cl)
0
cu
u
> §
a)
w
E
LU
:3
cn 0
a)
a
r-
C�
0
2
2w
0
0) cn
" a)
(L s-
LU
2
0
2
�
W
H
Q
W
Um
Z
Q W
J Y
a. U
w
O 2
U
Q
W
F-
U
C7
Z
m
O C7
w
Z
w —
J lr
mp
;
Z Z
O
a
CO)
,,
m
c
m
Z
rn
O
m
J
�
Wcc
U
W
3a)
W
a
W m
U
Q�oa
}o d
W
�D
Coo
W
N
W N ca
Z W a
F..
U
>
% m
a)
Lu E
'
a)
Q
00 O
m
CD•C
W
p
M Z
0
at E
Z
m
U
LU
uj >-
Z
LLI
tie
d
LAJ
0
�
�\
��
��
LO
.........
CY)
LU
c
0
/
�
� A
� �
�
LD
xx
c
0
/
\
�
cc
�
�
��
0 0
LL
LLI z
CC
im 0
LO
Z Z
00
0.5
i:K*K*i: c
0
41
rc
. . . . . . .......
En
0
L6 E
-C
cn +,
,e
cli0
z
A CD
r- -C
c
.0
0
a CD c
0
:3
E
a) en
Lu
ui
:3
-C
a)
cc
m
Im
0
'a z
c
D
c
C
U)
-0
$-
a) U)
a)� Z
uj
�
c:4-�
co
N
Q
«
> co
Q CD -C%
(1) "a
c
N
CL
C
U C13
Cc a) 0
X
E
4"
%C CD
a_
L) -0
0
z
to a) cna
0 "a D
LU
0 c
LL 0
I
MW
uj
Q M
Z
LLJ
he
(L C.)
LU
0
C.)
�
/
/
/
�
�
�
LLI
�/
��
��
�
' /
� /
� /
cc
LL
uj z
0
00
CL
LU
................
co
a) C:
0
> ca
p
(1)
(1) C
Lu
U) LM
0
0
4-
-ia
LU
(D
c
LU
E(D
+1
to 0
a)
L-
0
co
>
CL.
c>,
cr
z
CL
cn
c 0 +1
U)
CD
-
Eo
co cu
4
0)
c
0
z
M aLU
2 k 9
2
0
z
6
MW
Ki
LLI >-
ul
NdaU
LLI
CD
O
cli CD
LLI
ir
co
0
0
tm
0 (n
..........
0
a.
Ix
00
j:j:j$j:j:j$j:
U- Z
>
LU
000
Cl)
CY)
z Z—
LU
0
CL
co
4)
. . . . . . .........
(D C 0
CD
> Z --
CD+�
L)
0
to E 5
CL co >
a
M
ca CL
m m cn
m
LU
c
U-
UJ
Cc
M a) 0 a)
41 C 0
cn -C 4— --
>
E
LU
LU
0 Cc
m
M
'I.- CL
0
LU
cn 0 E
(D
>
LU
Q 0) (D
c 4-1
co
E E
E
LU
(D
0 0 aaCL
E
T—
<
E
17
CV)
0
z
m0
0
LU
0 cr ca CL a)
CD CL cc 0
MW
LU
LLI >'
LU
CL L)
E
§
0
uj
ir
U
to
0
>
>
to
CA
Q
td
:3
CO)
CD
CD
Cl.
0
CL
O C.7
U-
LU
-j CC
m 0
cm
cd
z z
00
a.
cn
LU
"a
cc
co
E
LU
CD
q
U)
CU
LU
>
cc
co
LLJ
>
M
ca
fr.
w
0
LU
U)
0)
m
-t�
Ct)
E 0
M UJ
U)
LU
(D
0
ui
(D C)
cc
E..
:3
D
D
CL
E
LU
cc
a) >
0
N
—
-1
(D
<
E
5;
a
0
ca
0
LU
o
tM
z
0
u
cu
IN
LLI
uj >.
UJ
he
ul
0
/.
'
. . . . . . . . . . . .
0
0
C;
uj
OU
o CY)
(D
/
/
k k
� �
�
�
3
..........
C.)
cu
cf)
E
0 cl
j:j:j:j:
�
� �
� /
�
O a
LL z
LU
-0
0
(D
c
(D m
.
00
..... . . . .
can-
cm E
LU
CL
km3
CD
E0)
z
0 CL
CD
c L)
0
6
p
> >
U)
F -C
CO)
c -0 (1)
co
UJ
0
o
U)
0
0
cc
CL
UJ
LU
ca
r 0
U)
>
0
0
a) (n
.r-
cn
ul
cu
CL
F-
0 U)
:3 M
-0
>
= ,., 0
E
uj 0
(1) >
U)
ca U
CC
<
CL >
0
0
0 :3
ul
a) a) 0
" =
CL CL
z
rr
MW
O
��
��
�/
LU >-
j:j:j:j:j::
Z
LLj
LL,
0
C-)
�
/
/
� �
�
�
LLJ
�
��
� /
��
�
� /
� /
� /
LL z
LU
0
Z
007-
UA
2
0
z
E
0
p
C.)
w
0
U)
D
0 (D
Lu
o
ui
D
w
0)
0
C) +,
0
ca co
LU
<
E a)
LU CD
C) a
> :3 Co
LU
cr
C.)
1-- -0
C.)
eE
-
—+0cn1
c
0E
LU
2
2
z
0
k
u
LLI
O
��
��
LLI >-
�/
Lij
he
Lu
0
o
� f
� �
� f
.
�
��
��
�/
O
�
� �
' /
� /
LL
ui z
_j
cl)
ui
�
��
��
�/
Necn
co
CL
L)
UJ
CL (CL)n
co
C.)
z
0
0
0 co
LU
0
ui
LLI
0 +,
>
co CO
a a)
LU
m
cr
cn
LU
cc
co
CL
0
E "U
n
a)
Ln
E
ui
-7
. a)
17
0
m
E
LU
0
m
2
0
i:l ca
z
u
RESOLUTION 98-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-620
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,660 SQUARE
FOOT MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND OTHER
ACCESSORY FACILITIES FOR THE EXISTING
CITRUS COUNTRY CLUB GOLF MAINTENANCE
FACILITY AT 78-752 AVENUE 52
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-620
APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 120' day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of KSL Desert Resorts, Incorporated, for approval of a 2,660 square foot
accessory maintenance building and other facilities on a 1.30 acre site at 78-752 Avenue
52, more particularly described as:
Lot #24 and portions of Common Lot AK of Tract #24889 in the
City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this new addition
to supplement the original EIR approval, and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval for Site
Development Permit 98-620 as required under Section 9.210.010 (Site Development
Permits) of the Zoning Code:
1. Consistency with the General Plan - The proposed Site Development Permit is
consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that
maintenance facilities have been determined to be ancillary to the primary use of
the property which is low density residential with golf related services.
2. Consistency with the Specific Plan and Zoning Code - The expansion of the existing
Citrus Country Club golf course maintenance facility is consistent with the
provisions of SP 85-006 as amended and the Zoning Code which permit ancillary
facilities for the country club.
3. Compliance with CEQA - A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this case
ensuring that the project will not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety, and general welfare of the surrounding area. This environmental
assessment supplements the EIR that was certified by the City Council for SP 85-
006 in 1985.
4. Architectural Design - The proposed architecture is consistent with existing building
structures, consisting of plaster cement walls and concrete tile roofing. The one
story building compliments the existing maintenance building and surrounding
RESOPCSDP620Citrua22, CONDSD'620.22
Planning Commission Resolution 98-_
residences with its full pitched tile roof and varied roof height. The proposal is
consistent with the architectural integrity of this private development and complies
with the "Desert Architecture" guidelines of SP 85-006 as amended, provided
Avenue 52 facing windows and doors have plaster surrounds.
5. Site Design - The proposed building is located away from existing residential
houses outside the Citrus Country Club to be sensitive to their privacy needs. A
minimum 10-foot wide setback has been provided behind the building to provide
greater separation between the new building and the future houses planned within
this gated development (i.e., 55+ feet away).
6. Landscape Design - Existing perimeter masonry walls and new and existing
landscaping buffer the golf course maintenance facility adequately to facilitate this
minor addition.
7. Sign Program - No signs are proposed with this application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. A Negative Declaration shall be filed for Site Development Permit 98-620;
3. That it does approve Site Development Permit 98-620 for the reasons set forth in
this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on the 1211 day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
RES0PCSDP620Citrus-22. CONDSDP620-22
Planning Commission Resolution 98-_
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPCSDP620CItrus-22, CONDSDP320-22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-620
KSL DESERT RESORTS, INC.
MAY 12, 1998
CONDITIONS:
GENERAL
Site Development Permit 98-620 shall comply with the requirements and standards
of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) and Specific Plan 85-006.
2. This development permit approval shall expire and become null and void within one
year of approval unless an extension of time is granted according to requirements
of Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, improvement or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Community Development Department
- Building and Safety Department (Building Permit)
- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District
- Imperial Irrigation District
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from
those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans,
applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the
plans.
For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a
copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan
checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant
shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan.
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS
4. The applicant shall construct landscaped perimeter setbacks along the Call Rondo
and Avenue 52 frontage. The setbacks and landscape improvements shall conform
CONDSDP6200trus-22, RESOSDP620-22 Page 1 of 5
Planning Commission Resolution 98-_
Site Development Permit 98-620
Citrus Maintenance Facility
with those provided by the adjacent Tract 24890-3. Landscaping shall be designed
to provide optimal screening of above -ground utility structures. The landscaping
improvements shall be constructed prior to final inspection and occupancy of the
new maintenance building.
5. The applicant shall construct a segment of wall in the perimeter setback which
connects or will connect with the wall to be constructed on the north side of Avenue
52 by the developers of Tract 28470.
6. The applicant shall prepare and submit plans for proposed site improvements and
for the perimeter landscaping and wall segment for review and approval by the City
Engineer. The plans and their preparation shall comply with the requirements of
Chapter 13, La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC).
7. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscape shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect and be prepared based on the water conservation measures
addressed in Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code.
8. Storm drainage and disposal of nuisance water shall comply with the approved
drainage plan for the Citrus development (Tentative Tract Map 24890).
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall construct the perimeter
landscape and wall improvements or furnish an executed, secured agreement to
construct the improvements. For secured agreements, security provided shall be
based on approved estimates submitted by the applicant and shall conform with
Chapter 13, LQMC.
10. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall
submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance
with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, 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.
11. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous and perpetual maintenance of
all required improvements unless and until expressly released from this
responsibility by the City.
CONDSDP6200trus-22, RESOSDP620-22 Page 2 of 5
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Site Development Permit 98-620
Citrus Maintenance Facility
FEES AND DEPOSITS
12. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking
and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when
the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.
13. Within 24 hours after review by the Planning Commission, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Community Development Department a check
made out to the County of Riverside in the amount of $78.00 to permit the filing and
posting of a De Minimis Finding for EA 98-356.
14. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall pay 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).
15. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted
Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
16. A plan check fee of $1,056.00 must be paid to the Fire Department at the time
building plans are submitted.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the construction of all
commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. This required
fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design,
construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures
17. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1,500 g.p.m. for
a 2-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available
before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
18. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super fire hydrant(s) (6" X 4" X 2.5")
located not less than 25-feet or more than 165-feet from any portion of the
building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways.
19. The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the
water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing
water system is capable of delivering 1,500 g.p.m. fire flow for a 2-hour duration at
20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the
CONDSDP620Citrus-22, RESOSDP620-22 Page 3 of 5
Planning Commission Resolution 98-_
Site Development Permit 98-620
Citrus Maintenance Facility
applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial
arrangements have been made to provide them.
20. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public
streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation,
placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department.
21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue
line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the
fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed and approved by the registered Civil
Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that
the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed
by the Riverside County Fire Department."
22. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and operational
prior to the start of construction.
23. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamplet #10, but not less than 2A10BC
in rating. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of
equipment.
24. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per
recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards.
Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this
form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to
be purchased.
25. If the building/facility is protected with a fire alarm system or burglar alarm system,
the lock boxes will require "tamper" monitoring.
26. If the facility requires Hazardous Materials Reporting (Material Safety Data sheets),
the Knox Haz Mat Data and Key Storage Cabinet, Model 1220 or 1300 with tamper
switches shall be used.
27. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed.
ENVIRONMENTAL
28. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the property
owner/developer shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community
CONDSDP6200trus-22, RESOSDP620-22 Page 4 of 5
Planning Commission Resolution 98-_
Site Development Permit 98-620
Citrus Maintenance Facility
Development Department demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of
Approval and mitigation measures of SDP 98-620 and EA 98-356.
MISCELLANEOUS
29. All agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents
for plan checking purposes.
30. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the Planning Commission shall approve any
permanent signs for the project as a non-public hearing item. The signs shall not
be internally illuminated and be consistent with the requirements contained in Table
1602 of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Ordinance.
31. Exterior lighting shall be arranged to reflect away from adjoining residential areas
and be designed so that the light source is shielded according to Section 9.100.150
of the Zoning Code.
32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, south facing windows and doors shall include
plaster surrounds to enhance the proposed facade using 2" by 4" lumber or other
approved architectural materials (i.e., rigid foam, etc.).
33. Developer (or property owner) agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's
approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its
defense counsel in its sole discretion.
CONDSDP6200trus-22, RESOSDP620-22 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1
ZZ>
CHEVROLET
CADILLAC
Mr. Jerry Herman
City of la Quinta
78-495 Caile Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Mr. Herman:
B 1 # A
OLDSMOBILE BUICK
Fred J. Simon, Sr.
President/CEO
May 4, 1998'_
7 1998
I
y A
PONTiAC-GMC
Please be advised that Simon Family Partnership hereby withdraws
its Application SA 98-418 for a new sign program for Simon Motors, Inc.
We have decided to refurbish our existing signs by repainting them
and inserting new face materials.
We wish to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for the
consideration we were given. We think the approach we are taking will
satisfy our needs.
Very truly yours,.
SIMGN FAMILY WARTNERSHIP
Fred J. Sim)t1n, Sr.
General Partner
Cc: Greg Trousdell
DGI SIGNS, INC.
S p Berg
President
78-611 HIGHWAY 111 ., LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 • (760) 346-2345 • FAx (760) 771-263(