1998 12 08 PCz
_ 5
CF4f "ip T 4
OF CND O
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
December 8, 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 98-086
Beginning Minute Motion 98-011
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 November 24, 1998
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Case ..................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-042
Applicant ............... Garry Hopkins
Location ................ 45-995 Dune Palms Road
Request ................. Approval of an extension of time for an unlit golf driving range
and school within the Low Density Residential (RL) Zonin;
District.
Action ................... Resolution 98-
B. Case ..................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT
#1
Applicant ................ KSL Land Corporation
Location ................. East side of Eisenhower Drive, 230 feet south of 50h Avenue
Request ................... Approval and recommendation to the City Council for ai
Amendment to a previously approved Site Development Permi
for the resort employee parking lot to delete Conditions #3.
and #38 which pertain to construction and timing o
Eisenhower Drive street improvements.
Action ................... Resolution 98-
C. Case ..................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-636
Applicant ...............
Innovative Resort Communities
Location ................
Units are approved within PGA West on Weiskopf, west o
Winged Foot.
Request .................
Compatibility approval for five new prototype plans fron
approximately 3,580 to 4,621 square feet in floor area.
Action ...................
Resolution 98-
D. Case .....................
TRACT 26855 (Revised)
Applicant ...............
Brookfield California Land Holdings, Inc.
Location ................
East of Jefferson Street, south of 50`h Avenue
Request .................
Approval and recommendation to the City Council to create 9,
single family residential lots and miscellaneous lots on 33.
acres.
Action ...................
Resolution 98-
E. Case .....................
TENTATIVE TRACT 23773, EXTENSION #1
Applicant ...............
Century -Crowell Communities.
Location ................
Approximately 110 feet north of Aurora Way and 250 feet we!
of Adams Street within Starlight Dunes
Request .................
Approval and recommendation to the City Council for a on
year time extension for unrecorded Tract Phases 4-7 consistin
of 77 single family lots on 20.95 acres.
Action ...................
Resolution 98-
PC/AGENDA
F. Case ..................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-368 AND ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT 98-062
Applicant ............... City of La Quinta
Location ................ City-wide within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District
Request ................. Approval and recommendation to the City Council foi
Certification of Environmental Assessment and approval of ar
Amendment to Chapter 9.140.000 - Hillside Conservatior
Regulations to allow fencing to mitigate environmental impact
as a permitted use
Action ................... Resolution 98- and Resolution 98-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Case ..................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-638
Applicant ............... Citrus Development, LLC (Peter Jacobs)
Location ................ Tract 24890 within the Citrus Development
Request ................. Compatibility approval of a new 4,408 square foot prototypE
residential unit.
Action ................... Minute Motion 98-
B. Case ..................... MINOR USE PERMIT 98-104
Applicant ...............
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
Location ................
Immediately south of 47-225 Washington Street
Request ..................
Approval of a temporary turfed parking lot with 219 parking
spaces for the Saint Francis Assisi Catholic Church.
Action ..................
Minute Motion 98-
C. Case ....................
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-634
Applicant ..............
Rielly Homes, Inc.
Location ...............
East of Madison Street, south of Airport Boulevard, in Trac
28838 in Specific Plan 83-002 (PGA West) and part of Specific
Plan 90-017 to the south. '
Request ................
Approval of preliminary landscaping plans for six prototypE
residential plans and minor material changes.
Action ..................
Minute Motion 98-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of December 1, 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
November 24, 1998
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 Tyler who asked Commissioner Robbins to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Tyler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Kirk,
Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Kirk to excuse Commissioner Abels. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Associate Engineer Fred Bouma,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Chairman Tyler requested the agenda be reorganized to move Commissioners Items
before the Public Hearing Items. There being no discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to approve the Agenda as amended.
Unanimously approved.
IV. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Chairman Tyler asked the Commission to consider what meetings would be held in
the month of December. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to cancel the Planning Commission meeting of
December 22, 1998. Unanimously approved.
V. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of November 10,
1998, Commissioner Kirk asked that the minutes be corrected on Page 16, Item 50,
to correct the spelling of the word "to" to "too"; Page 19, Item 73, correct the spelling
of the word (agreed to agree); Page 20, Item 75, change the vote to show that he
voted "No" and also for Item 76 on Page 21. Chairman Tyler asked that Page 7, Item
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pcl 1-24-98.wpd I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
1 l.b., correct the spelling of the word "objection" to "objective"; Page 8, Item 12.c.
correct the spelling of the word "wall" to "walk". There being no other correction,
it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to approve the
minutes as corrected.
B. Department Report: None.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 98-369, Tentative Tract Map 28982, Site Development
Permit 98-631, and Tract 24230-Amendment #1: a request of Mainiero Smith and
Associates, Inc. for A. G. Spanos for approval and recommendation to the City
Council for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-369 and approval of a 160 unit airspace
condominium subdivision project on 10.17 acres; review of the building elevations
and development plans; and the elimination of Condition #41 of Tract 24230
requiring affordable housing units within the project.
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Kirk asked why the applicant was being required to install
median improvements. Associate Engineer Fred Bouma stated the Updated
General Plan changed the designation of this street to a higher level which
required the median improvements. This project is subject to the conditions
at the time of approval, therefore, to bring the project into conformance with
the General Plan, it is being required to have the median improvements for
a Primary Arterial.
3. Chairman Tyler asked staff to indicate where the single car garages and
carports would be located on the project. Staff indicated the location on the
site plan.
4. Commissioner Robbins asked if the carports were assigned to a unit or are
they open parking. Staff stated it was a requirement that a covered parking
space be provided for each unit and the remainder will be unassigned
parking. Commissioner Robbins asked if every unit would have a garage.
Staff stated there is a garage for each space.
5. Chairman Tyler questioned the height of the wall along Dulce Del Mar. Staff
stated they were recommending a six foot wall as measured from the project
grade elevation.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pcl 1-24-98.wpd 2
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
6. Commissioner Kirk stated that most of the letters received in objection to the
project expressed concern about the apartments; are these apartments or
condominiums? Staff stated the applicant would address this.
7. Commissioner Robbins asked if the original plans for the Lake La Quinta
project showed the approved drainage plan. Staff stated the drainage plan
was approved under the original tract approval for Lake La Quinta and went
on to explain the line of drainage.
8. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Marvin Roos, Mainiero
Smith and Associates, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the
project from its inception. He further clarified the units were to be rental
apartments, but they are requesting the condominium map be approved at this
time. The rent structure is proposed to range from $80041,000 a month.
There will be no access to the single family areas. All access will enter off
47' Avenue. The signal will be shared jointly with the proposed Auto Mall.
The recreation area is located furthest from the Lake La Quinta residential
units. It was their intention to minimize view obstructions by use of
landscaping. This project was disclosed at the time of purchase to each of the
residents. Roof pitches were dropped to reduce the appearance of mass, a
garage will be provided for each unit and most parking spaces are covered.
All units have laundry and dryers built in. They will install larger plant
materials upon onset to mitigate some concerns raised by the Architectural
and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC). The buildings are well
articulated so no one mass is seen at any one location.
9. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to read the disclosure regarding the high
density designation for the subject property, that was given to each of the
property owners within Lake La Quinta when they purchased their property.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio read Item #3 on the Disclosure
Statement (a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department).
10. Chairman Tyler asked if this was a recorded document. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated it is unknown how the seller handled this document.
11. Commissioner Kirk asked how the parking was to be handled. Mr. Roos
stated staff had requested them to provide background information on multi-
family parking. The City's ordinance sets forth a basic standard, however,
based on ULI studies, the applicant can propose parking space requirements
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc11-24-98.wpd 3
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
different than the Code. The normal standard for most Spanos projects is 1.9
spaces per unit. They have provided staff with a number of standards from
other jurisdictions in the area which averaged 2.0 spaces per unit. This is
their basis for what they are requesting.
12. Commissioner Butler stated his understanding was this was to be a
condominium project and he is inclined to change his focus on how this will
be handled based on the information being provided.
13. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the standards for apartments
and condominiums are the same. The tract map before the Commission is for
a condominium development. It is up to the developer as to whether or not
to record the map. If they were not proposing a condominium development,
they would not have had to bring the tract map to the Commission for an
apartment use. They would have only brought a Site Development Permit.
This is an extra step they are doing for potential use as a condominium.
14. Commissioner Butler asked if the Commission had any latitude in regard to
the use of the land. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is zoned for
either use.
15. Commissioner Robbins stated a letter was sent to the Coachella Valley Water
District protesting some of their fees on the basis this was a condominium
project. He too is concerned over a high density project this close to
relatively low density residential uses.
16. Chairman Tyler stated he was not satisfied as to why they were not meeting
the City's requirement for 365 parking spaces. Mr. Roos stated they could
meet the requirement, but it would require them to delete some of the planters
distributed throughout the project. Long term statistics do not justify the
need for 365 spaces. They chose the additional landscaping instead of the
asphalt.
17. Commissioner Kirk stated he did read the information provided by the
applicant on parking and it did present a compelling story. Of 60 studies the
highest parking rate was 1.9 and the average was one car per apartment.
What the applicant is proposing is higher than the highest of 60 studies. He
would rather have open space and greenery rather than more carports. Maybe
they should look at the Zoning Code to possibly reduce the parking standards.
18. Chairman Tyler stated the Spanos organization has a number of projects,
where is the closest? Mr. Roos stated San Diego would be the best. They
could provide a map if the Commission would like one.
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\pc11-24-98.wpd 4
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
19. Chairman Tyler stated this development is of great concern to the residents
of Lake La Quinta. The City has received numerous letters and petitions and
all have been carefully reviewed. The Commission appreciates the time and
effort that has been expressed. In regard to some of the concerns, he would
like to state the following:
a. The original ten acre parcel is designated as multi -family.
b. Lake La Quinta's CC&R's constitute a legal agreement between the
HOA and developer and not the City.
C. Pedestrian and vehicle access to the single family residences is now
going to have a six foot wall separating the two uses.
d. In regard to the potential use of the name Lake La Quinta, the City
has no jurisdiction over the use of names.
The purpose of the Commission is to see that the project meets all
requirements and codes of the City. If it meets all those criteria, then the
Commission must make a favorable decision to the City Council. Since a
large number of people have expressed a desire to speak, please limit your
remarks to something new and not contained in the letters that have been
received.
20. Mr. Jay Roberts, 47-790 Via Jarden, representing the Lake La Quinta
Homeowners' Association (HOA), stated these homeowners are permanent
homeowners in the community and have invested in the community. They
are proud of their neighborhood and community. The Board of Directors for
the HOA is not opposed to development, but welcome developers who will
add to the community. They have met three times with Mr. Jack Lucas,
Manager of The Spanos Company, and have repeatedly stated they would
like to work with them to resolve their concerns. The Spanos Company has
indicated they will not make any changes to alleviate any of their concerns.
They do not oppose the development of the site, but vehemently oppose this
proposed use. First, the unit density is at the maximum permitted by zoning
regulations; all the residential buildings are to be two story and this is not in
character with the adjoining residential units. Second, it is their believe that
Spanos is not entitled to cross private property to utilize Lake La Quinta as
a retention basin for surface water run off. Provisions should be made to
handle the surface water run off within the proposed project site. Third, the
open carports should be replaced with closed carports to be compatible with
the entire community. Fourth, a five foot wall is proposed to be constructed
around the project, and has now been changed to six feet. A taller wall on
a raised berm would be more appropriate. Fifth, the Environmental Impact
Report for this project was performed nine years ago and even though a
Supplemental EIR has been prepared, they suggest this project will have an
CAMy Documents\WPDCCS\pc1 I-24-98.wpd 5
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
adverse affect on the site, specifically with regard to traffic on 47' Avenue
as well as Washington Street and Adams Street. This project with the
planned density will exacerbate any traffic problems created by the
previously approved Auto Mall at the intersection of Adams Street and 47`h
Avenue. Desert Sands Unified School District has indicated this project and
any other residential project will potentially result in an impact on their
school system. They urge the Commission to withhold approval of this
project as presented, to carefully review their comments and suggestions to
evaluate their merit, and advise the Spanos Company of the changes that
must be made to satisfy the serious concerns of the HOA. With appropriate
modifications they will wholeheartedly support the project.
21. Mr. Jay Baden, 47-415 Via Cordova, distributed pictures he had taken of the
Lake La Quinta development. He stated the first pictures showed a balloon
flying on a 30-foot tether and the balloon is two feet in height which makes
it 32 feet above the existing grade. It was his impression that this showed the
impact on the community the proposed buildings would have as you enter the
Adams Street gate. Picture #2: the Oleander hedge is 14-16 feet high, but as
the Oleanders are currently being exposed to a disease, they could be lost.
Due to the grade the six foot wall would not be six feet on the other side as
the pads are to be raised four feet higher. Picture #3 is a typical residence in
Lake La Quinta and you can see the balloon above the home. The balloon is
twice as high as the house. The setback is the beginning of the ridge in the
buildings. Picture #4 is similar to #3. Picture #5 is the backyard of a
residential house facing the Spanos project to the east. The balloon is placed
back at the first ridge or about 100 feet. This gives the Commission a visual
impact of how the project will impact them.
22. Commissioner Kirk asked if the balloons were placed at the beginning of the
roof line. Mr. Baden stated they were placed at the top of the ridge of the
gable ends. It is not the true height because this is 32 feet maximum above
existing grade and the grade is to be raised 2-4 feet higher.
23. Mr. Benjamin Rosker, 47-675 Via Montessa, stated his issue was whether
they were apartments or condominiums. He asks that the Commission
consider 1) everyone recognizes Mr. Spanos originally owned all the land.
When he sold this parcel to Wilma, it became an item in their CC&R's. In
the CC&R's the prospective homeowners were told 39 times that
condominiums were to be built on that tract. The disclosure statement
presented by Mr. Roos stated they are for sale or for rent units it does not
mean they are to be apartments automatically. The CC&R's state specifically
they will be condominiums. The State Statue that is quoted in the CC&R's
governs the development of condominiums. There is a great deal of
difference between an apartment and condominium. Condominiums are
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\pc11-24-98.wpd 6
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
pride of ownership and apartments are transient in nature. Noise is the
common denominator of apartments. Apartments are operated by the owners
and no CC&r's go along with them. Private ownership is important to pride
of ownership. In his opinion, they have every right to expect this tract to be
developed as told to them by Mr. Spanos in the CC&Rs.
24. Mr. Bill Hatchett, 78-975 Dulce Del Mar, stated he had bought a
condominium in Palm Springs ten years age and enjoyed this Valley every
weekend they were here. They researched every community in the Valley and
determined that La Quinta was developing and growing that was consistent
with their wishes and seemed to be well managed with strong community
orientation. Now their dream home is in jeopardy as their home will border
this high density project. Their concern is the proposed setbacks and how
they will render his property less than appealing to him, his family and any
future sale he may make. As proposed directly across the Dulce Del Mar
property line and set back 20 feet will be a 30 foot apartment building with
an overall height of 34-36 feet. This is unacceptable to him. Further west on
Dulce Del Mar are three additional 30 foot buildings set on pads that could
increase the height to 34-36 feet. These buildings will become a 34-36 foot
high wall running approximately 240 to 280 feet long setback 20 feet from
the Dulce Del Mar property line. As their property line turns north they
propose 38 open ended carports at a 10 foot setback with only a six foot high
masonry wall to block out car lights, noise, and other noxious odors. They
also intent to install 11 open parking spaces along this line creating a
potential nightmare of annoyance for the property owners only ten feet away.
The City needs to reconsider setbacks on Adams Street to allow buildings on
Adams Street. Spanos must reduce the high density by at least reducing all
existing perimeter buildings to one story. All carports facing single family
must be redesigned to garages and no open parking or garages should be at
10 foot setback to these residences backyards. This project is too dense for
compatibility with surrounding low density high end residential development
and must be redesigned to be compatible with the surrounding residential
community and the City of La Quinta.
25. Ms. Theresa Tasso, 78-810 Via Avante, stated she and her husband visited
the Valley in 1992, and appreciated the desert. They considered many
developments and after a couple years search they found Lake La Quinta.
They agree with the petition she signed to prevent the Spanos
condominium/apartment project from being built as presented. She
understands the developer has the right to develop his land and make money,
but why should his development cause them to lose money on their
investment and home. The Commission has a moral obligation to the
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pcl 1-24-98.wpd 7
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
residents of Lake La Quinta to protect their investment, security, and prestige.
The use of the name Lake La Quinta is unauthorized and deceptive. There
cannot be any connection between the Lake La Quinta name and apartments
development. Please deny the apartments as presented.
26. Mr. Frank Tasso, 78-810 Via Avante, stated that at one time Spanos owned
the entire piece and they set aside two pieces; the high density area and the
commercial area. He had this area zoned high density and at that time the
City did not take into consideration the future residences of Lake La Quinta
which was a single story, low density, upscale prestige community. This was
the City's first mistake. There are currently only two areas zoned high
density in the City. Please do not approve this in its current shape. If this is
approved, litigation will occur. Don't compound the original mistake. What
was the trade off; what is the hidden deal? This may bear some investigation
in the future.
27. Mr. Tom Oglesby, 78-885 Dulce Del Mar, stated their home is directly across
from the southwest corner of the project. In accordance with the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance the developer has the right to built to the density
of 16 units to the acre on these ten acres. He also has the right to put all of
those units in two story buildings. This is a case where two rights make a
wrong. The General Plan and Zoning Maps look great on paper but it is at
the time of implementation that their flaws appear. As described in the staff
report, two sides of the parcel abut existing single story homes of light
density. The other two sides abut the same streets as Lake La Quinta and
because one third of the 47`' Avenue frontage of this proposed development
is across from the Coachella Valley Water District parcel, the ten acre site has
less exposure to commercial use than does Lake La Quinta. The adopted
General Plan only designates three sites as high density residential which
indicates there isn't much demand. As the site is only ten acres in size, it
would not be a great loss to change the density more in keeping with the
existing development in the area. The developer may own the property but
he does not own the zoning. That is a policy matter under the control of the
City and since the General Plan is a living document, it is subject to change
when the policy makers determine that there are inequities. This is the case
with this project. The developer wishes to construct two story buildings next
to a project where they are not allowed. Within the Washington
Street/Adams Street corridor south of Highway I I I there is only one two
story house. The reservoir tank at the corner of 47' Avenue and Adams
Street. As you drive north on Adams Street you are the same distance from
the tank as you would be if you were in front of their home. Imposing as that
tank is, it is only 24 feet tall. Add another six feet and this is the height of the
CAMy D0cuments\WPD0CS\pc11-24-98.wpd 8
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
buildings that are proposed to be built in front of their home. Then it has to
be raised another four feet since the pads are that much higher than their pad.
City development standards require that two story buildings maintain a 150
foot setback from Adams Street. People driving on Adams Street are
protected from the imposition of the buildings. Should not the same standard
be supplied to them. Representatives of Lake La Quinta have expressed their
concerns to the developer and they have been ignored. They are therefore,
turning to the Planning Commission for redress. Send the project back to the
staff with directions to reduce the density by eliminating the two story
buildings. If the developer continues to not cooperate, adopt a resolution of
denial on the basis of incompatibility with the surrounding development,
request the City Council to initiate an amendment to the General Plan
reducing the density. In so far as apartments are concerned, he spent the last
33 days in an apartment in San Diego area due to his wife's medical
condition and it was not a pleasant experience.
28. Mr. Dutch Dilsaver, 78-835 Dulce Del Mar, stated La Quinta is a model city.
The City has worked diligently to see that it remains a model city. Another
city with a similar problem resolved their problem by getting the city,
developer and homeowners together to work out the problems and keep that
city a model. The same can be done here with the proper cooperation of all
entities. He has met with staff and discussed the concerns of the HOA. Mr.
Roos has stated they met with the homeowners and made some changes to
their plan to address some of their concerns. They did change the 5/12 pitch
to a 4/12 pitch which reduced the ridgeline two feet. They still have the pads
four feet high above street level. If they were to drop the pitch to a 3/12 it
would drop it another two feet. If they lowered the ceilings inside the two
stories six inches, it would drop it another foot and if they lowered the grade
another two feet it would drop it another two feet. A lot can be done if they
apply themselves. They can work in cooperation with staff, homeowners,
and Planning Commission to come up with a project everyone can be proud
of.
29. Mr. Wayne Guralnick, 74-399 Highway 111, Palm Desert, general counsel
for the Lake La Quinta HOA, displayed the carport elevation on the site plan
to show the impact on the neighboring homes. These people were told these
units would be condominiums. They read the CC&R's and believed their
views would be preserved. If there were to be condominiums, the CC&R's
would be there to control what happens there. The Commission does not
need to grant the density as it is, there are several options available to the
Commission. They can require changes to make the project more compatible
with the surrounding residents.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc11-24-98.wpd 9
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
30. Mr. Dave Wagner, 47-815 Via Traiss, stated this zoning was approved before
the houses were built. Now that there are houses this project is proposed.
They are two separate entities. It would not be approved if it were introduced
at this time.
31. There being no further public comment, this portion of the public hearing was
closed and open to Commission discussion.
32. Commissioner Butler stated he was not certain that apartments are better than
a condominium project. Modifications are needed to make it acceptable to
each party and he is not sure it is possible at this meeting. He would like to
continue the project.
33. Commissioner Robbins stated he was concerned in the trend of a lot of the
subdivision having the maximum density and minimum lot sizes. This plan
is a mass of building and asphalt. As nice as Spanos projects are in San
Diego, this is not San Diego and it is not appropriate for the area. They have
a right to built 16-units to the acre and it is zoned for that many units, but
they should only have that right if they can satisfy all the other conditions and
concerns. It is his opinion they have not done that, therefore, he cannot
support the project as it is submitted.
34. Commissioner Kirk stated he is very sensitive to the concerns raised and the
rights of the developer. This site has been designated as multi -family
development for some time. It was incorporated into a larger scheme for
Lake La Quinta and there have been disclosure statements. It sounds like
there is some confusion as to whether the disclosure statements and CC&Rs
apply just to a condominium or multi -family apartment. He has a question
as to whether it was made known whether apartments or condominiums
would be built. In terms of supporting or rejecting the project, he has not
reached a decision. Constructive comments have been made by residents and
the project could move forward with some changes. Reducing building
heights, altering grading plans, and utilizing the Adams Street setback to
build more units. His concerned would be too much asphalt and cars. The
Auto Mall related impacts would be much greater than the building impacts.
The buildings are high for the surrounding area, but with the landscape
treatment maybe it will not be as big an impact as hearing cars coming in and
out. Maybe the City could work with the applicant to reduce the number of
parking spaces required, redesign the parking, placing buildings further away
from existing community or perhaps into the Adams Street setback. Before
supporting any recommendation, he would like to hear the applicant respond
to some of the concerns raised.
CAMy Documents\WPDCCS\pcl 1-24-98.wpd 10
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
35. Chairman Tyler stated he agreed with what had been stated. He would
support replacing the open carports with enclosed garages to minimize the
noise and glare for the homeowners that abut that wall. Secondly, the four
foot grade differential with this project being higher than Dulce Del Mar and
the same height as the property to the west. For every foot you grade down
it lowers the roof line. The Zoning Code does not allow two story houses
next to existing one story houses for compatibility. Even though this is not
the same, it seems you could achieve some change by having the perimeter
buildings one story to minimize the impact. He too, would like to allow time
for both the applicant and staff to resolve some of the issues raised.
36. Mr. Marvin Roos, stated the CC&R's were required of the home builder
Wilma Pacific. The possibility of this property annexing into that was set
forth in that document. The reference to apartments or condominiums was
not part of the Spanos representation. The Spanos Company would like to
continue to work on how they can reduce the impact on the community. They
can look at those items presented and others. The matter of one story does
not begin to approach the kind of property value and demand that this is. The
General Plan does set high density to buffer the commercial. They would
like to come back with a design that might soften the areas. Not sure what
the planning process would be to explore the setbacks on Adams Street. He
would also like the flexibility to explore other design alternatives. Based on
this information, they would like to request a continuance.
37. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Robbins to continue this application to January 26,
1999. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Abels being absent.
38. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that in order to
allow flexibility to the developer as it relates to the Adams Street setback, it
is a zoning requirement that it is one story along Adams Street. The only way
to deviate from that requirement is to do a specific plan and the specific plan
would allow the applicant the ability to modify that standard to the Zoning
Code. This is the only way they would be allowed to have more than one
story adjacent to Adams Street.
Chairman Tyler recessed the meeting at 8:52 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
B. Continued Tentative Tract Map 28964; a request of Oliphant and Williams
Associates, Inc. for approval and recommendation to the City Council for
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for
Environmental Assessment 98-365 to subdivide 39 acres into 78 residential lots and
other common lots for the property located on the north side of 50'h Avenue,
approximately 1,600 feet west of Jefferson Street.
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\pc11-24-98.wpd 11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
1. Commissioner Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest.
2. Chairman Tyler stated the applicant had requested a continuance to January
12, 1998.
3. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to continue this
application to the meeting of January 12, 1998. Unanimously approved with
Commissioner Abels and Butler being absent.
Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission.
C. Tentative Tract Map 27519; a request of Century -Crowell Communities for
recommendation of a Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-370 and approval of a 70
single family and other common lot subdivision map on 17.5 acres in the RL Zone
District.
1. Chairman Tyler 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. Staff is recommending the addition of a Condition 492 to
require the trees on the northeast edge of the north property line next to the
retention basin, be retained and included in the landscaping for the retention
basin. They are also recommending that the larger trees adjacent to the
residential lots be removed. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the
City has a Code section that states dwellings next to the project or City,
County, or tract boundary line shall be limited to one story if an existing one
story dwelling is within 50 feet of the common property line unless there is
a street separating the two. The existing houses to the north will be required
to have one story in accordance with Code section.
2. Commissioner Robbins asked how this works when they do not line up.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the Codes requires within 50 feet
of the common property line.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if any reaction had been obtained from the
property owners to the north of the retention basin as to whether or not they
wold like the trees to be retained. Staff stated they had not received any
adverse comments regarding the project.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc11-24-98.wpd 12
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
4. Chairman Tyler stated he would hate to give up any of the trees as they are
a landmark in the area. Another issue is the inner -face of this development
and the golf driving range to the south. Currently, there is no screening
between the two and often golf balls go can astray. Developer should put up
some suitable screen to protect against the golf balls.
5. Commissioner Robbins ask which direction the balls are hit. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated they go from Dune Palms Road
westerly. Commissioner Robbins asked why does staff want to remove the
Eucalyptus trees. Staff stated they are brittle and would be acceptable in the
retention basin. The trees to the west would be in the backyard of homes and
prevailing winds blow toward the south and could be dangerous for those
homeowners.
6. Chairman Tyler asked how may trees would be removed and how many
retained. Staff stated there may be as many as 200 to 300 feet of trees would
have to be removed. They are planted linearly.
7. Commissioner Kirk suggested making the retention more east/westerly and
replace some of the retention basin with lots.
8. Mr. Ernest Vincent, Vice President of Century Crowell Communities, stated
he was at a disadvantage. He is in-house counsel for the applicant and not a
planner. He has been working with the landowner for four years to put this
project together. His understanding is that they need to raise the grade level
a great deal. Not sure what the ultimate grade level will be in relation to
where the trees are. The pads will be higher and if they do not take the trees
down, you would have a flat backyard, a big dip, the trees and then a slope
up to the back walls of the existing unit. In regard to the retention basin in
the front, there is an existing tree to the north and they thought of joining
them, but this did not work out. They were going to have a perimeter wall
and retention basin would be outside this wall. Planning Manager Christine
di Iorio stated the wall proposal is conditioned to have an open fencing to
view into the project (Condition #91). The retention basin was modified; it
was along the north property line, but due to the noise study and the height
of the noise mitigation walls, the retention basin was moved to along Dune
Palms Road.
9. Chairman Tyler stated he was confused as a retention basin is usually quiet.
Staff stated the distance between the homes along Dune Palms Road was
shifted away from the street due to the retention basin being placed along
Dune Palms Road.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pcl 1-24-98.wpd 13
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
10. Commissioner Robbins stated more homes could be built further away from
Dune Palms Road than if the retention basin was moved along the north edge,
you would have more homes with the backs facing Dune Palms Road. This
plan has the fencing along Dune Palms Road separating the retention basin
from Dune Palms Road is going to be open facing so the public has a view
into the project.
11. Mr. Vincent stated the project will be gated and the price range will be lower
than most gated communities. In reference to the driving range, he has
spoken to Mr. Garry Hopkins, the owner of the driving range, regarding the
screening and they are not certain how high the screening would have to be.
Mr. Vincent noted the project engineer is present to answer any questions.
12. Mr. Joe Soneji, civil engineer for the project, stated that in regard to the
grading, they will match the existing pad elevations on the north and the
retention elevations on the west. They are fairly close to the grade of the
driving range. The retention basin is proposed at that location because of the
drainage that comes from Dune Palms Road. He has no objection to the
Conditions of Approval and as long as they can include the Eucalyptus trees
within the retention basis landscape scheme they will be happy to do so.
However, in the middle of the property there is a mound that is ten feet higher
than the houses to the north and it is there intention to remove the mound to
be on the same elevation as the houses to the north. Discussion followed as
to the location of the trees.
13. Commissioner Butler asked if the southern boundary next to the driving
range, was higher or lower than the driving range. Mr. Soneji stated they are
almost the same. Commissioner Butler asked how the houses would be
protected from the balls. Mr. Soneji stated he did not have an answer at this
time.
14. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to identify where the trees were located.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa showed their location on the tract map.
Commissioner Kirk stated that many of the trees are on a mound. Staff stated
that was probably correct.
15. Chairman Tyler asked if the trees around the retention basin would be
retained. Mr. Soneji stated it would depend on the grading of the retention
basin.
16. Mr. Garry Hopkins, 45-975 Dune Palms Road, stated his concern was the
screening of the balls and he would meet with the applicant to resolve any
issues.
CAMy Documcnts\WPDOCS\pc11-24-98.wpd 14
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
17. Commissioner Butler asked if the fence on the school side was adequate. Mr.
Hopkins stated no, but the power lines restricted them from going any higher.
It will need to go higher on the other side.
18. Commissioner Robbins asked the height of the screen. Mr. Hopkins stated
that on top of a berm it is 20-40 feet.
19. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the
public hearing was closed and opened for Commission discussion.
20. Commissioner Robbins stated he had no objection as long as screening was
addressed in the conditions.
21. Commissioner Butler asked that the new condition be modified. Staff noted
they were only asking for the retention of the trees in the retention basin.
22. Commissioner Kirk stated that as long as a condition was added to require the
applicant and golf school solve the problem of the screening before the
project goes to the City Council.
23. Chairman Tyler stated he thought they should retain the trees along the
retention basin. As to the screening, it should be installed before the houses
are occupied and it should be the responsibility of the applicant. The traffic
information on Dune Palms Road needs to be updated before going to the
City Council.
24. Commissioner Robbins suggested a condition be added that states the
screening would be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit.
25. Commissioner Kirk asked if the retention basin was originally planned for the
northern boundary. Staff stated yes, and the noise study required the
submittal that is before the Commission. Commissioner Kirk stated staff was
more in favor of people than trees. Is it possible to have the plan redesigned
with the retention along the northern boundary to keep the trees. Staff stated
it is up to the applicant and the Commission, but if it is redesigned, the noise
study would have to be modified accordingly or the initial study would be
looked at again and the requirement at that time was for seven to nine foot
walls.
26. Chairman Tyler asked staff to explain what would happen if you had nine
foot high walls on the southerly part of the frontage. Staff stated they have
to look at the previous noise study to see what it was based on. Chairman
CAMy Documcnts\WPDOCS\pcl 1-24-98.wpd 15
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
Tyler asked if the noise study was based on the traffic analysis that was done
in 1992 and 1994. Staff stated the study is based on the ultimate buildout for
Dune Palms Road with the City's 60 CNEL requirement as the maximum
outdoor noise level.
27. Commissioner Robbins stated he was in favor of having as few lots as
possible back up to Dune Palms Road.
28. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-082
recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-370
for Tentative Tract Map 27519.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None.
29. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 98-083 recommending to the City Council
approval of Tentative Tract 27519, subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval as amended.
a. Retention of the trees in the retention basin.
b. Screening prior to issuance of building permits to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director.
C. Deletion of the second sentence in Condition #42.a.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES; None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None.
D. Plot Plan 94-543. Amendment # 1; a request of David Chapman for approval of
building elevation modifications for a 550+ square foot expansion of an existing
building (formerly Sesame') for use as a restaurant located at 50-981 Washington
Street at the northwest corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico in the La
Quinta Village Shopping Center.
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Kirk asked if the water heater that is being relocated to the
roof will it be screened. Staff stated yes and it is conditioned that it cannot
encroach above the parapet wall.
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\pc11-24-98.wpd 16
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
3. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone wanted to speak on the project. There being
no comment, the public participation portion was closed and open for
Commission discussion.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-
084 recommending to the City Council approval of Plot Plan 94-543,
Amendment #1, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES; None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None.
E. Tract 28545-2. Amendment # 1; a request of KSL Desert Resort, Inc. for approval and
recommendation to the City Council of an Amendment to the Tract Map to
reconfigure the shape of the condominium lots to include the patio area and other
minor changes for the property located generally west of Eisenhower Drive and south
of Avenida Fernando, in the La Quinta Resort homes area.
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. Chris Berg, MDS Consulting, representing the applicant, stated they
concurred with the conditions.
3. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of
the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
98-085 recommending to the City Council approval of Tract 28545-2
Amendment 41, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES; None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\pc11-24-98.wpd 17
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24, 1998
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Abels to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held December 8, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission
was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. on November 24, 1998.
CAM), Documents\WPDOCS\pcl 1-24-98.wpd 18
PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998
CASE: CUP 98-042 LA QUINTA GOLF RANCH
APPLICANT: GARRY HOPKINS
LOCATION: 45-995 DUNE PALMS ROAD, AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WESTWARD HO
DRIVE AND DUNE PALMS ROAD.
REQUEST: TO ALLOW A TIME EXTENSION FOR AN EXISTING UNLIT
GOLF SCHOOL AND DRIVING RANGE WITHIN THE LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) ZONING DISTRICT.
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) (2 TO 4 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE)
ENVIRONMENTAL: THIS REQUEST WAS DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PER SECTION 15301 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES, AS THIS
REQUEST IS A TIME EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING USE.
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH: FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION (TTM 27519)
WEST: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, VACANT
PARK SITE
SOUTH: WESTWARD HO DRIVE, LA QUINTA HIGH
SCHOOL
EAST: DUNE PALMS DRIVE, VACANT RESIDENTIAL
(CITY OF INDIO)
P:\perptCUP9B-042Hopkins. wpd
BACKGROUND:
The La Quinta Golf Ranch was originally approved in 1988, with a Plot Plan approval
for a golf school and driving range. The approval was given a 10-year life, with
expiration in October, 1998. The school is located on a 7.94 net acre parcel, and
consists of a practice area, driving range, putting green, sand trap, parking dot, and
classroom building. A single family residence with attached garage and pool is also
located on the parcel. The entire facility is unlit.
In 1988, the project was determined to be an acceptable use in the R-1 Zone, and was
permitted by Plot Plan 88-398. At that time, it was proposed as an interim land use
to be replaced in the future with residential development as identified in the General
Plan.
Subsequent to the original approval date, the Zoning Code was changed to permit a
driving range in the Low Density Residential (RL) District by approval of a Conditional
Use Permit.
REQUEST:
The applicant has submitted a request for a time extension which is being processed
as a Conditional Use Permit. The time extension would allow the applicant to continue
the operation of the existing facility, indefinitely, subject to conditions of approval.
There are no proposed changes to the site or operation of the school.
DISCUSSION:
The Public Works Department has requested conditions of approval requiring certain
roadway improvements along Dune Palms Road and Westward Ho Drive for
compliance with City policies and standards. The requested improvements can be
bonded for, however, they must be completed within six months of the City's approval
of this Conditional Use Permit. The Public Works Department determined with the
original plot plan application that the street dedication for Dune Palms Road and
Westward Ho Drive was required but not street improvements.
Public Notice
A public hearing notice was published on the Desert Sun Newspaper on November 16,
1998, and mailed to all affected property owners within 500-feet informing them of
the hearing. No letters of opposition to the request have been received from the public.
Public Agency Review
Staff mailed a copy of the applicant's request to all public agencies on October 16,
1998, for response by November 12, 1998. All comments have been incorporated into
the attached draft Conditions of Approval, as appropriate.
P:\perptCUP98-042Hopkins.wpd
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
Pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code, the following findings are
provided:
Consistency with General Plan
This site is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) by the General Plan, which
permits golf courses and recreational amenities within residential areas. Therefore, the
continuation of the La Quinta Golf Ranch School is compatible with the goals and
policies of the General Plan.
Consistency with Zoning Code
The site is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) which permits lit or unlit driving ranges
with an approved conditional use permit as indicated in Section 9.40.040 of the
Zoning Code. Therefore, the continuation of the La Quinta Golf Ranch School is
consistent with the current Zoning Code.
Compliance with CEQA
The requested time extension is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as allowed in Section 15301 of the CEQA
Guidelines as the golf school is an existing land use and there is no proposed
modification to the operation or extent of the project.
Surrounding Uses
Approval of the time extension will not create conditions materially detrimental to the
public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other
properties or land uses in the vicinity, as a safety net along the southern boundary of
the applicant's property was installed to protect the public from errant golf balls, and
such safety netting is required as a condition of approval along the northern property
boundary. The west property boundary will not be affected by errant golf balls due
to the distance from the tee box. Additionally, proposed conditions of approval will
ensure that the project meets the current standards for traffic and circulation.
CONCLUSION:
Conditions of approval are proposed that will bring the golf school into conformance
with the current requirements and standards for vehicular circulation and safety.
Findings for approval are included in this staff report and in the attached Resolution.
P:\perptCUP98-042Hopkins.wpd
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , approving Conditional Use
Permit 98-042, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval as attached.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site plan
Prepared by:
Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Pla ing Manager
P:\perptCUP98-042Hopkins.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-042 TO ALLOW A TIME
EXTENSION FOR AN EXISTING UNLIT GOLF SCHOOL AND
DRIVING RANGE WITHIN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(RL) ZONING DISTRICT AT 45-995 DUNE PALMS ROAD
CASE NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-042
GARRY HOPKINS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 8th day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the
request of Mr. Garry Hopkins, to consider Conditional Use Permit 98-042 for a time
extension for an existing unlit golf school and driving range within the Low Density
Residential (RL) Zoning District, located at 45-995 Dune Palms Road; and,
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said Conditional
Use Permit:
1. Conditional Use Permit 98-042 is consistent with current standards of the
Zoning Code in that the existing Zoning District is RL (Low Density Residential)
which permits lit or unlit driving ranges with an approved conditional use permit
as indicated in Section 9.40.040 of the Zoning Code. Therefore, the
continuation of the La Quinta Golf Ranch School is consistent with the current
Zoning Code.
2. The site is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) by the La Quinta General
Plan, which permits golf courses and recreational amenities within residential
areas. Therefore, the continuation of the La Quinta Golf Ranch School is
compatible with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
3. The requested time extension is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as allowed in Section 15301 of the CEQA
Guidelines , as the golf school is an existing land use and there is no proposed
modification to the operation or extent of the use.
4. Approvl of the time extension will not create conditions materially detrimental
to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible
with other properties or land uses in the vicinity, as a safety net along the
southern boundary of the applicant's property was installed to protect the public
from errant goof balls, and such safety netting is required as a condition of
approval along the northern property boundary. The west property line will not
be affected by errant golf balls due to the distance from the tee box.
Additionally, proposed conditions of approval will ensure that the golf school
meets the current standards for traffic and circulation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
said Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve the above described Conditional Use Permit, 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 8th day of December, 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\pcesoCLJP98-042Hopkins.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-042 HOPKINS
DECEMBER 8, 1998
GENERAL
1. Upon their approval by the Planning Commission, the City Clerk is authorized to
file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for
recordation against the properties to which they apply.
2. 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 (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
-Community Development Department
-Riverside County Environmental Health Department
-Desert Sands Unified School 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.
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
3. By June 8, 1999, the applicant shall deed:
A. Right of way to complete the north half (37 feet) of the Westward Ho
right of way; and,
B. Five-foot public utility easements adjacent to the Westward Ho and Dune
Palms Road rights of way; and,
C. Abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all
frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on
the approved plans.
4. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm
(the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the
centerline of adjacent public streets.
5. Existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the site shall be installed
underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement.
6. The applicant shall install the following street improvements:
A. Westward Ho Drive (Collector) - Construct applicant's half of 50-foot
street improvement plus six-foot sidewalk.
B. Dune Palms Road (Secondary Arterial) - Construct applicant's half of 64-
foot street improvement plus eight -foot sidewalk.
Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect
at the time of construction and improvement widths may differ from the listed
widths.
7. All improvement plans including grading, drainage, streets, and parking areas
shall be signed and stamped by engineers licensed to practice in the State of
California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and
as approved by the City Engineer.
8. By June 8, 1999, the applicant shall provide completed improvement plans and
construct the required improvements or shall enter into a secured agreement for
the plans and improvements.
If the improvements are secured, security shall be based on estimates provided
by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer and shall conform with
Chapter 13 , LQMC. The improvements shall be completed within one year of
the City's approval of the CUP.
9. Golf course screening along the northern property line of this cup shall be
installed prior to the issuance of the first single family residential building permit
for those houses to be constructed adjacent to this property line (which is the
southern boundary of Tract 27519).
P:\PROJDEV\CUP\peresoCUP98-042Hopkins.wpd
ATTACHMENT #
�<^
... - ---- -- -
CASE MAP
a,
x1l
CITY of r4mo e1
,— s�
IL
WESTWARD NO OR
ORTH
CASE NO- CUP 98-042
FORMERLY PLOT PLAN 88-398 SCALE:
GARRY HOPKINS GOLF SCHOOL
ATTACHMENT #2
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS
REQUEST: APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE
RESORT PARKING LOT TO DELETE CONDITIONS #32 AND
38, WHICH PERTAIN TO CONSTRUCTION AND TIMING OF
EISENHOWER DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF EISENHOWER DRIVE, 230 FEET SOUTH OF
50TH AVENUE (ATTACHMENT 1)
A►PI13vL1"OtA
CONSIDERATION: THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS EXEMPT FROM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
REQUIREMENTS UNDER PUBLIC RESOURCES SECTION
65457(A). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-343 WAS
CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 16,
1997, FOR THIS REQUEST AND OTHER RELATED CASES.
NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST
WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION
21166
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL (RSP)
ZONING: TC (RSP) (TOURIST COMMERCIAL)
BACKGROUND:
This request for an employee parking lot was approved by the City Council at its
meeting of September 16, 1997, along with other related cases. This parking lot is
to replace the lot removed in the resort area on Avenida Obregon for the Resort Homes
under construction.
cApc rpt sdp 97-608 am #1
AMENDMENT REQUEST:
The applicant's representative has requested that Conditions #32 and 38, related to
timing of, and improvement of Eisenhower Drive street improvements be deleted for
the reasons stated in their attached letter (Attachment 2).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
KSL's first two proposals for an employee parking lot along Avenue 50 encountered
considerable public opposition. As a result, KSL proposed its parking lot on a third
site located approximately 230 feet south of Avenue 50 which is located in a different
tract of land (i.e. Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 28834) than the first two proposals. KSL's
third proposal was approved by the City Council.
Parcel Map 28834 is a three -parcel parcel map with land contiguous to Eisenhower
Drive and no land contiguous to Avenue 50. Two of its three parcels are already
developed as golf course, while the third parcel (Parcel #1) is the only vacant parcel
remaining to be developed in that map. As such, any development that occurs on
Parcel 1 represents the City's last opportunity to require off -site street improvements
on Eisenhower Drive with regard to land contiguous to Parcel Map 28834. Therefore,
once Parcel 1 is developed, all of the parcels in Parcel Map 28834 will be developed
to a, useful purpose and could conceivably function in that state for years, never
improving the off -site arterial street contiguous to the developed land, if the
opportunity for obtaining such improvements is waived.
Given that scenario, Conditions 32 and 38 as stated below, were included in the
conditions of approval for SDP 97-608 when KSL proposed its employee parking lot
on Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 28834.
32. The applicant shall complete primary arterial street improvements, except sidewalk and
perimeter landscaping, on the east side of Eisenhower Drive from the L.Q. Evacuation
Channel bridge to the existing improvements at Eisenhower Drive including a full -width
landscape median extending 540 feet south from the Avenue 50 intersection (half the
distance to the bridge). The City will allow a left -in pocket at the project entry if the
applicant provides sufficient right of way width for a median configuration which blocks
left turns out.
Features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street
widths or other measures as determined by the City Engineer.
The applicant may seek reimbursement from the landowner north of the applicant's
property at the time the adjacent land develops, for median improvements constructed
by the applicant which are adjacent to the other landowner's property. If the applicant
desires reimbursement, it shall be sought and obtained in accordance with the City's
reimbursement policy.
38. Prior to opening the parking lot for use by employees, the applicant shall install all on -
and offsite street and sidewalk improvements and traffic control devices on Eisenhower
Drive.
c:\pc rpt sdp 97-608 am #1
KSL has indicated to City staff a desire to pursue alternate locations for a permanent
site for its employee parking lot. KSL intends to use the parking lot authorized by SDP
97-608 on an interim basis while a more suitable location is found for a permanent
site.
KSL has also indicated to City staff a desire to eventually propose a comprehensive
plan for the land in the southeast corner of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive.
Potentially, this plan would reconfigure the existing golf course fairways and vacant
land to better facilitate off -site street improvements along Avenue 50 and Eisenhower
Drive.
STAFF RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS #32 AND #38
Although KSL states a desire .to pursue an alternate site for its employee parking lot,
there is no guarantee that this will occur. It should also be noted that the relocation
of the employee parking lot would require finding an alternate location which meets
the requirements of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, as well as Environmental
Assessment 97-343, and also receives public and Council approval. In regard to these
issues, staff recommends that KSL's request be denied. However, in light of KSL's
intentions, staff recommends that modifications to the Conditions of Approval for
S.D.P. 97-608 be made:
Revise Condition #32 to read:
32. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform
with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses:
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - Completion of primary arterial
street improvements on the east side of the centerline from
Avenue 50 south approximately 540 feet, including a full -width
landscaped median and a six-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The
City will allow a left turn pocket at the project entry if the
applicant provides sufficient right-of-way width for a median
configuration which prevents left -out movement.
2. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) (Deferred) - Completion of
primary arterial street improvements on the east side of the
centerline from approximately 540 feet south of Avenue 50 to the
La Quinta Evacuation Channel, including a full -width landscaped
median and a six-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The applicant
shall design the improvements and secure the cost of construction
until required by the City.
Revise Condition #38 to read:
38. The applicant shall install all off -site street and sidewalk improvements required
to be constructed within six months of the opening of the parking lot for use by
employees. The applicant shall install all deferred off -site street and sidewalk
improvements within five years of the opening of the parking lot for use by
employees, unless otherwise required by the City.
REQUIRED FINDINGS:
1. The project, as amended, is consistent with the General Plan because the use
is supporting the operation of the permitted golf courses and resort within the
Specific Plan area.
2. The project, as amended, has been designed to be consistent with the Zoning
Code and applicable Specific Plan, subject to the recommended conditions.
3. Processing and approval of this amended project is in compliance with the
requirements of the California Quality Act in that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been certified.
4. The architectural design of the project, as amended, is adequate and compatible
materials and colors will be used. Provided the conditions of approval are
complied with, the project will be architecturally acceptable.
5. Provided the conditions of approval, as amended, are complied with, the site
design will be acceptable. The revision will mitigate any negative impacts to the
surrounding residences by moving it to the west and south.
6. The project landscaping will be compatible with the resort. The recommended
conditions will increase the quantity of landscaping and tree sizes. Landscaping
will provide visual screening of the on site facilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 98- , recommending approval of an amendment to conditions
#32 and #38 of Site Development Permit 97-608.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Letter of Request for Amendment
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, PlIanning Manager
c:\pc rpt sdp 97-608 am #1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #1 TO SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 97-608 IN THE LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 81h day of December, 1998, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of an amendment
for an employee parking in the TC (RSP) Zone, located on the east side of Eisenhower
Drive, approximately 230 feet south of 501h Avenue, more particularly described as:
Portion of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit request has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that this Site Development Permit is
exempt from California Environmental Quality Act requirements under Public Resources
Section 65457(a). Environmental Assessment 97-343 was certified by the City
Council on September 16, 1997, for this request and other related cases. No changed
circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent
environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; 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 approval of Site Development
Permit 97-608:
1. The project, as amended, is consistent with the General Plan because the use
is supporting the operation of the permitted golf courses and resort within the
Specific Plan area.
2. The project, as amended, has been designed to be consistent with the Zoning
Code and applicable Specific Plan, subject to the recommended conditions.
3. Processing and approval of this amended project is in compliance with the
requirements of the California Quality Act in that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been certified.
4. The architectural design of the project, as amended, is adequate and compatible
materials and colors will be used. Provided the conditions of approval are
complied with, the project will be architecturally acceptable.
P:\stan\pc res sdp 97-608 am #1
Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-
5. Provided the conditions of approval, as amended, are complied with, the site
design will be acceptable. The revision will mitigate any negative impacts to the
surrounding residences by moving it to the west and south.
6. The project landscaping will be compatible with the resort. The recommended
conditions will increase the quantity of landscaping and tree sizes. Landscaping
will provide visual screening of the on site facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an
amendment to Conditions #32 and #38 of Site Development Permit 97-608,
Amendment #1;
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 81h day of December, 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\stan\pc res sdp 97-608 am #1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
KSL RECREATION CORPORATION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
• Amended on December 8, 1998
GENERAL
1. The use of this site for an employee parking lot shall be in conformance with the
approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 97-608, Amendment
#1, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions.
2. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of the
date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect
whatsoever.
"Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be
requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080D.
3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of
this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense
counsel in its sole discretion.
4. The project shall incorporate the latest technology in recycling and other means
of reducing the amount of waste requiring disposal (land filing), during
demolition, construction, and upon site development/operation.
A) Prior to issuance of a demolition/building permit, the applicant shall
provide proof to the Community Development Department that a
recycling company and program has been established for the recycling of
construction/demolition debris.
B) If the applicant can successfully demonstrate that current provisions exist
to meet the requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and
Recycling Access Act of 1991, the Community Development Director
may waive, modify, or delete the requirements of this condition.
5. The applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public
agencies; as needed:
P:\STAN\pc coa sdp 97-608 am #1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
DECEMBER 8, 1998
- 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 (per letter of June 25,1997, on file in
Community Development Department)
- 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 for review by the Public Works Department.
6. 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.
7. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, shall be met.
8. Exterior lighting shall to be low profile, down shining, and comply with
Municipal Code and not cause annoyance to surrounding properties. Top of
lights shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Plan to be approved by Community
Development Department prior to issuance of building permit. Light shields may
be required by the City within first six months after beginning of operation.
9. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these
Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation
against the property to which they apply.
P:\STAN\pc coa sdp 97-608 am #1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PROPERTY RIGHTS
10. All easements, rights of way and other property rights necessary to facilitate the
ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be
acquired or granted, as appropriate, or the process of said acquisition or
granting shall be ensured, prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Grants shall include additional right of way widths as necessary for dedicated
right turn lanes, bus turnouts, etc., included on approved plans.
11. The applicant shall grant public street right of way along Eisenhower Drive
(Primary Arterial) - sufficient for a 50-foot half right of way plus additional area
as needed for right- or left -turn lanes or other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
12. Where public sidewalks are required on privately -owned setback lots, the
applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots.
13. The applicant shall grant any easements necessary for placement of and access
to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common
areas.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall enter into a secured
agreement to construct improvements and satisfy obligations required of this
site development permit. Security provided shall conform with Chapter 13,
LQMC.
15. 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.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
16. 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." Plans for site improvements may be
combined on a single plan provided excess clutter doesn't affect readability.
P:\STAN\pc coa sdp 97-608 am #1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSPON RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
DECEMBER 8, 1998
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, 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.
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.
GRADING
18. 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.
19. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils
engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan.
20. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance.
21. 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.
22. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand
nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with
P:\STAN\pc coa sdp 97-608 am #1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
DECEMBER 8, 1998
other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments.
23. 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
24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No.
96.03 and the following:
Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm
shall be retained within the development or in impounded areas on the adjacent
golf course unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary
drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public or private streets.
25. The applicant shall construct facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which
intercept and percolate nuisance water and prevent flow onto golf courses,
common areas or off -site locations. The facilities shall be sized to percolate 22
gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. For design purposes,
the maximum percolation rate of native soils shall be two inches per hour. The
percolation rate shall be considered zero unless the applicant provides site -
specific data which demonstrates otherwise.
26. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
27. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention
capacity to flow out of the development (or off of the golf course areas) through
a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route.
28. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received
and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief
route.
29. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater water to off -site locations
other than impounded areas on the adjacent golf course, the applicant may be
P:\STAN\pc coa sdp 97-608 am #1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
DECEMBER 8, 1998
required to design and install first -flush storage, oil/water separation devices,
or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of
contaminants to off -site locations. If the drainage will directly or indirectly enter
public waterways, the applicant shall be responsible for any sampling and
testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit or other
city- or area -wide pollution prevention program and for any other obligations
and/or expenses which may arise from the such discharge of the development's
stormwater or nuisance water.
UTILITIES
30. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed
development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the
power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement.
31. 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
*32. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform
with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses:
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - Completion of primary arterial
street improvements on the east side of the centerline from
Avenue 50 south approximately 540 feet, including a full -width
landscaped median and a six-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The
City will allow a left turn pocket at the project entry if the
applicant provides sufficient right-of-way width for a median
configuration which prevents left -out movement.
2. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) (Deferred) - Completion of
primary arterial street improvements on the east side of the
centerline from approximately 540 feet south of Avenue 50 to the
La Quinta Evacuation Channel, including a full -width landscaped
median and a six-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The applicant
shall design the improvements and secure the cost of construction
until required by the City.
P:\STAN\pc coa sdp 97-608 am #1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
DECEMBER 8, 1998
33. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to a left- &
right-in/right-out driveway on Eisenhower Drive centered in this parcel's
frontage. If the entry is gated, the applicant shall provide sufficient stacking
room for entering vehicles and a turn -around for rejected vehicles.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be
prepared by professional engineer(s) registered to practice in the State of
California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the LQMC, adopted Standards and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications,
and as approved by the City Engineer.
37. 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 structural 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"
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
P:\STAN\pc coa sdp 97-608 am #1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
DECEMBER 8, 1998
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.
*38. The applicant shall install all off -site street and sidewalk improvements required
to be constructed within six months of the opening of the parking lot for use by
employees. The applicant shall install all deferred off -site street and sidewalk
improvements within five years of the opening of the parking lot for use by
employees, unless otherwise required by the City.
LANDSCAPING
39. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the Eisenhower Drive
perimeter setback. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a
licensed landscape architect.
40. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community
Development Department. Landscape and irrigation 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.
41. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape
areas outside the right of way.
42. 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.
43. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins shall be
designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -
mounted equipment.
44. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are
coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
45. 75% of all trees shall be a minimum of 48" box (3 3/4" + caliper) size and 25%
a minimum of 36" box size (2 3/4"-3 3/4" caliper), or its equivalent along
Eisenhower drive.
P:\STAN\pc coa sdp 97-608 am #1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
DECEMBER 8, 1998
46. Parking lot shade trees shall be provided every four parking spaces with trees
a minimum 24" box size (2"-2 3/4" caliper).
QUALITY ASSURANCE
47. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
48. The applicant 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.
49. 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.
50. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City
reproducible record drawings of all off -site 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
51. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage,
landscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off -
site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City
Council.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
52. 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.
FIRE MARSHAL
53. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 gpm
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.
P:\STAN\pc coa sdp 97-608 am #1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
DECEMBER 8, 1998
54. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6" x 4" x 2-1 /2") will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any
portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in the system.
55. 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.
56. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, if any, 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".
57. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard
Occupancy, Group 1. The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection
shall be located to the front within 50' of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from
the building.
58. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with
a plan/inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must
be at the job site for all inspections.
59. Install a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the
UBC/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association
Standard 72.
60. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground/aboveground
tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments.
61. Install portable fire extinguishers in structures, if any, per NFPA, Pamphlet #10,
but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for
proper placement of equipment.
62. 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.
P:\STAN\pc coa sdp 97-608 am #1.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-608, AMENDMENT #1
DECEMBER 8, 1998
MISCELLANEOUS
63. Prior to issuance of any building permits for structures or fences approved by
Site Development Permit 97-608, the developer shall complete the golf
maintenance facilities on Avenida Carranza in accordance with CUP 96-024, or
any Planning Commission approved amendment thereto.
P:\STAN\pc coa sdp 97-608 am #1.wpd
CASE No.
CASE
1� ' •
SDP 97-608, AMEND. #1
KSL
ATTACHMENT 1
ORTH
SCALE:
NTS
October 21, 1998
0
Ms. Cirristine di lirio
Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
Community Development Department
;Iza_ 10� 1-1
,GDr q�t-f�oS
G 1Nnd 4
ATTACHMENT #2
Re: Site Development Permit 97-608 / Conditions #32 & 38 - Deletion
Dear Christine:
Per instruction from Mr. Chevis Hosea of KSL Land Corporation I am submitting a formal
request to delete Conditions #32 & 38 from the Site development Permit 97-608 Conditions of
Approval dated September 16, 1997 relative to Resolution 97-77 allowing Dui employee parking
facility hi the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Area. The conditions presently read as follows:
Condition 32
32. The applicant-sliall complete primary arterial street improvements, except
sidewalk and perimeter landscaping, on the east side of Eisenhower Drive from
the L.Q. Evacuation Channel bridge to the existing improvements at Eisetiliower
Drive including a full -width landscape median extending 540 feet south from the
Avenue 50 intersection (half the distance to the bridge). The City will allow a
left -in pocket at the project entry if the applicant provides sufficient right of way
width for a median configuration which blocks right turns out.
Features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional
street widths or other measures as determined by the City Engineer.
The applicant may seek reimbursement from the landowner north of tic
applicant's property at the time the adjacent land develops, for median
improvements constructed by the applicant which are adjacent to the other
landowner's property. If the applicant desires reimbursement, it shall be sought
and obtained in accordance with the City's reimbursement policy.
Condition 38
38. Prior to opening the parking lot for use by employees, the applicant sliall install
all on- and offsite street and sidewalk improvements and traffic control devices on
Eisenhower Drive.
In the short term, due to existing site constraints, the implementation of conditions 32 and 38
would render unsafe (unplayable) the existing par 3 golf hole of the La Quinta Resort Dunes
Course adjacent to the present alignment of Eisenhower. It is anticipated by KSL that the future
site design plan for the entire parcel adjacent to 50`h and Eiserdiower will resolve these adjacency
issues, once this comprehensive plan is implemented. In the meantime, the other conditional
improvements of Site development Permit 97-608 are necessary to provide parking for the
Resort serving employees.
If further information is needed to calendar this issue for hearing, please feel free to call nic at
(949) 719-0554 and as always, thank you for your diligent efforts and assistance in the La Quinta
conlnlunity.
Sincerely, n
.ter
Forrest K. Haag, ASLA
Landscape Architect
CC: Mr. S. &evis Hosea
Forrest K. Haag, ASLA,Inc.
Landscape Architecture - Land Planning
25o Newport Center Drive, Suite 104
Newport Beach, CA 9266O
ph (114) 119-0534 fax (114)'119-0564
PH #C
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-636
APPLICANT: INNOVATIVE RESORT COMMUNITIES
ARCHITECT: COLBOURN CURRIER NOLL ARCHITECTURE, INC.
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR FIVE NEW
PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
LOCATION: UNITS ARE PROPOSED WITHIN PGA WEST ON WEISKOPF,
WEST OF WINGED FOOT
�1�1(�Z�1►�h�il���i
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.
BACKGROUND:
The proposal is for approval of five new residential prototype plans for Tract 28444
within PGA West on Weiskopf, west of Winged Foot.
The ALRC reviewed these plans at its meeting of December 3, 1998. The Committee
determined the architectural plans are acceptable, as submitted. The Committee
adopted Minute Motion 98-014, recommending approval subject to conditions
(Attachment 2).
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Proposed are five floor plans (1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, and 3) which are similar in concept
to the Masters Collection units that are being built in PGA West. The units vary from
3,579 to 4,621 square feet and are Spanish/Mediterranean in nature, utilizing plaster
walls, some wood beams rafters, metal railings, metal awnings, and clay tile roofing.
Colors of the plaster are white to tan, with wood colors light tans to brown, and roof
the a red/brown blend. Roof height and types are varied and used in combinations.
The maximum height of the tallest plan is approximately 19'-9", with a variety of
CApc rpt sdp 98-636
lower heights due to the roof variety within each plan. Special features include,
decorative concrete columns supporting an entry tower, metal awnings, decorative
wrought iron accents, and exposed wood rafter tails. Prototype plans 1-1, 2-1, and
2-2 propose two facades, plan 1-2 proposes one facade, and plan 3 proposes three
facades, with building sides and rears being the same within each plan. Some garages
have off -set doors, while sectional roll -up doors are proposed for all garages.
Preliminary typical front yard landscaping plans have been submitted for the plans,
along with conceptual landscaping plans for the common areas. A plant pallette for
this landscaping has also been submitted, indicating plants to be used. No specific
plant locations or size ranges has been indicated. Plants are those typically used in
PGA West.
A preliminary partial site plan layout without dimensions has been submitted showing
the first three phases and model complex areas.
EXISTING UNIT DESCRIPTION:
The existing units have been built by a number of developers. To date, approximately
1,800 dwelling units have been constructed in PGA West. The size of the constructed
and approved units varies from 1,290 to 4,830 square feet. All of the units are
Spanish or Mediterranean in nature. The units are primarily one story with some two
story units. All units have clay or concrete tile roofing, exterior plaster walls and
plaster or wood fascias. Other features used include but are not limited to arches,
shutters, popout window and door surrounds, earth tone exterior colors, and sectional
garage doors.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on November 27, 1998, and
mailed to all property owners within PGA West and 500 feet around the project
boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received.
FINDINGS:
Zoning Code Section 9.60.300 specifies findings that must be met to grant
compatibility approval. This request complies with those as noted below:
1. No new two story units are proposed as a part of this approval. Therefore, there
will be no height impacts on existing residences.
2. The applicant proposes to use block walls which will match or be similar to the
existing walls in the PGA West to provide compatibility.
CApc rpt sdp 98-636
3. The proposed residences are similar to the Masters Collection units approved in
PGA West and other existing residences. The designs are compatible with the
existing units in terms of architectural materials, style, and colors. No two story
units are proposed, but they are not required for compatibility.
4. The recommended approval and Code requires a minimum of one 24" box size
tree in the front yard. This will be required as a part of the landscaping approval.
5. The proposed units vary from 3,579 to 4,621 square feet in size which is within
the constructed range of 1,290 to 4,830 square feet which exists in PGA West.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Because of the shape of the units, the roof line is varied in shape and height, creating
an attractive streetscape. The units are well designed and compatible with the
development in PGA West.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ , approving Site Development Permit 98-
636, subject to findings and conditions:
Attachment:
1. ALRC minutes for the meeting of December 3,1998
2. Plan exhibits
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Plonning Manager
CApc rpt sdp 98-636
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-636, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS, PROVIDING COMPATIBILITY APPROVAL OF
FIVE PROTOTYPE UNITS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN PGA
WEST
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-636
APPLICANT: INNOVATIVE RESORT COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 81h day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the request of Innovative Resort Communities, Inc. to approve architectural plans for
five new prototype residential plans to be constructed on Weiskopf, west of Winged
Foot in Specific Plan 83-002 (PGA West), more particularly described as:
Portion of Section 21, Township 6 South, Range 7 East,
San Bernardino Base and Meridian
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has been determined to be
exempt from California Environmental Quality Act requirements under Section 15303,
Class 3 (A) of the Guidelines For Implementation; 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 new two story units are proposed as a part of this approval. Therefore, there
will be no height impacts on existing residences.
2. The applicant proposes to use block walls which will match or be similar to the
existing walls in the PGA West to provide compatibility.
3. The proposed residences are similar to the Masters Collection units approved in
PGA West and other existing residences. The designs are compatible with the
existing units in terms of architectural materials, style, and colors. No two story
units are proposed, but they are not required for compatibility.
4. The recommended approval and Code requires a minimum of one 24" box size
tree in the front yard. This will be required as a part of the landscaping approval.
P:\STAN\pc res sdp 98-636.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Site Development Permit 98-636
December 8, 1998
5. The proposed units vary from 3,579 to 4,621 square feet in size which is within
the constructed range of 1,290 to 4,830 square feet which exists in PGA West.
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 98-636 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 8" day of December, 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\STAN\pc res sdp 98-636.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-636
DECEMBER 8, 1998
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. This approval is for five prototype units of the following approximate sizes:
A. Plan 1-1 - 3,579 square feet
B. Plan 1-2 - 3,579 square feet
C. Plan 2-1 - 4,000 square feet
D. Plan 2-2 - 3,796 square feet
E. Plan 3 - 4,621 square feet
2. The preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted to the Community
Development for approval prior to issuance of first permit for these unit types.
The plan shall include at least one 24" box size tree on each lot. The tree shall
be at least 10 feet tall, with all 24" box size trees having a minimum caliper of
2%2".
3. Prior to issuance of first building permit for this unit type, the building plans
shall be revised to show stucco surrounds on side and rear window and door
elevations where appropriate, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Department.
4. Lawn areas shall be either hybrid Bermuda (summer) or hybrid Bermuda/Rye
(winter) depending on the season installed. All trees shall be double staked to
prevent wind damage.
5. The perimeter walls around the tract and residences visible to the street shall
match the decorative concrete block or stucco walls used in the project. Gates
shall be constructed out of metal pickets or its equivalent.
6. The Pinus halepensis shall be deleted from plant pallette.
p:\stan\pc coa sdp 98-636
ATTACHMENT 1
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
December 3, 1998
I. CALL TO ORDER
10:00 a.m.
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order
at 10:12 a.m.Tlop
y ornmunity-Devement Director Jerry Herman who led the flag
salute.
B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and Dennis Cunningham.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planners
Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if there were any changes to
the Minutes of November 20, 1998. There being no corrections, it was moved and
seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to approve the minutes as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 98-636; a request of Innovative Resorts Communities for
approval of architectural and landscaping plans for five prototype plans within PGA
West on Weiskopf, west of Winged Foot.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Committee Member Bill Bobbitt informed those present that even though he
is employed by one of the Homeowner Associations at PGA West, he is able
to comment on any project at PGA West as long as it is not within his own
Homeowner's Association. In regards to this project that is not within that
area, he is familiar with the existing units and the proposed and they are nice
CAMy I)ocuments\WPDOCS\AI,RC12-3-98-a.wpd
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee
December 3, 1998
addition. The landscaping plant pallet is good. The date palm to be used in
the small islands will not be a problem. His concern has been the crowns
breaking off of the larger palms. On the use of pine trees, he has had
problems with some of the pine trees at PGA West. All other trees are pretty
standard. He is not against using the pine trees, rather the problems they have
incurred using them in the desert is that they can be diseased and cause a
problem.
3. Mr. Pete Bilicki, Innovative Resort Communities, the applicant, stated they
would check with their landscape architect regarding the pine trees.
Discussion followed regarding the use of pine trees.
4. Committee Member Dennis Cunningham stated that in regard to the
architecture, they are compatible with the existing units. He asked if staff to
clarify why and where they were recommending the use of surrounds on the
windows. Discussion followed regarding the window treatments.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 98-014 approving
Site Development Permit 98-636 as recommended by staff and with the
deletion of the pine trees from the plant pallette. Unanimously approved.
- B-.-- - Site Development Permit 98-641; a request of Southern Hills, LLC (Roger Hobbs
for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototype plans f9r1he
property located on the east side of Southern Hills, at Oakmont and at the
.,a6rth end
of Laurel Valley in PGA West. %
1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the informatiga'contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the mmunity Development
Department.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked Wff to clarify the reason for the change
in the size of the garage. Staffistated it was to accommodate a hot water
heater and door which encrpaches into it.
3. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is another fine product in PGA
West and is in keeping with what is existing.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt abstained due to a possible conflict of interest.
5. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded to adopt
Minute Motion 98-015 approving Site Development Permit 98-641 as
recommended by staff.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC12-3-98-a.wpd 2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: DECEMBER 8,1998
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26855 (REVISED)
REQUEST: APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26.855 TO
SUBDIVIDE 33.8 ACRES INTO 95 RESIDENTIAL LOTS
AND OTHER AMENITY LOTS
APPLICANT: KEITH INTERNATIONAL INC.
PROPERTY OWNERS: BROOKFIELD HOMES
LOCATION: EAST OF JEFFERSON, APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET SOUTH
OF AVENUE 50
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-194 WAS CERTIFIED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AN ADDENDUM HAS BEEN
PREPARED TO EVALUATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH MINOR CHANGES IN THE
PROJECT. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE
MITIGATED WILL RESULT FROM THIS PROJECT.
THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTATION IS NECESSARY.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) (LDR)
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES: NORTH: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) -
WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY, LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)- WITH
EQUESTRIAN, AND SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
SOUTH : LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL), SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCES AND CITRUS GROVES
EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
WEST: TOURIST COMMERCIAL (TC) AND LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL), SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Tract Map 26855, located on the east side of Jefferson Street
approximately 660 feet south of 50th Avenue (Attachment 1), was originally approved
by the City Council on January 5, 1992 and granted a one year time extension on
May 19, 1998. This tract approval consisted of a 73 single family lot subdivision on
23 acres.
This tract revision adds 10.8 acres all fronting on Jefferson Street allowing access
to the subdivision to line up with Pomelo Drive on the west side of Jefferson; and
adds 22 residential lots to the tract.
The revised tract is a 33.8 acre subdivision which includes 95 single family residential
lots, 7 private street lots, and landscape and retention basin lots. The project site
is primarily vacant except for a single family residence located in the northwest corner
of the property, near Jefferson Street. The property is irregularly shaped with
frontage on Jefferson Street and a 30-foot wide access easement to 50" Avenue.
The site is relatively flat except for the area where the existing single family residence
is located.
The subdivision takes access off Jefferson Street near the southern end of the
property. Vehicular access will be full turning movements with the completion of the
future signalized intersection of Pomelo Drive and Jefferson Street. The internal road
system is designed to provide secondary access at the southerly end of Lot "A" and
"E" through Tentative Tract 26718, located adjacent to the south. A reciprocal
access agreement is required to allow access through each property should one tract
develop before the other.
The proposed lot sizes are a minimum of 10,000 square feet and the maximum
13,000 square feet with the average lot size being a little under 10,000 square feet.
The RL Zoning District requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet.
The retention facility at the southeast corner of the tentative tract is a portion of a
shared basin with Tentative Tract 26718. Each tentative tract is required to have a
i , . '^ 'I ,)
reciprocal easement on the entire retention basin area to ensure that an adequate
facility will be constructed for either tract, should one of the tracts not be developed.
This easement is to be recorded prior to approval of the final map.
A homeowners' association will be formed to maintain the retention basin, common
landscaped areas, private roads, and perimeter landscaping. A 20-foot deep
landscaped lot with a meandering sidewalk and wall will be provided along Jefferson
Street as required by the General Plan.
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 16,1998. All
property owners within 500-feet of the affected area were mailed a copy of the public
notice as required. No written comments have been received.
The tentative tract was sent out for comments to City Departments and affected
public agencies on October 23,1998. Agency comments received have been made
a part of the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
General Plan/Specific Plan consistency:
1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the City of La Quinta
General Plan in that the design of the Low Density Residential subdivision
meets General Plan Policy 2-1.1.5 requiring a residential product type
characterized by single family detached homes on large or medium size lots.
2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
City of La Quinta General Plan in that the proposed lots exceed the minimum
7,200 square foot lot size, have an on -site drainage and flood water retention
facility, and internal circulation system acceptable to the City Engineer.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that
the overall density of the proposed tentative tract is 2.8 which is within the
permitted General Plan density range of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre.
Tract Design/Improvements/Health and Safety:
4. The design of the subdivision, or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish, or wildlife, or their habitats in that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact was certified for EA 91-194 by the City Council on
January 5, 1992.
5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems in that the Fire Marshal, Sheriff's Department,
and the City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the request for
the first time extension for Tentative Tract 26855 for potential public health
problems and made recommendations for conditions and mitigation measures
for project approval.
6. 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 in that the proposed internal streets
will be privately owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly -
owned improvements within the tentative tract map.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant's request to subdivide 33.8 acres of land for 95 residential lots and
private street, landscape and retention basin lots are consistent with the General Plan,
and the Subdivision Ordinance provided that the recommended Conditions of
Approval are met.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_, recommending to the City Council
approval of Tentative Tract 26855 subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Tentative Tract 26855 (reduced)
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
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 TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 26855
(REVISED) TO ALLOW A 95-LOT SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LAND SUBDIVISION AND
MISCELLANEOUS AMENITY LOTS ON
APPROXIMATELY 33.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET, SOUTH OF
AVENUE 50.
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 26855 REVISED
APPLICANT: KEITH ENGINEERING, Inc
(BROOKFIELD CALIFORNIA LAND HOLDINGS)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 8th day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and
recommended approval to the City Council, for a 33.8 acre site with 95 single family
lots and other amenity lots, generally located on the east side of Jefferson, south of
Avenue 50, more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF THE NW 1 /4 OF SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST,
SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said
Tentative Tract Map 26855:
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan.
The project is a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the
1992 General Plan Update; therefore, all provisions of Land Use Element
(Chapter 2) shall be met. Tentative Tract 26855 is consistent with the goals,
policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions contained
herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of
environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Assessment 91-194,
addendum 1.
B. The design, or improvement of, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance.
All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards
PCRESO.TT26855
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
contained in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on -
site streets will be private (37-feet wide right-of-way). Access for the single
family lots will be provided from an internal north/south street planned under
tentative tract map. The density and design standards for the tract will comply
with the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Chapter 2).
The design of the proposed subdivision, or type of improvements is consistent
with the City of La Quinta General Plan in that the subdivision has on -site
drainage, flood water retention, and internal circulation system acceptable to
the City Engineer.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that the slope and
topographic relief is relatively flat, and the soil type is suitable for residential
development.
D. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish,
or wildlife, or their habitats in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact was certified for EA 91-194, Addendum 1 on May 19,
1998. An Addendum has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts
associated with minor changes in the project. The Community DeveBopment
Department has determined that no significant environmental impacts which
cannot be mitigated will result from this project. Therefore, no further
environmental documentation is necessary.
E. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems in that the Fire Marshall, Sheriff's Department,
and the City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the proposal for
public health conditions and the project is conditioned as appropriate.
F. The design of the subdivision, of type of improvements, will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision in the proposed internal streets will
be privately owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly -owned
improvements with the tentative tract map.
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;
PCRESO.TT26855
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map
26855 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 8tn day of December, 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Robert T. Tyler, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 26855, REVISED
DECEMBER 8, 1998
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the
event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The
City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion.
2. 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.
3. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire on January 5, 2000, unless a First Time
Extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance is approved by the
City Council.
4. Tentative Tract Map 26855 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).
5. 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 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 submit a copy of the Notice of Intent received from the CWQCB prior
to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the
required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project
site
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
6. 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.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or
access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others,
the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to
those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners.
10. 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. Dedications required of this development include:
A. Jefferson Street, Major Arterial - Sixty -foot half of one -hundred -twenty -foot right of
way
B. Private Streets - Thirty -seven -foot right of way plus 10-foot public utility easements
on both sides
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.
A:\PC.COA.TT26855revised.wpd "
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
11. The applicant shall create perimeter setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent
to the following street rights of way:
A. Jefferson Street - Twenty -foot width
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 parcels being subdivided including, but not limited to, remainder parcels
and lots dedicated or deeded 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.
12. The applicant shall vacate abutters' rights of access to Jefferson Street from lots
abutting the street. Direct access to this street shall be restricted to access points listed
hereinafter or as approved by the City.
13. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas.
14. Prior to approval of any final map, the applicant shall obtain easements from the owner
of the property to the south (proposed Tentative Tract 26718) for shared street access
and for installation, operation and use of the proposed shared stormwater retention
basin, and shall grant or dedicate like easements to the owner(s) of that property
15. 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.
FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S)
16. As part of the filing package for final map approval, 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.
AAPC.COA.TT26855revised.wpd 3
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
17. 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.
18. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements
of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire
standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
19. When final plans are approved by the City, 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.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
20. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an
executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations
A:\PC.COA.TT26855revised.wpd 4
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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:
A. Intersection of Pomelo and Jefferson Street - 13.9% of the cost to design and
construct traffic signals.
B. Jefferson Street - 32.6% of the cost to design and construct a bus turnout and
shelter meeting the requirements of Sunline Transit Agency and the City Engineer.
C. Jefferson Street - Reimburse Landmark Land Company (or its successors or
assigns) for any street improvements installed by Landmark (or its successors or
assigns) on the east side of the centerline of Jefferson Street along the frontage
AAPC.COA.TT26855revised.wpd 5
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
of Tentative Tract 26855.
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.
GRADING
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance.
27. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering
report (the "soils report") with the grading plan.
28. 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.
29. 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 which minimize safety
concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade
differential.
30. 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
LAPC.COA.TT26855revised.wpd 6 J
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
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:
31. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels
or frequencies in any area outside the development.
32. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the
design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent
public streets.
33. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins
or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2'/2 acres in
size or larger or where the use of common retention is determined by the City Engineer
to be impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet all
individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties
and between 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 which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
34. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated overflow
outlet and into the historic drainage relief route.
35. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
36. 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.
AAPC.COA.TT2685 5revised.wpd
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
37. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the
retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common
retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet.
38. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and
leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be
designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5
gpd/1,000 sq. ft."
39. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the
La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's 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. If the 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 any 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.
UTILITIES
41. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall
be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv 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
43. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement 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 ordinance.
8
A:\PC.COA *1726855revised.wpd
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the
applicant shall be responsible for all street and traffic improvements required herein.
44. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses:
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - Install east half of 102-foot (curbface to
curbface) improvement plus meandering eight -foot -wide sidewalk/bikepath
B. PRIVATE STREETS AND CULS DE SAC
1. Residential - 36 feet wide if double loaded (building lots on both sides), 32 feet
if single loaded
2. Cul de sac curb radius - 45'
3. Main entryway - As shown on Tentative Map or otherwise approved by the City
Engineer
C. EMERGENCY ACCESS
The applicant shall construct no more than 40 homes within this tract before cross -
access routes, an emergency access route or other secondary tract access is
improved as required by the City Engineer.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City
Engineer.
45. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows:
A. Main Project Entryway - Divided ingress/egress drive centered approximately 770
feet south of the most northerly tract boundary.
B. Connecting road (between Lots 12 and 13) to the property to the south. The City
may require that this connection be restricted to emergency use.
C. If required by the Fire Department, emergency access approved by the City
Engineer.
46. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization
markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and
Y,(1{-1t ^
kAPC.00A.TT26855revised.wpd 9
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City
Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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. Unused
curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of
permanent building(s) on the lot.
51. 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"
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
,APC.00A.TT26855revised.wpd
�rl ?
10
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material.
Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved.
52. 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
53. 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.
54. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas or
lots along Jefferson Street.
55. 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 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.
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.
58. Unless 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
k:\PC.COATT26855revised.wpd
11
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
tractor -mounted equipment.
59. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
60. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit landscaping drawings, in
conformance with the current Zoning Code, to the Community Development Department
for review and approval which identifies the following:
A. Landscaping, for the perimeter and entry areas including plant types, sizes,
spacing, location, and irrigation system. Desert or native plant species and drought
resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. Lawn
shall be minimized and not used within five feet of the curb. No spray heads shall
be used adjacent to street curbing or sidewalk areas. All trees within the
landscape setback, including berming of perimeter setbacks, shall be a minimum
24-inch box, 1.5 inch calipher size. Berming shall be included with a gentle slope
of one to three feet.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
61. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
62. 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.
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.
64. 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
65. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous and perpetual maintenance of all
required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility �y,,j
kAPC.COA.TT26855revised.wpd 12
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
the City.
FEES 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.
67. Parkland fees shall be paid prior to final map approval as required by the Subdivision
Ordinance (Chapter 13.48).
TRACT DESIGN
68. Development of the project site shall comply with Tentative Tract Map Exhibit, as
contained in the Community Development Department's file for this tentative tract, and
with the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any
conflict with the provisions of the tentative tract map.
69. Structures shall have a "windows closed" condition requiring a mechanical ventilation
system and upgraded window with a minimum sound transmission class rating for Lots
1 through 10.
70. A minimum six-foot high, solid, decorative, masonry wall with a two and a half foot berm
shall be provided along the perimeters of the project; the wall shall be a meandering
wall along the Jefferson Street perimeter of the project. The exact location, design, and
materials shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of a grading permit.
71. All lighting facilities shall comply with Chapter 9.60.160 (Outdoor Lighting) and be
designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property. All lighting to be
installed shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development
Department.
72. If installed, design of security gate entry shall be reviewed and approved by the Public
Works and Community Development Departments prior to final map approval.
AAPC. COATT26855revised.wpd
13
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN
73. Single-family lots 1 through 10 shall be developed with one story units, not to exceed
22 feet in height.
FIRE MARSHAL
74. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Marshal, who may approve
alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these
standards:
A. 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 with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant.
Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot
reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly on line with fire
hydrants.
B. Applicant/developer will provide written certification from the appropriate water
company that the required fire hydrant(s) are either existing or that financial
arrangements have been made to provide them.
C. 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. The
plans shall conform with the Fire Marshal's requirements for types, location and
spacing of hydrants and fire flow requirements.
Plans shall 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."
D. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
E. If installed, 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/approval prior to installation.
F. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of
4 'y S •! 1 9 11
,APC.COA.TI'26855revised.wpd 14
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
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.
MANAGEMENT
76. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Director the following documents which shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City that the open space/recreation areas and private streets and
drives shall be maintained in accordance with the intent and purpose of this approval.
A. The document to convey title;
B. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be recorded; and,
C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the unit/lot
owners cf this land division.
The approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded a the same
time that the final subdivision map is recorded.
A Homeowner's Association, with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the
individual units for reasonable maintenance costs, shall be established and
continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any
owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be
subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust, provided that such
deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the
homeowners association.
MISCELLANEOUS
77. Grading, drainage, street, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, park, gate, and perimeter
wall and meandering sidewalk plans are not approved for construction until they have
been signed by the City Engineer.
78. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings within the tract, the applicant
shall install traffic control devices and street sign names along access roads to those
buildings.
79. Street names shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development
Department prior to final map approval and street sign installation. Lot A and C of each
tract shall have the same street name.
APC.00A.TT26855revised.wpd 15
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
79. All potential purchasers of lots shall be notified in writing there are horses on
surrounding properties that may be allowed to remain. Method of notification shall be
approved by the Community Development Director prior to recordation of the final map.
80. Prior to recordation of the first final map, a reciprocal access easement shall be granted
allowing the ten acre property to the west (not a part of this subdivision) emergency
secondary access through Tentative Tract 26855.
81. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Department the a Phase I Archaeological Assessment ( in compliance
with CEQA guidelines) for the site, at applicant/developer's expense.
:\PC.COA.TT26855revised.wpd 16
® AVE.
z
V)
50
W
PROJECT Wui
LOCATION
V)
ul,
AVE. 52 z
0
O
W
(Az
a
Ix
o
W
AVE. 54
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
i
N
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: DECEMBER 8,1998
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26855 (REVISED)
REQUEST: APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26855 TO
SUBDIVIDE 33.8 ACRES INTO 95 RESIDENTIAL LOTS
AND OTHER AMENITY LOTS
APPLICANT: KEITH INTERNATIONAL INC.
PROPERTY OWNERS: BROOKFIELD HOMES
LOCATION: EAST OF JEFFERSON, APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET SOUTH
OF AVENUE 50
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-194 WAS CERTIFIED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AN ADDENDUM HAS BEEN
PREPARED TO EVALUATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH MINOR CHANGES IN THE
PROJECT. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE
MITIGATED WILL RESULT FROM THIS PROJECT.
THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTATION IS NECESSARY.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) (LDR)
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES: NORTH: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) -
WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY, LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)- WITH
EQUESTRIAN, AND SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
SOUTH : LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL), SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCES AND CITRUS GROVES
EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
WEST: TOURIST COMMERCIAL (TC) AND LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL), SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Tract Map 26855, located on the east side of Jefferson Street
approximately 660 feet south of 50th Avenue (Attachment 1), was originally approved
by the City Council on January 5, 1992 and granted a one year time extension on
May 19, 1998. This tract approval consisted of a 73 single family lot subdivision on
23 acres.
Subdivision Design:
This tract revision adds 10.8 acres all fronting on Jefferson Street allowing access
to the subdivision to line up with Pomelo Drive on the west side of Jefferson; and
adds 22 residential lots to the tract.
The revised tract is a 33.8 acre subdivision which includes 95 single family residential
lots, 7 private street lots, and landscape and retention basin lots. The project site
is primarily vacant except for a single family residence located in the northwest corner
of the property, near Jefferson Street. The property is irregularly shaped with
frontage on Jefferson Street and a 30-foot wide access easement to 50' Avenue.
The site is relatively flat except for the area where the existing single family residence
is located.
The subdivision takes access off Jefferson Street near the southern end of the
property. Vehicular access will be full turning movements with the completion of the
future signalized intersection of Pomelo Drive and Jefferson Street. The internal road
system is designed to provide secondary access at the southerly end of Lot "A" and
"E" through Tentative Tract 26718, located adjacent to the south. A reciprocal
access agreement is required to allow access through each property should one tract
develop before the other.
The proposed lot sizes are a minimum of 10,000 square feet and the maximum
13,000 square feet with the average lot size being a little under 10,000 square feet.
The RL Zoning District requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet.
The retention facility at the southeast corner of the tentative tract is a portion of a
shared basin with Tentative Tract 26718. Each tentative tract is required to have a
reciprocal easement on the entire retention basin area to ensure that an adequate
facility will be constructed for either tract, should one of the tracts not be developed.
This easement is to be recorded prior to approval of the final map.
A homeowners' association will be formed to maintain the retention basin, common
landscaped areas, private roads, and perimeter landscaping. A 20-foot deep
landscaped lot with a meandering sidewalk and wall will be provided along Jefferson
Street as required by the General Plan.
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 16,1998. All
property owners within 500-feet of the affected area were mailed a copy of the public
notice as required. No written comments have been received.
The tentative tract was sent out for comments to City Departments and affected
public agencies on October 23,1998. Agency comments received have been made
a part of the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
General Plan/Specific Plan consistency:
The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the City of La Quinta
General Plan in that the design of the Low Density Residential subdivision
meets General Plan Policy 2-1.1.5 requiring a residential product type
characterized by single family detached homes on large or medium size lots.
2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
City of La Quinta General Plan in that the proposed lots exceed the minimum
7,200 square foot lot size, have an on -site drainage and flood water retention
facility, and internal circulation system acceptable to the City Engineer.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that
the overall density of the proposed tentative tract is 2.8 which is within the
permitted General Plan density range of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre.
Tract Design/Improvements/Health and Safety:
4. The design of the subdivision, or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish, or wildlife, or their habitats in that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact was certified for EA 91-194 by the City Council on
January 5, 1992.
5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems in that the Fire Marshal, Sheriff's Department,
and the City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the request for
the first time extension for Tentative Tract 26855 for potential public health
problems and made recommendations for conditions and mitigation measures
for project approval.
6. 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 in that the proposed internal streets
will be privately owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly -
owned improvements within the tentative tract map.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant's request to subdivide 33.8 acres of land for 95 residential lots and
private street, landscape and retention basin lots are consistent with the General Plan,
and the Subdivision Ordinance provided that the recommended Conditions of
Approval are met.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_, recommending to the City Council
approval of Tentative Tract 26855 subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Tentative Tract 26855 (reduced)
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
Submitted by:
of X/��
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 TENTATIVE TRACT 26855
(REVISED) TO ALLOW A 95-LOT SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LAND SUBDIVISION AND
MISCELLANEOUS AMENITY LOTS ON
APPROXIMATELY 33.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET, SOUTH OF
AVENUE 50.
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 26855 REVISED
APPLICANT: KEITH ENGINEERING, Inc
(BROOKFIELD CALIFORNIA LAND HOLDINGS)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 8th day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and
recommended approval to the City Council, for a 33.8 acre site with 95 single family
lots and other amenity lots, generally located on the east side of Jefferson, south of
Avenue 50, more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF THE NW 1 /4 OF SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST,
SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said
Tentative Tract Map 26855:
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan.
The project is a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the
1992 General Plan Update; therefore, all provisions of Land Use Element
(Chapter 2) shall be met. Tentative Tract 26855 is consistent with the goals,
policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions contained
herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of
environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Assessment 91-194,
addendum 1.
B. The design, or improvement of, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance.
All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards
PCRESO.TT26855
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
contained in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on -
site streets will be private (37-feet wide right-of-way). Access for the single
family lots will be provided from an internal north/south street planned under
tentative tract map. The density and design standards for the tract will comply
with the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Chapter 2).
The design of the proposed subdivision, or type of improvements is consistent
with the City of La Quinta General Plan in that the subdivision has on -site
drainage, flood water retention, and internal circulation system acceptable to
the City Engineer.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that the slope and
topographic relief is relatively flat, and the soil type is suitable for residential
development.
D. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish,
or wildlife, or their habitats in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact was certified for EA 91-194, Addendum 1 on May 19,
1998. An Addendum has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts
associated with minor changes in the project. The Community Development
Department has determined that no significant environmental impacts which
cannot be mitigated will result from this project. Therefore, no further
environmental documentation is necessary.
E. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems in that the Fire Marshall, Sheriff's Department,
and the City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the proposal for
public health conditions and the project is conditioned as appropriate.
F. The design of the subdivision, of type of improvements, will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision in the proposed internal streets will
be privately owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly -owned
improvements with the tentative tract map.
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;
PCRESO.TT26855
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map
26855 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 8th day of December, 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Robert T. Tyler, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 26855, REVISED
DECEMBER 8, 1998
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the
event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The
City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion.
2. 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.
3. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire on January 5, 2000, unless a First Time
Extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance is approved by the
City Council.
4. Tentative Tract Map 26855 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).
5. 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 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 submit a copy of the Notice of Intent received from the CWQCB prior
to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the
required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project
site
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
6. 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.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
7. 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.
8. 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
9. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or
access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others,
the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to
those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners.
10. 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. Dedications required of this development include:
A. Jefferson Street. Major Arterial - Sixty -foot half of one -hundred -twenty -foot right of
way
B. Private Streets - Thirty -seven -foot right of way plus 10-foot public utility easements
on both sides
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.
,x:�Pc.Coj1 TT26855revised.wpd 2
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
11. The applicant shall create perimeter setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent
to the following street rights of way:
A. Jefferson Street - Twenty -foot width
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 parcels being subdivided including, but not limited to, remainder parcels
and lots dedicated or deeded 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.
12. The applicant shall vacate abutters' rights of access to Jefferson Street from lots
abutting the street. Direct access to this street shall be restricted to access points listed
hereinafter or as approved by the City.
13. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas.
14. Prior to approval of any final map, the applicant shall obtain easements from the owner
of the property to the south (proposed Tentative Tract 26718) for shared street access
and for installation, operation and use of the proposed shared stormwater retention
basin, and shall grant or dedicate like easements to the owner(s) of that property
15. 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.
FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S)
16. As part of the filing package for final map approval, 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.
A:\PC.MV1726855revised.wpd 3
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
17. 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.
18. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements
of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire
standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
19. When final plans are approved by the City, 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.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
20. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an
executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations
1: PC C0A.TT26855re%ised.wpd 4
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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:
A. Intersection of Pomelo and Jefferson Street - 13.9% of the cost to design and
construct traffic signals.
B. Jefferson Street - 32.6% of the cost to design and construct a bus turnout and
shelter meeting the requirements of Sunline Transit Agency and the City Engineer.
C. Jefferson Street - Reimburse Landmark Land Company (or its successors or
assigns) for any street improvements installed by Landmark (or its successors or
assigns) on the east side of the centerline of Jefferson Street along the frontage
A: \Pc.COA.,rT26855revised.wpd 5
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
of Tentative Tract 26855.
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.
GRADING
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance.
27. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering
report (the "soils report") with the grading plan.
28. 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.
29. 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 which minimize safety
concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade
differential.
30. 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
A:\PC.COA ,r,i'26855revised.wpd 6
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
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:
31. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels
or frequencies in any area outside the development.
32. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the
design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent
public streets.
33. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins
or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 21h acres in
size or larger or where the use of common retention is determined by the City Engineer
to be impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet all
individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties
and between 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 which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
34. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated overflow
outlet and into the historic drainage relief route.
35. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
36. 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.
A:\PC.COA."rT2G855revisedmpd 7
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
37. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the
retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common
retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet.
38. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and
leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be
designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5
gpd/1.000 sq. ft."
39. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the
La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's 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. If the 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 any 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.
UTILITIES
41. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall
be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv 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
43. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement 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 ordinance.
A:\PC.COA.TT26855reviscd.wpd 8
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the
applicant shall be responsible for all street and traffic improvements required herein.
44. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses:
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - Install east half of 102-foot (curbface to
curbface) improvement plus meandering eight -foot -wide sidewalk/bikepath
B. PRIVATE STREETS AND CULS DE SAC
1. Residential - 36 feet wide if double loaded (building lots on both sides), 32 feet
if single loaded
2. Cul de sac curb radius - 45'
3. Main entryway - As shown on Tentative Map or otherwise approved by the City
Engineer
C. EMERGENCY ACCESS
The applicant shall construct no more than 40 homes within this tract before cross -
access routes, an emergency access route or other secondary tract access is
improved as required by the City Engineer.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City
Engineer.
45. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows:
A. Main Project Entryway - Divided ingress/egress drive centered approximately 770
feet south of the most northerly tract boundary.
B. Connecting road (between Lots 12 and 13) to the property to the south. The City
may require that this connection be restricted to emergency use.
C. If required by the Fire Department, emergency access approved by the City
Engineer.
46. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization
markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and
V\PC C0A'1'T26855revised.wpd 9
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City
Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Street right of way geometry for cuts 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.
50. 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. Unused
curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of
permanent building(s) on the lot.
51. 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"
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
,V\PC.COA.TT26855reviscd.wpd 10
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material.
Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved.
52. 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
53. 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.
54. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas or
lots along Jefferson Street.
55. 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 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.
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.
58. Unless 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
A:\YC'.COA_TT26855revised.wpd 11
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
tractor -mounted equipment.
59. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
60. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit landscaping drawings, in
conformance with the current Zoning Code, to the Community Development Department
for review and approval which identifies the following:
A. Landscaping, for the perimeter and entry areas including plant types, sizes,
spacing, location, and irrigation system. Desert or native plant species and drought
resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. Lawn
shall be minimized and not used within five feet of the curb. No spray heads shall
be used adjacent to street curbing or sidewalk areas. All trees within the
landscape setback, including berming of perimeter setbacks, shall be a minimum
24-inch box, 1.5 inch calipher size. Berming shall be included with a gentle slope
of one to three feet.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
61. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
62. 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.
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.
64. 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
65. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous and perpetual maintenance of all
required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by
1:TC.COA.TT26855revised.wpd 12
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
the City.
PEES 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.
67. Parkland fees shall be paid prior to final map approval as required by the Subdivision
Ordinance (Chapter 13.48).
TRACT DESIGN
68. Development of the project site shall comply with Tentative Tract Map Exhibit, as
contained in the Community Development Department's file for this tentative tract, and
with the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any
conflict with the provisions of the tentative tract map.
69. Structures shall have a "windows closed" condition requiring a mechanical ventilation
system and upgraded window with a minimum sound transmission class rating for Lots
1 through 10.
70. A minimum six-foot high, solid, decorative, masonry wall with a two and a half foot berm
shall be provided along the perimeters of the project; the wall shall be a meandering
wall along the Jefferson Street perimeter of the project. The exact location, design, and
materials shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of a grading permit.
71. All lighting facilities shall comply with Chapter 9.60.160 (Outdoor Lighting) and be
designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property. All lighting to be
installed shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development
Department.
72. If installed, design of security gate entry shall be reviewed and approved by the Public
Works and Community Development Departments prior to final map approval.
A:\PC.COA'I T26855revised.w,pd 13
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN
73. Single-family lots 1 through 10 shall be developed with one story units, not to exceed
22 feet in height.
FIRE MARSHAL
74. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Marshal, who may approve
alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these
standards:
A. 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 with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant.
Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot
reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly on line with fire
hydrants.
B. Applicant/developer will provide written certification from the appropriate water
company that the required fire hydrant(s) are either existing or that financial
arrangements have been made to provide them.
C. 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. The
plans shall conform with the Fire Marshal's requirements for types, location and
spacing of hydrants and fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water
company with the following certification: N certify that the design of the water
system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside
County Fire Department."
D. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
E. If installed, 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/approval prior to installation.
F. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of
A:TCCONT26855rtvised."pd 14
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
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.
MANAGEMENT
76. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Director the following documents which shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City that the open space/recreation areas and private streets and
drives shall be maintained in accordance with the intent and purpose of this approval.
A. The document to convey title;
B. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be recorded; and,
C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the unit/lot
owners of this land division.
The approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded a the same
time that the final subdivision map is recorded.
A Homeowner's Association, with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the
individual units for reasonable maintenance costs, shall be established and
continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any
owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be
subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust, provided that such
deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the
homeowners association.
MISCELLANEOUS
77. Grading, drainage, street, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, park, gate, and perimeter
wall and meandering sidewalk plans are not approved for construction until they have
been signed by the City Engineer.
78. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings within the tract, the applicant
shall install traffic control devices and street sign names along access roads to those
buildings.
79. Street names shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development
Department prior to final map approval and street sign installation. Lot A and C of each
tract shall have the same street name.
,1:\PC.COA.'I"r26855revised.wpd 15
Resolution 98-
Conditions of Approval -Recommended
TT 26855, Revised
79. All potential purchasers of lots shall be notified in writing there are horses on
surrounding properties that may be allowed to remain. Method of notification shall be
approved by the Community Development Director prior to recordation of the final map.
80. Prior to recordation of the first final map, a reciprocal access easement shall be granted
allowing the ten acre property to the west (not a part of this subdivision) emergency
secondary access through Tentative Tract 26855.
81. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Department the a Phase I Archaeological Assessment ( in compliance
with CEQA guidelines) for the site, at applicant/developer's expense.
v\PC.COAAT r26855revised.wpd 16
V)
z
® AVE.
X
V)
AVE. 52
AVE. 54
50
W PROJECT W
a LOCATION
W N
0
W
W
W
w
z
0
a
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
r-
W
z
i
N
' E•i��
_N�..
15
a�
j
i
Y
4
r
�
11.�a�
Nk-r .•.u�_s - __. _—_ _.
T
T��
V
+
1
N�� g
s m �
• ao
1
�
4 o x°ice q 9 p g
N q �
I�
x
N
! V
V
o
m
Jl V
�
P L q y
tPJAL-p
P
a B ix
�i
44
.ims x. .� B �5�'• u
5
ri
rn
IMAWA /MOT Na MW
PH #E
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773, EXTENSION #1
REQUEST: APPROVE A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TRACT PHASES
4 THROUGH 7 CONSISTING OF 77 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND
PRIVATE STREETS ON 20.95-ACRES
LOCATION: 250-FEET WEST OF ADAMS STREET AND 110-FEET NORTH OF
AURORA WAY
APPLICANT/
DEVELOPER: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
PROPERTY
OWNER: STARLIGHT DUNE, LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
96-327) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER
1, 1996. NO MAP CHANGES ARE BEING REQUESTED.
THEREFQRE, N4D-ADDITIONAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY.
GENERAL
PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)
ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
Starlight Dunes, a private gated development, is located on the northwest corner of
Fred Waring Drive and Adams Street. Access to the Tract occurs by using Galaxy
Drive via Fred Waring Drive or Adams Street.
In 1989, the City Council approved the subdivision of the 45.6-acre site into 154
single family residential and two common retention basin lots (Tentative Tract Map
23773) under Resolution 89-36. Phase 1 (54-lots on Aurora Way and Skyward Way)
of the Tract was recorded and developed in 1989 with 47 houses. The initial houses
STRTTr23773X - 28
built in Phase 1 range in size from 2,084 to over 3,332 square feet and have two- or
three -car garages. Tract Phases 2-7 were unrecorded when the Map expired.
In 1996, an application was submitted requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map
23773 (Phases 2-7). The original Tract number was used to preserve the Tract's
continuity and permit the existing owners to use the previously prepared improvement
plans. On October 1, 1996, the City Council approved six construction phases (101
single family lots) on 28.4-acres under Resolution 96-79. Tract Phases 2 and 3,
consisting of 24 lots, were recorded in 1997.
The second developer, Deane Homes, built 15 dwelling units ranging in size from
2,400 to 3,650 square feet (Site Development Permit 96-589) in Phases 2 and 3.
Century -Crowell Communities has received approval from the Planning Commission to
build single story houses ranging in size from 1,950 square feet to 3,150 square feet
on the remaining lots under Site Development Permit 98-632 (Resolution 98-072).
The applicant has plans to purchase the property and complete development of the
recorded and unrecorded single family lots.
A one year time extension is requested to permit recordation of Tract Phases 4-7
consisting of 77 single family lots and private streets (Attachments 1 and 2). No map
changes are being requested.
The properties to the north are in unincorporated County area and are vacant or
developed with single family houses and landscape nurseries fronting onto Darby Road.
To the south and west, are properties within Starlight Dunes that are developed with
single family houses. The properties to the west are in La Quinta and developed with
residential houses (Bella Vista) and a retention basin.
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 26, 1998. All
property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. No negative comments have been
received. All correspondence received before the meeting will be given to the Planning
Commission.
STRTTr23773X - 28
General Plan/Zoning Code Consistency
This site is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan permitting 2-4
dwellings per acre. The project density is 3.6 which is within the range allowed. The
Zoning Code designates this site as RL (Low Density Residential) with a minimum lot
size of 7,200 square feet. The single family lots are generally 9,000 square feet or
larger which is consistent with the RL provisions.
Tract Design Amprovements
The Conditions of Approval require streets and other infrastructure improvements
necessary for development pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance provisions. The
recommended Conditions guarantee that all remaining on -site work is consistent with
City and other public agency standards.
Health and Safety Concerns
The proposed Conditions of Approval require installation of on -site infrastructure
improvements for each single family lot including water, sewer, streets, and other
necessary improvements. Plans and fees shall be submitted and paid to the respective
serving agency.
The Subdivision Ordinance permits a one year extension of time to be granted by the
City provided a written request and filing fee are paid prior to expiration. The property
owner has complied with the requirements of Section 13.12.150 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. Minor condition changes are recommended to insure compliance with
existing Code requirements.
Conditions are proposed that comply with the existing provisions of the General Plan,
Municipal Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance. No physical constraints prevent
the development of the site as planned. Findings for approval as noted can be made
and are included in the attached Resolution.
STRTTr23773X - 28
RELS?J WNW --TIC:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_, recommending to the City Council
approval of a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map 23773 (Phases 4-7),
subject to findings and conditions as attached.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Tract Map Exhibit (Reduced)
3. Large Map Exhibit (Planning Commission Members)
ar�"v: Submitted by:
dell, Associate Planner C ristine di lorio, qlanning Manager
STRTTr23773X - 28
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 ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773 (PHASES 4-7)
ALLOWING 77 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS
ON APPROXIMATELY 20.95-ACRES
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773, EXTENSION #1
APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 8" day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for a one
year time extension for 77 single family lots and private streets on 20.95-acres (Tract
Phases 4-7), generally located 1 10-feet north of Aurora Way and 250-feet west of
Adams Street, more particularly described as:
Portion of the S'/2 SE'/4 of Section 18, T5S, R7E, SBBM
(APN: 609-08-017)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 1" day of October, 1996, approve a request to subdivide 28.4 acres into 101
single family lots (Tract Phases 2-7), generally on the north side of Fred Waring Drive
and east of Adams Street Lane under Resolution 96-79; and
WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified a Negative Declaration
(Environmental Assessment 96-327) for this project on October 1, 1996. No map
changes are proposed; therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted; 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 one year time extension for Tentative Tract
Map 23773 (Phases 4-7):
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and any
applicable specific plans.
The property is within a Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
District per the provisions of the General Plan. The project density is 3.6
dwellings per acre for Phases 4-7 which is under the maximum level for the LDR
District. Tentative Tract 23773 (Phases 4-7) is consistent with the goals,
policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2)
provided conditions are met.
RESOPC23773x - 28
Resolution 98-
The site is zoned RL (Low Density Residential District) which permits single
family development on lots a least 7,200 sq. ft. The proposed lots average
9,000 sq. ft. Future housing shall be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code (e.g., Chapter 9.30.030, etc.) in effect at the time building permits
are acquired.
B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans.
All streets and improvements in the project as conditioned will conform to City
standards as outlined in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. All on -
site streets will be private which is consistent with the Circulation Element
(Chapter 3.0). Access to the Tract will be from Galaxy Drive on Fred Waring
Drive and Adams Street. The density and design standards for the tract will
comply with the Land Use Element (Chapter 2.0) of the General Plan and the
Zoning Code.
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 subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division as approved
in 1989 and 1996. Mitigation fees and environmental studies (i.e.,
archaeological and noise) were completed as required prior to development of
the project in 1989. In 1996, a new Cultural Resources Report was required
for Tract Phases 2-7 because the original study was more than five years old.
The study states that no known prehistoric sites have been previously recorded
on this property, therefore, archaeological monitoring will not be required during
site development unless human remains are found during excavation work. This
project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or
wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures were completed at the
time the site was disturbed or will be mitigated based on the proposed
Conditions of Approval.
D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely 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.
RESOPC23773x - 28
Resolution 98-
The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family
lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support
necessary infrastructure improvements.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning
Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs
of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs
of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and
environmental resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of a one year time
extension for Tentative Tract Map 23773 (Phases 4-7) 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 81h day of December, 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC23773x - 28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773, EXTENSION #1
DECEMBER 8,1998
+ Recommended Condition Change
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
►I '
1. + Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of
Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they
apply (i.e., Assessor's Parcel Number 609-080-017).
2. + Tentative Tract Map 23773 (Extension #1) shall comply with the requirements and standards of
§§66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Title 13 of
the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions.
This map shall expire one year after acceptance by the City Council unless extended pursuant to the
provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 13.12.150(B)).
3. 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 County Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District
- Imperial Irrigation District
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
- Sunline Transit
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the 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 an approved Storm
Water Pollution Protection Plan.
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.
indTTM 23773X - 28 1 1 } 0 ;�
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 filing of a certificate of compliance for waiver
of a final 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. With respect to the drainage basin located in the
existing Tract 23773-1, the conferral shall include the granting of drainage rights for all areas located
within the original tentative map and access rights, for the purpose of construction, reconstruction
and maintenance of the basin, to the homeowners association(s) for the entire original tentative map
area.
6. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights -of -way or access easements
which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide
approved alternate rights -of -way or access easements to those properties.
7. The applicant shall dedicate three-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides
of all private streets.
8. 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.
9. + 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 Public Works
Director. 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.
FINALIIIA.P(S)
10. As part of the filing package for final map approval, 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 Public Works Director. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad
menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
11. 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 Public Works Director.
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,
mdTTM 23773X - 28
2
( J� fl) () 4, F I%x 9
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 Public Works
Director'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 Public Works Director.
12. In lieu of submitting new plans for any element of construction, the subdivider may propose to use
existing, approved plans developed for the original tentative map provided the plans comply with
existing requirements.
13. 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.
14. + Prior to approval of the final map(s), the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the
approved map(s) on storage media acceptable to the Director of Public Works. The files shall utilize
standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. 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.
M A 19 161,191TAM NIM .04 91010 llfr
15. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or enter into a secured
agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to
agendization 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
Title 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.
16. 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 Public Works
Director.
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 television 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.
ondTTM 23773X - 28 3
17. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the Conditions of
Approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department for review and approval by the Public Works Director.
The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the
approved phasing plan. 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 sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the Public Works Director.
18. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (site
development permits, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide
improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed
or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Director.
19. 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:
A. One half of a raised, landscaped median on Fred Waring Street from Adams Street to the west
boundary of Tract 23773-1.
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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance.
23. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the
Public Works Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with
the recommendations of the soils report produced for the original tentative map 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.
:ondTTM 23773X - 28 4 i"► i q
24. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots
within this development, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not
exceed five feet.
If the applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will
consider and may approve alternatives that preserve community acceptance and buyer satisfaction
with the proposed development.
25. 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.
a) I.A.11 1►:
26. Stormwater falling on the site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained
in the retention basin located in Tract 23773-1. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the
centerline of adjacent public streets.
27. The applicant shall complete improvements to the retention basin located in Tract 23773-1.
28. Fences or walls will not be allowed around the retention basin except as approved by the Community
Development and Public Works Directors.
29. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed
through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
[i�1il�illli�ly
30. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed
underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are
exempt from this requirement.
31. 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 Public Works Director.
:►1Dim 5 1 U "TONTRIu l
32. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the Circulation
Element of the General Plan (Chapter 3.0):
>ndTTM 23773X - 28
5
19
PRIVATE STREETS AND CUL DE SACS
1) Residential - 36 feet wide if double loaded (buildings on both sides), 32 feet if single
loaded.
2) Cul de sac curb radius - 45'
33. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be limited to those approved for the original
tentative tract map.
34. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings, raised
medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and
location by the U.S. Post Office and the Public Works Director. Mid -block street lighting is not
required.
35. Street improvement plans 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 Public Works Director.
36. Street right-of-way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with
Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved
by the Public Works Director.
37. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed
with curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without
ponding in yard or drive areas and to facilitate street sweeping.
38. 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"
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) aggregate gradation test results which 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.
mdTTM 23773X - 28
R
39. Prior to occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant
shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along
access routes to those buildings.
40. 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 be submitted to the Public Works Department for
review and approval by the Public Works Director. The plans are not approved for construction until
they have been approved and signed by the Public Works Director, the Coachella Valley Water
District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
41. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights -of -way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right-
of-way.
42. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the
Public Works Director. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18-
inches of curbs along public streets.
43. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, common basins and park areas shall be
designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment.
44. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual
screening of above -ground utility structures.
45. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the
Public Works Director.
46. 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.
47. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings
of all plans which were signed by the Public Works Director. 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 AutoCad plan files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -
constructed condition.
ondTTM 23773X - 28
7
48. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site
street improvements.
49. 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.
50. Parkland fees shall be paid prior to final map approval as required by Chapter 13.48 of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
51. Fringe -Toed Lizard habitat mitigation fees shall be prior to site grading or issuance of a building
permit.
52. + Twochecckks-made-outto the County of Riverside- in--the-amounts-of $1,25a.80-and-$7&fl@ for
the-projectss--environmentaFassessment-(Negative-Declaratiau)-shali-be submitted -to -the
Community-3evelopment-Departnrent-within-24=hours-after of the -map -by -the -City
C-ouncil.
53. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2'/2" X 2'/2") will be located at
each street intersection spaced not more than 330-feet apart in any direction with any portion of any
frontage more than 165-feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow will be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-
hour duration at 20 psi.
54. 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 and approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant
types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be
approved and 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."
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. + If -human -remains or other historica"rfficts—are1bund-dur' ; no_'urther
grading -shall--occur-until-appropriatemdflgation measures are completed, as Per
ondTTM 23773X - 28 8
current-State;—C-ounty,-and City "Nuil enients. The munity-Development-Department
shall-be-n-otiffied- human- remainsare- found: If buried cultural materials are discovered
during construction, work in that area shall be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can
evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
10=34JUN:.i� •may
58. The residence layout shall comply with all the RL Zoning Code requirements.
59. The City Attorney shall approve the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and R's) for the
tract prior to approval of the final map(s) by the City Council.
60. If connected, the proposed street name "Meridian" shall be deleted and substituted with "Skyward
Way". Pisces "Way" and Morningstar "Way" shall be deleted and replaced with "Court".
ondTTM 23773X - 28 9
s°�'` -E►
ATTACHMENTS
Darby Rd.
ATTACHMENT 1
C
Torino Dr.
Galaxy Dr.
1 N. Sunset Rklg
9 Dr.
2 S. Sunset Rklq
B Dr.
8 N. Sunrise
Dr,
Slone Ct.
o Aurora lV
Orion Way 4 S. Sunrise
Dr.
Venice Dr.
« Hortaon Palrn
i
Fred Waring Dr. "
Nodes
a
_...—..,..`...�
;.—..—.._
Em Id Dr.
Villfa
n.
sy
c
I t S
8I
IJ
Dr
l
�I ci .. .
\ Crimson Dr. Scarbot a'
is Palma Dr.
—
Via Sevilla i
�
Sanity Dr.
.
via Callente
W. Harland
Dr.
Irwin Mr.
Lows Dr.
Nolan
'
o
Ln. cok
�e
Scam
kmberry
a
A
CIA
I
Slr�ng
Palms !
Ic
me0
I
��
i
Durres Pl.
Sand
�y
Rawer Pl.
Palm
Garden PI.
c
j
TWT*m
I
5arxis PI.
hWW
Rams dr.
I
Ave. 47
l"�
+� vet rquessa
I'
� r
m
Vie
z
i Fireytas
U
BrWI
Kristine Kam
a
Cindy �
Ct. Ct.
Way
Westward Ho Dr.
o
Q
'
1
E
a
I
m
Vie Grazianna
i
i
-Via Zurich
PHASE t'RACT_NO_ LOTS Attachment 2
PHASE 2RACT NO. LOTS
�2 23773-2?>rRecorded
3 23773-3 7 JN 85-01-00
4 23773-4 ZO
5 23773-5 24 scu:: s -tea•
6 23773-6 20
7 23773 13 .3-31-94
101 TOTAL
(NOTE: Adjacent Phases may be combined)
I P H iA 1t t
` l SE t 1 1 — _u M N W
I (iECORbED)
P
w N • %
PIN
I
I W I CA — — $ .. I.D 1 _ p_C'LAR—'_S WAY —
CA I
tq a
o'v l
�N I c •Z7� v r I --- Ct a = I
rn
®TAURUS
in
C%
tl
AN
M 41.
® , M C -„
o �
► r- I W "%"it RrC(hN
PC
WAY 1
M cc
• �0 EnHYA S
j d I `� 1 1 t I I 11 (REC RDE
n M - %DAMS SiecEi
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773, EXTENSION #1
REQUEST: APPROVE A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TRACT PHASES
4 THROUGH 7 CONSISTING OF 77 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND
PRIVATE STREETS ON 20.95-ACRES
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/
DEVELOPER:
PROPERTY
OWNER:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
GENERAL
PLAN:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
250-FEET WEST OF ADAMS STREET AND 1 10-FEET NORTH OF
AURORA WAY
CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
STARLIGHT DUNE, LLC
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
96-327) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER
1, 1996. NO MAP CHANGES ARE BEING REQUESTED.
THEREFQRE, NO -ADDITIONAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY.
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)
RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
Starlight Dunes, a private gated development, is located on the northwest corner of
Fred Waring Drive and Adams Street. Access to the Tract occurs by using Galaxy
Drive via Fred Waring Drive or Adams Street.
Site History
In 1989, the City Council approved the subdivision of the 45.6-acre site into 154
single family residential and two common retention basin lots (Tentative Tract Map
23773) under Resolution 89-36. Phase 1 (54-lots on Aurora Way and Skyward Way)
of the Tract was recorded and developed in 1989 with 47 houses. The initial houses
STRTTr23773X - 28
built in Phase 1 range in size from 2,084 to over 3,332 square feet and have two- or
three -car garages. Tract Phases 2-7 were unrecorded when the Map expired.
In 1996, an application was submitted requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map
23773 (Phases 2-7). The original Tract number was used to preserve the Tract's
continuity and permit the existing owners to use the previously prepared improvement
plans. On October 1, 1996, the City Council approved six construction phases (101
single family lots) on 28.4-acres under Resolution 96-79. Tract Phases 2 and 3,
consisting of 24 lots, were recorded in 1997.
The second developer, Deane Homes, built 15 dwelling units ranging in size from
2,400 to 3,650 square feet (Site Development Permit 96-589) in Phases 2 and 3.
Century -Crowell Communities has received approval from the Planning Commission to
build single story houses ranging in size from 1,950 square feet to 3,150 square feet
on the remaining lots under Site Development Permit 98-632 (Resolution 98-072).
The applicant has plans to purchase the property and complete development of the
recorded and unrecorded single family lots.
Request
A one year time extension is requested to permit recordation of Tract Phases 4-7
consisting of 77 single family lots and private streets (Attachments 1 and 2). No map
changes are being requested.
Surrounding Land Uses
The properties to the north are in unincorporated County area and are vacant or
developed with single family houses and landscape nurseries fronting onto Darby Road.
To the south and west, are properties within Starlight Dunes that are developed with
single family houses. The properties to the west are in La Quinta and developed with
residential houses ('Bella Vista) and a retention basin.
Public Notice
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 26, 1998. All
property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. No negative comments have been
received. All correspondence received before the meeting will be given to the Planning
Commission.
STRTTr23773X - 28
COMPLIANCE WITH FINDINGS:
General Plan/Zoning Code Consistency
This site is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan permitting 2-4
dwellings per acre. The project density is 3.6 which is within the range allowed. The
Zoning Code designates this site as RL (Low Density Residential) with a minimum lot
size of 7,200 square feet. The single family lots are generally 9,000 square feet or
larger which is consistent with the RL provisions.
Tract Design/Improvements
The Conditions of Approval require streets and other infrastructure improvements
necessary for development pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance provisions. The
recommended Conditions guarantee that all remaining on -site work is consistent with
City and other public agency standards.
Health and Safety Concerns
The proposed Conditions of Approval require installation of on -site infrastructure
improvements for each single family lot including water, sewer, streets, and other
necessary improvements. Plans and fees shall be submitted and paid to the respective
serving agency.
Staff Comments
The Subdivision Ordinance permits a one year extension of time to be granted by the
City provided a written request and filing fee are paid prior to expiration. The property
owner has complied with the requirements of Section 13.12.1 b0 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. Minor condition changes are recommended to insure compliance with
existing Code requirements.
CONCLUSION:
Conditions are proposed that comply with the existing provisions of the General Plan,
Municipal Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance. No physical constraints prevent
the development of the site as planned. Findings for approval as noted can be made
and are included in the attached Resolution.
STRTTr23773X - 28
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_, recommending to the City Council
approval of a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map 23773 (Phases 4-7),
subject to findings and conditions as attached.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Tract Map Exhibit (Reduced)
3. Large Map Exhibit (Planning Commission Members)
r
Pr6pared by:
ssdell, Associate Planner
STRTTr23773X - 28
Submitted by:
\ v�
Christine di lorio, qlanning 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 ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773 (PHASES 4-7)
ALLOWING 77 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS
ON APPROXIMATELY 20.95-ACRES
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773, EXTENSION #1
APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 81h day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for a one
year time extension for 77 single family lots and private streets on 20.95-acres (Tract
Phases 4-7), generally located 1 10-feet north of Aurora Way and 250-feet west of
Adams Street, more particularly described as:
Portion of the S'/z SEA of Section 18, T5S, R7E, SBBM
(APN: 609-08-017)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 1 st day of October, 1996, approve a request to subdivide 28.4 acres into 101
single family lots (Tract Phases 2-7), generally on the north side of Fred Waring Drive
and east of Adams Street Lane under Resolution 96-79; and
WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified a Negative Declaration
(Environmental Assessment 96-327) for this project on October 1, 1996. No map
changes are proposed; therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted; 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 one year time extension for Tentative Tract
Map 23773 (Phases 4-7):
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and any
applicable specific plans.
The property is within a Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
District per the provisions of the General Plan. The project density is 3.6
dwellings per acre for Phases 4-7 which is under the maximum level for the LDR
District. Tentative Tract 23773 (Phases 4-7) is consistent with the goals,
policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2)
provided conditions are met.
RESOPC23773x - 28
Resolution 98-
The site is zoned RL (Low Density Residential District) which permits single
family development on lots a least 7,200 sq. ft. The proposed lots average
9,000 sq. ft. Future housing shall be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code (e.g., Chapter 9.30.030, etc.) in effect at the time building permits
are acquired.
B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans.
All streets and improvements in the project as conditioned will conform to City
standards as outlined in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. All on -
site streets will be private which is consistent with the Circulation Element
(Chapter 3.0). Access to the Tract will be from Galaxy Drive on Fred Waring
Drive and Adams Street. The density and design standards for the tract will
comply with the Land Use Element (Chapter 2.0) of the General Plan and the
Zoning Code.
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 subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division as approved
in 1989 and 1996. Mitigation fees and environmental studies (i.e.,
archaeological and noise) were completed as required prior to development of
the project in 1989. In 1996, a new Cultural Resources Report was required
for Tract Phases 2-7 because the original study was more than five years old.
The study states that no known prehistoric sites have been previously recorded
on this property, therefore, archaeological monitoring will not be required during
site development unless human remains are found during excavation work. This
project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or
wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures were completed at the
time the site was disturbed or will be mitigated based on the proposed
Conditions of Approval.
D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely 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.
RESOPC23773x - 28
Resolution 98-
The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family
lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support
necessary infrastructure improvements.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning
Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs
of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs
of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and
environmental resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of a one year time
extension for Tentative Tract Map 23773 (Phases 4-7) 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 8th day of December, 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC23773x - 28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773, EXTENSION #1
DECEMBER 8,1998
+ Recommended Condition Change
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
1. + Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of
Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they
apply (i.e., Assessor's Parcel Number 609-080-017).
2. + Tentative Tract Map 23773 (Extension #1) shall comply with the requirements and standards of
§§66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Title 13 of
the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions.
This map shall expire one year after acceptance by the City Council unless extended pursuant to the
provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 13.12.150(B)).
3. 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 County Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District
- Imperial Irrigation District
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
- Sunline Transit
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the 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 an approved Storm
Water Pollution Protection Plan.
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.
ZondTTM 23773X - 28
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. 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 filing of a certificate of compliance for waiver
of a final 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. With respect to the drainage basin located in the
existing Tract 237 73-1, the conferral shall include the granting of drainage rights for all areas located
within the original tentative map and access rights, for the purpose of construction, reconstruction
and maintenance of the basin, to the homeowners association(s) for the entire original tentative map
area.
6. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights -of -way or access easements
which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide
approved alternate rights -of -way or access easements to those properties.
7. The applicant shall dedicate three-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides
of all private streets.
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.
9. + 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 Public Works
Director. 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.
FINAL MAPS)
10. As part of the filing package for final map approval, 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 Public Works Director. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad
menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
11. 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 Public Works Director.
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,
ondTTM 23773X - 28 2
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 Public Works
Director'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 Public Works Director.
12. In lieu of submitting new plans for any element of construction, the subdivider may propose to use
existing, approved plans developed for the original tentative map provided the plans comply with
existing requirements.
13. 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.
14. + Prior to approval of the final map(s), the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the
approved map(s) on storage media acceptable to the Director of Public Works. The files shall utilize
standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If
the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad,
the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
15. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or enter into a secured
agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to
agendization 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
Title 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.
16. 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 Public Works
Director.
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 television 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.
CondTTM 23773X - 28 3
17. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the Conditions of
Approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department for review and approval by the Public Works Director.
The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the
approved phasing plan. 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 sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the Public Works Director.
18. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (site
development permits, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide
improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed
or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Director.
19. 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:
A. One half of a raised, landscaped median on Fred Waring Street from Adams Street to the west
boundary of Tract 23773-1.
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.
GRADING
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance.
23. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the
Public Works Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with
the recommendations of the soils report produced for the original tentative map 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.
CondTTM 23773X - 28 4
24. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots
within this development, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not
exceed five feet.
If the applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will
consider and may approve alternatives that preserve community acceptance and buyer satisfaction
with the proposed development.
25. 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
26. Stormwater falling on the site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained
in the retention basin located in Tract 23773-1. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the
centerline of adjacent public streets.
27. The applicant shall complete improvements to the retention basin located in Tract 23773-1.
28. Fences or walls will not be allowed around the retention basin except as approved by the Community
Development and Public Works Directors.
29. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed
through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
30. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed
underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are
exempt from this requirement.
31. 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 Public Works Director.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
32. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the Circulation
Element of the General Plan (Chapter 3.0):
5
,ondTTM 23773X - 28
PRIVATE STREETS AND CUL DE SACS
1) Residential - 36 feet wide if double loaded (buildings on both sides), 32 feet if single
loaded.
2) Cul de sac curb radius - 45'
33. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be limited to those approved for the original
tentative tract map.
34. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings, raised
medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and
location by the U.S. Post Office and the Public Works Director. Mid -block street lighting is not
required.
35. Street improvement plans 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 Public Works Director.
36. Street right-of-way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with
Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved
by the Public Works Director.
37. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed
with curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without
ponding in yard or drive areas and to facilitate street sweeping.
38. 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"
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) aggregate gradation test results which 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.
ondTTM 23773X - 28 6
39. Prior to occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant
shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along
access routes to those buildings.
LANDSCAPING
40. 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 be submitted to the Public Works Department for
review and approval by the Public Works Director. The plans are not approved for construction until
they have been approved and signed by the Public Works Director, the Coachella Valley Water
District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
41. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights -of -way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right-
of-way.
42. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the
Public Works Director. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18-
inches of curbs along public streets.
43. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, common basins and park areas shall be
designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment.
44. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual
screening of above -ground utility structures.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
45. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the
Public Works Director.
46. 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.
47. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings
of all plans which were signed by the Public Works Director. 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 AutoCad plan files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -
constructed condition.
ondTTM 23773X - 28 7
MAINTENANCE
48. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site
street improvements.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
49. 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.
50. Parkland fees shall be paid prior to final map approval as required by Chapter 13.48 of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
51. Fringe -Toed Lizard habitat mitigation fees shall be prior to site grading or issuance of a building
permit.
52. + Two checks made out to the County of Riverside in the amounts of $1,250.00 and $78.00 for
the project's environmental assessment (Negative Declaration) shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department within 24=hours after review of the map by the City
Council.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
53. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2'/z" X 2'/2") will be located at
each street intersection spaced not more than 330-feet apart in any direction with any portion of any
frontage more than 165-feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow will be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-
hour duration at 20 psi.
54. 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 and approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant
types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be
approved and 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."
55. 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.
56. 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.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
57. + If human remains or other historical artifacts are found during excavation, no further
grading or excavation shall -occur until appropriate mitigation measures are completed, as per
'ondTTM 23773X - 28 8
current State, County, and City requirements. The Community -Development Department
shall be notified if human remains are found. If buried cultural materials are discovered
during construction, work in that area shall be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can
evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
MISCELLANEOUS
58. The residence layout shall comply with all the RL Zoning Code requirements.
59. The City Attorney shall approve the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and R's) for the
tract prior to approval of the final map(s) by the City Council.
60. If connected, the proposed street name "Meridian" shall be deleted and substituted with "Skyward
Way". Pisces "Way" and Morningstar "Way" shall be deleted and replaced with "Court".
"ondTTM 23773X - 28 9
ATTACHMENTS
Darby Rd. —
ATTACHMENT 1
Torino Dr. 1 N. Sunset R Dr.
Dr' i 2 S. Sunset R Dr.
3 N. Sunrise Dr.
y Orion Way 4 S. Sunrise Dr.
Sierra Ct. don Ct. HoNzon Pa"
Dr. iPt�e
Fred Waring Dr. -'�-
Em Id Dr. � �Q. VNleta a Ile
*term__.
v
1 Dr. �" orl ci v------- —
Crimson Dr. Ct. La Palma Dr. 1om
S detVia SevillaSardta Dr.A� Cae Lane E
�'q• W. Harland Dr. cAnko Yea Calier>Qe $Cm
Irwin Or. Pr
Lowe Dr. ArbolA Cir. N r. �°
T Mils
Suntxoc Bridgetla W
Ln. unb� Wistlne
Stan CL ri
Cindy Laulk
�
Way I
WasMrard Ho Dr.
i
i sires 1
DPalms i ,
carneo
Dunes P[.
i Sant
Flower PI. E �r
Palm a -
Garden PI.
C��T � �Men Sands PI. �
Halms Dr. Ate• 47 j
/• i
Via
Ravenna Korn � a
Yw rquessa
m
a Vie Gnazianrre � 0
i
Via Zudch
Via o
Firenze A..__..- Aft
PHASE PRACT_NO_ LOTS Attachment 2
42 23773-2 7>Recorded
3 23773-3 7 JN 85-01-00
4 23773-4 20
5 23773-5 24 scu=: ,.�•
6 23773-6 20
7 23773 13 ..3-31-94
101 TOTAL
(NOTE: Adjacent Phases may be.combined)
P HIA S;E
(1 ECOcRt)ED)
y N
�a Cal I
PC7 AR:-S WAY —
1Cp
H o t+7 >
- 1 w
OT►URUS
Jr-----------1 I
in
lA
_ �
•--1
—� > ` / r r
- \ A- --t �— -
►r ►.• cn a wi►Y
M a9 ::p r a I I { 1 1 1
.�y oin
w r . r 1 1 1 1 � rA S
m txs i �� 1 ` I (REC RDEI
_------ I --_----_—_-.._
0 c r _ %DAMS STsi:. i
n a ro
ul n��
PH #F
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998
CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 98-062
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
LOCATION: CITYWIDE IN HILLSIDE CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT
REQUEST: TO AMEND CHAPTER 9.140.000 - HILLSIDE
CONSERVATION REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FENCING IF
SHOWN TO BE NECESSARY TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AS A PERMITTED
USE ON SLOPES BOTH ABOVE AND BELOW THE TOE OF
SLOPE.
ENVIRONMENTAL: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-368 WAS PREPARED
FOR THIS REQUEST. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN
PREPARED FOR ZCA 98-062 BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.
BACKGROUND:
This request originated with the recent lawsuit settlement between the Tradition Club
and the California Department of Fish and Game who challenged the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Tradition project. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
The Tradition is required to request that the City consider allowing the installation of
fencing at the edge of its project. Such fencing is not permitted within the Hillside
Conservation (HC) Overlay Zoning District. In order to allow such fencing, the HC
Zoning Code would have to be amended to include it in the list of permitted uses.
If permitted, the fencing would typically result in solid fencing constructed to prevent
Bighorn sheep, if any, from gaining access to developed areas. The California
Department of Fish and Game has requested an 8-foot high chain link fence as
mitigation for several projects in the Coachella Valley.
The rationale of the Department of Fish and Game and United States Department of
the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service for wanting the fence is described in their letters
are attached (Attachment 1).
RECOMMENDATION:
1. If the Planning Commission wishes to allow for such fencing, adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 98- , recommending to the City Council certification
of Environmental Assessment 98-368 for Zoning Code Amendment 98-062;
and,
2. If the Planning Commission wishes to allow such fencing, adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 98- , recommending to the City Council approval of
Zoning Code Amendment 98-062, subject to the Findings as attached.
3. If the Planning Commission does not want to allow fencing, adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 98- denying Zoning Code Amendment 98-062.
Attachments:
1. Agency letters
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
P:\LESLIE\perptZCA98062fence.wpd
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 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 98-368 PREPARED FOR ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT 98-062
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-368
CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 8th day of December, 1998, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 98-368, and Zoning Code Amendment 98-062; and,
WHEREAS, said Zoning Code Amendment 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 98-368);
and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
said Zoning Code Amendment could have a significant adverse effect on the
environment unless mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact could 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. If the visual impact of the proposed fencing can be feasiblely mitigated, then the
proposed 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 Zoning Code standards.
2. If the visual impact of the proposed fencing can be feasiblely mitigated, then
the proposed 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 of rare or endangered plants or
animals or eliminate 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.
11e-
n
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Environmental Assessment 98-368
December 8, 1998
3. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment does have the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals, unless mitigation is implemented. Potential significant adverse effects on
geologic and aesthetic environmental factors have been identified.
4. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment will result in impacts which are
individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, unless mitigation measures are
implemented.
5. If the visual impact of the proposed fencing can be feasiblely mitigated, then the
proposed Zoning Code Amendment will not have environmental effects that will
significantly adversely affect human health, risk potential or public services,
either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which
would affect these issues.
NOWTHEREFORE, 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 98-368 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 8th day of December 1998, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
P:\LESLIE\pc Res EA 98-368.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Environmental Assessment 98-368
December 8, 1998
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\LESLIE\pc Res EA 98-368.wpd
Appendix I - EA 98-368
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Zone Code Amendment 98-062
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner
(760) 777-7068
4. Project Location: City-wide, in 9.140.040 of the Hillside Conservation Zone
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: OS 7. Zoning HC
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.)
To add fencing shown to be necessary to mitigate potential adverse environmental
impacts to the list of permitted uses in the HC District, and uses within the HC
District on slopes both above and below the toe of slope.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
N/A
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
None identified.
P:\EAcklist98-368.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
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
Determination
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Mandatory Finds of Significance
(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 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 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.
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 a
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 analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (be) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EK including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. F�
(---"Si ature Date
Printed Name 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 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:1Ack1is08-368.wpd -3 -
ample question:
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 of zoning? (Source#(s): )
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? ( ) X
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( ) X
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
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? ( )
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
M�m
PAEAcklist98-368.wpd
C
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e) 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
I I--[ I X I
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?
( ) X
PAEAck1ist98-368.wpd
V.
M
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
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? ( )
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 any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? ( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change
in climate? ( ) I I I I X
d) Create objectionable odors? (
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) I I I I 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):
e) 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)? ( I I I I 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)? ( ) X
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.)? ( )
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 rnX-1
I I I I x __1
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? I I I I X
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?
PAEAck1ist98-368.wpd
I"
x.
OAR
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Uniess 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
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? ( I I I X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) I I I X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? I I I I X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (
]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? ( )
e) Other governmental services? ( )
M�m
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X11 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? ( I I I I X
b) Communications systems? ( I I I I X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( I I I I X
e) Storm water drainage? ( I I I I X
f) Solid waste disposal? ( I I I I X
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( I I I I X
XII]L AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( I I X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( I I X
c) Create light or glare? ( I I X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( I I 1 1 X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( I I I X
PAEAck1ist98-368.wpd
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 Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? ( I I 1 1 X
7
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities? ( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (
XVIL 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 i 1 X7
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
indirectly?
PAEAck1ist98-368.wpd
XVIL EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EM, 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.
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.
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.
PAEAck1ist98-368.wpd -1
INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-368
Zoning Code Amendment 98-062
An Amendment to
9.140.040 -Hillside Conservation Regulations
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
November 18, 1998
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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........................................................5
2.5 Discretionary Actions ................................................ 5
2.6 Related Projects ................................................... 5
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................................... 5
3.1
Land Use and Planning ..............................................
5
3.2
Population and Housing .............................................
7
3.3
Earth Resources...................................................8
3.4
Water..........................................................11
3.5
Air Quality......................................................14
3.6
Transportation/Circulation...........................................
16
3.7
Biological Resources ..............................................
18
3.8
Energy and N ineral Resources .......................................
19
3.9
Hazards........................................................20
3.10
Noise..........................................................21
3.11
Public Services ...................................................
22
3.12
Utilities........................................................24
3.13
Aesthetics......................................................26
3.14
Cultural Resources ................................................
27
3.15
Recreation......................................................28
4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................... 29
5 EARLIER ANALYSES ............................................... 29
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 2
",;-10 11 4
�
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 98-062 to Chapter 9.140.000 Hillside Conservation Regulations, for the
City of La Quinta. The proposed amendment is a request to allow fencing if shown to be necessary
mitigate environmental issues, and will affect all areas within the City of La Quinta that are within the
Hillside Conservation (HC) Overlay District. The amendment would add the following language:
Section 9.140.040 (C) (3) 0) Fencing if shown to be necessary to mitigate adverse
environmental impacts; and (4) (d) Fencing if shown to be necessary to mitigate adverse
environmental impacts. Proposed subsection 0) would add fencing for mitigation purposes to the
permitted uses within the Hillside Conservation district on alluvial fans with slopes not exceeding 20
percent. Proposed subsection (d) would also add mitigation fencing to the list of permitted uses
within the Hillside Conservation district on slopes exceeding 20 percent.
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 amendment;
To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the amendment, 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 Ell?, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those
issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed amendment;
To facilitate environmental review early in the crafting of the amendment;
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 3
To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the amendment 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 amendment.
1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Zoning Code amendment was deemed subject to the environmental review
requirements of CEQA because of the potential for impacts to geological problems, biological
resources, and aesthetic resources both below and above toe of slope within the HC Zoning District.
An Initial Study Checklist and Addendum were prepared for review by the La Quinta Planning
Commission and certification by the La Quinta City Council.
1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Initial Study indicates that there is potential for adverse environmental impacts for three issue
areas contained in the Environmental Checklist. These issue areas are geologic, biological, and
aesthetics. Mitigation measures have been recommended for the proposed amendment which, if
feasible, will reduce any identified potential impacts to less than significant levels. As a result, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for this project.
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 Amendment will apply to all areas within La Quinta designated in the
Hillside Conservation Overlay District, or are indirectly affected by these regulations.
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Zoning Code Amendment would modify a regulatory document to allow fencing for
environmental mitigation purposes as a permitted use in the HC district both above and below toe of
slope.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 4
', J '-) � 6- CJ
2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed text amendments would allow fencing for the purpose of mitigation, if shown to be
necessary, within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District, in the City of La Quinta. The amendment
would modify the Zoning Code which serves as the "local law" regarding hillside development.
2.4 OBJECTIVES
The objective of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment is to allow as a permitted use in areas above
and below toe of slope, fencing for the purpose of mitigation in the Hillside Conservation Overlay
District.
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 amendment 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 Amendment.
SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the land use compatibility
and zoning consistency considerations of the proposed text amendment. The CEQA Checklist issue
areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each 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 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 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.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 5
1lfl�i� r. gg
Local Environmental Setting
The proposed amendment will directly affect all areas of the City that are within the Hillside
Conservation Overlay District. Those areas within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District are also
designated as Open Space on the City's General Plan.
A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Zoning Code Amendment includes the proposal to add as a
permitted use fencing for mitigation purposes in those areas both above and below toe of slope in the
HC Zoning District. There is no identifiable significant adverse impact on land use anticipated from
the proposed amendment.
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 EK and the La Quinta
Master Environmental Assessment. The proposed amendment have been transmitted to various
agencies for review and comment regarding conflicts with environmental plans or policies. No
conflicts have been identified (Source: Fish & Game, Sept, 18, 1998; U.S. Fish & Wildlife service,
Sept. 17, 1998).
C. Would the project be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Less Than Significant Impact. Each request for mitigation fencing will be assessed on a project
-specific basis for potential impacts to this issue.
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 the hillsides are too steep and rocky. The proposed amendment would not affect
any agricultural land uses or policies (Source: La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, 1992).
E. Would the project disrupt. or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income minority community)?
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 6
n
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment permitting mitigation fencing could result
in the installation of chain link, or similar, fences constructed in the hillsides and alluvial fans that
would create a physical barrier between the urban and open space areas of the City.
3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Regional Environmental Setting
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
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 current population count is 20,400. The projected population
of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000 (Source: Community Development
Department).
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: 1990 Census).
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: Community Development Department).
The total housing stock as of 1998, is listed at 9,957 units. Single family units make up 68 percent
of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 9,113 detached single
family, 597 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
$110,000 which is lower than the average for Riverside County ($115,240), but less than other
Southern California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overview, 1998 Edition).
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: Census/Estimates).
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 7
Local Environmental Setting
The local hillside areas are not currently populated.
A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment does not include specific population -
generating development, but, rather, will add a permitted use to a land -use regulating document.
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)?
No Impact. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to induce substantial growth, as permitted
fencing would not require infrastructure.
C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
No Impact. The proposed amendment does not have any identifiable direct affect upon affordable
housing issues and likely would not include the displacement of existing housing units as there are
no housing units in the hillsides. Thus, there is no identifiable adverse impact to the supply of
affordable housing.
3.3 EARTH RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the hillside 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.
Local Environmental Setting
The areas where the Mllside Conservation Overlay Districts are located consist of hillside portions
of the City.
A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity:
fault rupture?
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 8
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: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; City of
La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA; UBC). The proposed amendment is not anticipated to
significantly impact fault rupture issues as development (including fences) proposed 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 (Source: Southland
Geotechnical 1996).
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: USGS; Cal Div.
of Mines and Geology).
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 Hillside Conservation Overlay District (Sources: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta General
Plan). The proposed amendment is not anticipated to have any adverse effect upon ground shaking
issues, as fencing is an accessory type of structure unlike habitable structures.
The primary seismic hazard in the City is strong ground shaking from earthquakes along the San
Andreas and San Jacinto (Source: La Quinta MEA; Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan).
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 9
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 Hillside Conservation Overlay Districts are typically not
within the liquefaction hazard zones, as these hazard zones are on the flatter desert floor areas of the
City and Hillside Conservation Overlay Districts are in the higher elevations (Source: La Quinta
MEA; Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan). The proposed amendment is not anticipated
to result in any significant adverse impact from ground failure or liquefaction events, as the fencing
would be constructed in the hillsides or alluvial fans, well above the liquefaction hazard areas.
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 Hillside Conservation Overlay District where
mitigation fencing would be typically located are at higher elevations and would not likely be
impacted by these kinds of natural events (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad
Map).
E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides
or mudflows?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The terrain of Hillside Conservation Overlay District
areas is typically rocky hillsides. There is a potential danger to structures and people from landslides
and rockfall at any slope gradient. 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. Development within the hillsides at
any slope gradient could be subject to landslides or rockfall. It is a requirement of development
applications to submit a report prepared by the Registered Geologist assessing the stability of a
project site, and the hillsides, this would include any proposed fencing (Source: La Quinta MEA; La
Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map).
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?
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 10
Less Than Significant Impact. Fencing could result in potential impacts involving erosion, and
possibly unstable soil conditions in the rocky hillsides. Site suitability studies are required to be
submitted with each development application, and should address potential problems with locating
fencing.
G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence
of the Hand?
No 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 located in areas designated with subsidence hazards, thus there is no significant
impact anticipated on fencing (Source: La Quinta MEA).
H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive
soils?
No Impact. Expansive soils are not typically found in the rocky hillsides where fencing would likely
be located.
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 (Source: MEA). There could be direct significant adverse impact on these
resources from the construction of the fencing. Each proposed hillside development application will
be reviewed for impacts to the geologic features present on specific project sites, with determinations
and recommended mitigation measures.
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).
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
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 11
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.
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 at lower elevations from flood waters.
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: Bechtel Civil, Inc. 1989:1).
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
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 12
t,rii; "iZ3
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.
A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff?
No Impact. There usually are changes in absorption rates, and sometimes drainage patterns or
surface runoff as a result of development projects. With mitigation fencing, there are no anticipated
impacts to natural drainage from the hillsides and alluvial fans as water can easily flow through chain
link.
B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards
such as flooding?
No Impact. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to the CVWD 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
project (including mitigation fencing) areas with blue -line streams, review by the Army Corps is
required. The proposed amendment is 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)?
No Impact. Storm and nuisance runoff for individual development projects is required to be retained
and disposed of on site in an approved percolation device. The proposed amendment to authorize
fencing as a permitted use is 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?
No Impact. There are vary few bodies of water in La Quinta, with no located in the hillsides. The
proposed amendment permitting fencing is not anticipated to 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 in the hillsides or on the alluvial fans that would be affected
by the proposed amendment. Future development of hillside areas at any slope gradient could affect,
P:\ea98-368metfence.wpd Page 13
to a significant degree, existing drainage corridors (Source: La Quinta MEA). 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?
No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought
in from the Colorado River. Water from the local hillside watersheds serve to recharge underground
supplies (Sources: La Quinta MEA). The proposed amendment is 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?
No Impact. It is not anticipated that there will be any significant alteration to the direction of flow
of the groundwater supply from the construction of mitigation fencing. Each project is considered
separately by the City and CVWD for water -related issues. The proposed amendment is not
anticipated to have any effect upon ground water issues.
H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to have a significant affect upon impacts to
groundwater quality in that fencing would be located at higher elevations in the hillsides.
I. Would the project result in substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
No Impact. Mitigation fencing is not anticipated to have any impact upon groundwater supplies.
3.5 AIIt QUALITY
Regional Environmental Setting
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
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 Agency (EPA) are often
exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 14
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?
No Impact. The current ownership of hillside land includes private, state and federal. With most
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 Hillside Conservation District will be reviewed and
assessed for air quality impacts during an Initial Study. The proposed amendment is not anticipated
to create any significant adverse impacts on air quality issues.
B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
No Impact. There are no anticipated impacts from the proposed amendment on sensitive receptors.
However, each development application will be assessed on an individual basis under the Conditional
Use Permit process.
C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 15
No Impact. Hillside development, including mitigation fencing, 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?
No Impact. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to result in any adverse impact from odors
on the environment, as odors are not typically associated with fencing materials or construction.
3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Regional Environmental Setting
La Quinta is a desert community of over 20,400 permanent residents, and approximately 10,679
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. 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
development 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 in the hillside areas within the City.
A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
No Impact. Vehicles trips and traffic congestion are assessed on a project by project basis to
determine impacts and mitigation. The proposed Zone Code Amendment to allow fencing as a
permitted use in the Hillside Conservation District on hillsides both above and below the toe of slope
is not anticipated to have a significant impacts on vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
P:\ea98-368metfence.wpd Page 16
r'trII,1,r)
.�
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)?
No Impact. Impacts and mitigation will be determined on a project by project basis. The proposed
amendment is not anticipated to impact circulation designs resulting in hazardous design features.
Fences would typically be located at higher elevations than roads.
C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses?
No Impact. Proposed fences would 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 amendment.
D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site?
No Impact. Parking needs and requirements are reviewed on a project by project basis in accordance
with Zoning Code Chapter 9.150 Parking. It is not anticipated that there would be significant impacts
from fencing in higher elevations.
E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists?
Less Than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that there will be hazards to bicyclists and
pedestrians alongside or within roadways as a result of the proposed amendment (Source: La Quinta
General Plan). 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)?
No 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 fencing amendment.
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. 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, is located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the City boundary, on Airport
Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map). This
issue is considered for each development application on a project by project basis. Thus, there are no
anticipated impacts upon these types of transportation from the proposed amendments.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 17
3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
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 Desert Transition ecosystem is found in alluvial fan areas and the 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: La Quinta MEA).
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)?
No Impact. If permitted at all, fencing for mitigation of adverse environmental impacts would have
to be based upon the recommendation of a project -specific biology report in cooperation with the U.
S. Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Game Commission.
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 ordinance in place with which to designate local species.
C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found in the City of La Quinta.
D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)?
No Impact. There is no natural wetland habitat in the City of La Quinta (Source: MEA).
E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
P:1ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 18
No Impact. There are no designated wildlife corridors in the City (Source: La Quinta MEA).
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 petroleum companies.
Local Environmental Setting
There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities or resources in the City. There is
no active mining in the City. Most areas within the HC Zoning District 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: La Quinta MEA). 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 amendment to the Hillside
Conservation Overlay District Regulations.
A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
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. Development in the HC District will be required to meet
Title 24 energy requirements as is all development in the City (Sources: La Quinta General Plan -
Housing Element; UBC). This issue is assessed on a project by project basis. There is no anticipated
significant impact from the proposed amendment to energy conservation issues.
B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
No 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. Landscaping
is also required to comply with the City's landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the
requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (Source: La Quinta MEA; Water Conservation
Ordinance; Coachella Valley Water District; UBC). Each development project is reviewed for impacts
on an individual basis. There are no anticipated significant impact from the proposed amendment to
permit fencing.
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?
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 19
1i14
No Impact. There are no significant mineral resources within the HC District (Source: MEA).
3.9 HAZARDS
Regional Environmental Setting
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)?
No 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 regarding this issue from the proposed amendment as fencing
typically does not involve the use of chemicals that would be of a hazardous nature, once the fence
is installed.
B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. Fencing will not be permitted to interfere with emergency responses to the site or
surrounding areas nor will it be permitted to obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. Each request
for such fencing will be reviewed individually for specific impacts to emergency response issues.
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 fencing beyond those
normally associated with a construction project, which consist primarily of accidental injuries. This
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 20
issue is reviewed for each development application. There are no impacts anticipated from the
proposed amendment.
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 permitting of
proposed amendment to the Hillside Conservation Overlay District. All development is 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 amendment.
E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
No Impact. There is sparse vegetation in the rocky hillsides or sandy alluvial fans, thus, there is a
very low fire potential from the brush, grass, or trees as. This issue is reviewed individually for each
development project submitted to the City. There are no significant impacts anticipated from the
proposed amendment to the fire hazard issue.
3.10 NOISE
Regional Environmental 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 in developed areas of the City are dominated by
vehicular noise along the highway and major arterial roadways. Undeveloped alluvial fans and
hillsides have very low noise levels.
Local Environmental Setting
The ambient noise levels at development project sites is typically dominated by vehicle traffic noise
from nearby roadways (Sources: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta General Plan). The existing noise level
in the hillsides is very low.
A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels?
No Impact. Walls typically serve as mitigation from sound affecting and originating from proposed
development project. Any hillside development will cumulatively add noise to the area, however, the
fencing is not anticipated to significantly contribute to the increase in ambient noise levels in hillsides
or on alluvial fans.
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 21
v`, ��)Ml�F�6
B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels?
No Impact. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in the City by
establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Proposed mitigation fencing in hillside and
alluvial fan areas will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During
construction, some types of machinery would 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 (Source: La Quinta General Plan).
3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
Regional Environmental Setting
Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County
Sheriffs 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:
101-301 Police Services Supporting Information).
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: La Quinta MEA). Currently, there are
two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the
paid staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department).
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
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 22
to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was under served in space but over served in
terms of volumes (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta Library star.
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 Setting
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?
No Impact. It is not anticipated that fencing will increase the need for fire protection due to the
construction of fencing. The comment letter from the Fire Department, dated September 18, 1998,
indicates no concerns for this issue.
B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered
government services in relation to police protection?
No Impact. Traffic collisions, patrol requests, and calls for service generated by development impact
the Sheriff's Department. Each project is reviewed by the Sheriff's Department with
recommendations provided on a project by project basis. The proposed zoning code amendment to
permit fencing is not anticipated to impact police protection services.
C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in relation to school services?
No Impact. 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. Mitigation
fencing would typically be a component of a proposed development project and would be reviewed
individually. There is no anticipated impact upon school services from the permitting of such fencing.
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?
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 23
No Impact. There is no identified potential for the need for government services from the fencing.
Fencing will be reviewed on a project by project basis for impacts to this issue.
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
the permitting of such fencing.
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 River. 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 currently open landfill (Edom Hill) within the Coachella Valley.
Local Environmental Setting
There are no utilities available in the hillside and alluvial fan areas where mitigation fencing would
typically be constructed.
A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power
and gas service?
No Impact. Power, water, sewer, and natural gas lines have been brought in to the urban areas of
the City. Each development project is reviewed on an individual basis.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 24
B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to
communication systems?
No Impact. Each project will be reviewed on an individual basis for potential impacts. However, the
proposed amendment is not anticipated to have any impact on communication systems as the
infrastructure for such systems is not typically located in hillside areas or alluvial fans.
C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local
or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
No Impact. It is not anticipated that the proposed amendment will result in any adverse impacts
upon the water treatment facilities of the area, as there are no such facilities in the hillsides or upper
alluvial fans areas (Source: VEA). No significant impacts are anticipated by the proposed
amendments.
D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer
services or septic tanks?
No Impact. Proposed hillside development 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 amendment is not anticipated to have any impact on sewer systems,
as fencing would typically be constructed in higher elevations.
E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm
water drainage?
No Impact. It is highly unlikely that mitigation fencing could require additions or changes to the
existing stormwater drainage system in the City. The fencing would typically be of chain link which
will allow water to flow through. However, this issue will be reviewed on a project by project basis.
F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid
waste disposal?
No Impact. All projects will cumulatively impact solid waste systems and facilities. Each project is
assessed for impacts individually. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to have a significant
effect on waste disposal, as fencing does not result in the production of waste.
G. Would the project result in a need for new local or regional water supplies?
No Impact. The fencing would not require water, therefore, there is no impact on water supplies.
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 25
I�"14�f�i�i.1
3.13 AESTHETICS
Regional Environmental Setting
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. Low
profile residential structures and commercial structures dominate the built environment in La Quinta.
Local Environmental Setting
The hillside and alluvial fan 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: La Quinta MEA).
A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. 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.
Project are reviewed for impacts to viewsheds and vistas on a individual basis. The proposed
amendment would permit fencing for mitigation purposes, where shown to be necessary. Unless fully
mitigated, fencing could be easily seen with the naked eye and result in an objectionable viewing
experience, with the fence being a man-made object interjected into a natural open space area. To
reduce the impact to a level of insignificance, the material of the fencing and its placement would have
to be such that it is not visible from beyond 200 feet off site of the project for which it is proposed
to be installed. This may not be feasible.
B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
Potentially significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed amendments would result in negative
impacts to aesthetic issues in and of themselves. The fencing will be required to comply with current
General Plan and Open Space policies and ordinances of the City regarding aesthetic issues. Negative
aesthetic effects will be assessed for each individual development application, with mitigation to be
project -specific. Mitigation must result in making the fence invisible to the naked eye at least 200 feet
off site of a development's boundaries. If this cannot be accomplished, the impacts cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance and should be considered significant.
C. Would the project create light or glare?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. The proposed amendment could result in
significant impacts to the area from glare. Chain link fencing materials could create glare when
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 26
, 1►1 °4i
sunlight reflects off of the fence. Mitigation consists of using materials or coating to prevent glare.
Each proposed fencing would be reviewed individually for impacts and appropriate mitigation
measures.
3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
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 and
alluvial fans. 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?
No Impact. It is known that marine -associated paleontological resources are found at elevations
below 42 feet above mean sea level. The hillside and alluvial fan areas are typically located at higher
elevations. However, the ancient Lake Cahuilla water mark is visible in certain areas on the hillsides,
indicating that there could be marine -associated fossils in the hillsides below the water mark.
However, there are no known paleontological resources in the local hillsides. The proposed
amendment could serve to protect paleontological resources, if they exist, in areas of higher
elevations by providing a barrier to people who would damage or illegally take fossils. Each proposed
fence would be reviewed on an individual basis.
B. Would the project affect archaeological resources?
Less Than Significant Impacts. There are several recorded archaeological sites within the local
mountains. 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 documented. 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 amendment could
serve as protective mitigation for any archaeological resources in the steeper sloped areas, with the
fence serving as a barrier preventing access to potential sites.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 27 ; 6 rj f i P p ll .�.
C. Would the project affect historical resources?
No Impacts. There were no known historic resources located in the hillsides, however, 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 impacted by mitigation fencing. Such fences 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 or alluvial fans, except the common desire to view the hills and keep them as natural
open spaces. See the discussion under Section 3.13, above.
E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
No Impact. The City is not aware of any documented current religious uses or sacred uses in the
hillsides or on alluvial fans. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to have any impacts on this
issue.
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
undesignated and designated 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?
No Impact. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to 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 is required.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 28 r,
°OI� i
b
B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to significantly affect
existing parks and recreation facilities in the hillsides, as there are very few such facilities in the
hillsides. However, fencing may impede hiking in areas than on designated trails. This issue will be
reviewed for impacts and mitigation on a project by project basis.
SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed amendment 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 proposed amendment. 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 amendment will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures.
• The proposed amendment 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 amendment will have less than significant impacts which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
probable future projects, with the implementation of mitigation measures.
• The proposed amendment 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 was the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA),
prepared in 1991, in conjunction with the 1992 General Plan Update and related EIR. Other
references include:
1. Bechtel Civil, Inc., 1989.
2. Draft SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
3. Southland Geotechnical, 1996.
4. City of La Quinta Historic Context Statement (Draft- Dec. 1996).
B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential impact/issue areas, are considered to be
adequately addressed with this environmental assessment. Certification of this EA by the
Planning Commission and the City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental
assessment.
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 29
C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are proposed with the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment. The amendment will be either approved and adopted or denied.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 30
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 9.140.
- HILLSIDE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 98-062
CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 8th day of December, 1998, held a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
a Zoning Code Amendment for Chapter 9.140.- Hillside Conservation 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 may not create
conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare if
feasible mitigated as indicated by the environmental review conducted for ZCA 97-
062;
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 97-062 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 8th day of December, 1998, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
ZCA 98-062
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PALESLIE\pc Res ZCA 97-062FENCE.wpd
t;{t�If14"41
•
0 EXHIBIT A
REQUESTED HC Hillside Conservation Zone Text to be amended
9.140.040...
C. Permitted Uses in HC District.
1. No development (except as provided under subsection C4 of this section)
shall be approved for slopes exceeding 20 percent.
2. The following are exempt from the requirements of this section: tracts and
specific plans already approved.
3. The following uses within the HC district shall be permitted on alluvial fans
with slopes not exceeding 20 percent:
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, lakes, and passive recreation facilities;
d. Water wells, pumping stations, and water tanks (if properly screened);
e. Power, telephone and cable substations and transmission lines (if properly
screened or underground);
f. TV, cable, and radio antennas;
g. Hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails;
h. Single family residential uses;
i. Accessory uses necessary to establish and maintain the permitted uses,
such as roads, gate -houses, on -side subdivision signs, parking lots,
noncommercial community association, recreation, and assembly
buildings and facilities.
j Fencing necessary to mitdgate adverse environmental impacts
4. The following uses within the HC district shall be permitted on slopes
exceeding 20 percent:
a. Hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails not permitting vehicles;
b. Access roads shall be non -visible 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.
c. Uses listed in subsection C-3, above may be permitted, provided the land
was graded or otherwise significantly disturbed prior to January 1, 1996,
and only if the scarred location is visible from more than one -quarter of a
mile away.
d Fencing necessary to mitigate adverse environmental impacts
J ., 1,- il �
0
ATTACHMENT #'
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Loker Avenue, West
Carlsbad, California 92008
Ms. Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner
City of La Quinta Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
SEP ��� ��E WE 1 f
SEP 21 lggg �I
CITY OF LAQUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Re: Zone Code Amendment 98-062 to Amend Hillside Conservation Zone Text, City of La
Quinta, County of Riverside, California.
Dear Ms. Mouriquand:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the amended language for the proposed
Zone Code Amendment (98-062) to the City of La Quinta's Hillside Conservation Zone. The
proposed amendment will allow "fencing necessary to mitigate adverse environmental impacts" to
be constructed within Hillside Conservation Zones on slopes of less than and greater than 20
percent. The amendment is proposed in response to a lawsuit settlement with the California
Department of Fish and Game regarding detrimental impacts of the Traditions development in the
Coral Reef Mountains to the federally endangered/state threatened Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis
canadensis cremnobates)(PBS).
In response to previous proposed revisions to the conditions and configuration of Tentative
Tracts (e.& TT 28470, TT 28867) within the Traditions development, we have recommended
fencing of the entire Traditions development to prevent exposure of PBS to factors that have
contributed to their decline. Such factors include exposure of PBS to vehicle strikes, man-made
structures in which PBS can become entangled, environments hospitable to PBS parasites and
disease -bearing insects that invite sheep foraging, and non-native toxic plant species. As the
proposed zone code amendment will allow for perimeter fencing to be constructed around the
Traditions development, we strongly support the proposed amendment.
With respect to the actual siting of fencing in relation to steep slope areas, we encourage project
proponents and the City to work with qualified bighorn sheep biologists to ensure that fencing is
located appropriately to act as an effective barrier to sheep movement into development areas
(i.e. to ensure that fencing is adequately set back from steep slope areas so that it is not easily
hurdled by bighorn sheep). We also would like to encourage the City to work with project
proponents and the wildlife agencies cooperatively during project planning phases to identify
appropriate measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to PBS habitat.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to the Hillside
fJtt 1 4
� � R
0
•
Ms. Leslie Mouriquand
2
Conservation Zone, and welcomes the opportunity to advise the City of La Quinta and the project
proponent on appropriate fencing designs. If you have questions regarding these comments
please contact Will Miller or Ken Corey at (760) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
he L. ett
Assistant Id Supervisor
1-6-98-TA-312
cc: Kevin Brennan, CDFG
Curt Taucher, CDFG
si�litd! ��
State of California - The Resour ency
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
http://www.dfg.ca.gov
Inland Deserts -Eastern Sierra Region
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, California 90802
(909) 659-2641
Ms. Leslie Mouriquand
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Dear Ms. Mouriquand:
_• PETE WILSON, Governor
D E(3E E
SEP 2 , 1998
CITY OF LAQUINTA
September 18, 1998 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Zone Code Amendment 98-062
The Department of Fish and Game ("Department") appreciates the opportunity to
provided comments on the proposed Code Amendments to the Hillside Conservation
Zone for the City of La Quinta. The Department's comments relate specifically to the
benefits fencing provides for peninsular bighorn sheep, a State -listed threatened
species. The Department believes that fencing is necessary to exclude bighorn sheep
from lethal threats associated with urbanization. The Department has recommended
fencing for new developments in the Santa Rosa Mountains: And fencing for the
purpose of ,protecting bighorn sheep has been incorporated into projects in the Cities of
Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City and Palm Desert.
The effects of urbanization have been shown to be the leading cause of mortality
of peninsular bighorn sheep in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains (De Forge, 1997).
Sources of mortality included poisoning from toxic plants, traffic collisions, strangulation
and parasites. Irrigated grass associated with lawns and golf courses provides a moist
environments which e^abler parasitic :�:^rrnS ,Stirnn—Ams sp.) to flourish. The greenery
in these irrigated areas attractive nuisance to attracts bighorn sheep, which can ingest
the deadly parasitic worms when feeding (Georgi, 1900).
Fencing is a reasonable and effective measure to separate free -ranging bighorn
sheep from the lethal hazards associated with urban developments. To be effective,
fences should be a minimum of eight feet in height, constructed of chain link or
functional equivalent that provides an effective barrier to bighorn sheep. Fences should
not contain gaps or openings that would allow bighorn sheep to become entangled or
trapped. A barrier fence can help avoid the adverse impacts associated with urban
developments by reducing the opportunity for free -ranging bighorn sheep to come in
contact with the developments.
WjW+ 5��CZ 1PO' ";,-I! -I � 15
•
Ms. Leslie Mouriquand
September 18, 1998
Page Two
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. If you have any
questions, please contact me at (909) 659-2641.
Sincerely,
Kevin -Barry Brennan
Associate Wildlife Biologist
Literature Cited
DeForge, J.R. and S.D. Ostermann. 1997. The effects of urbanization on desert
bighorn sheep population. In prep.
Georgi, J.R. 1969. Parasitology for Veterinarians. W.B. Suanders Company (publ.)
Philadelphia.
f» `lr_ 5 i
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998
CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 98-062
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
LOCATION: CITYWIDE IN HILLSIDE CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT
REQUEST: TO AMEND CHAPTER 9.140.000 - HILLSIDE
CONSERVATION REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FENCING IF
SHOWN TO BE NECESSARY TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AS A PERMITTED
USE ON SLOPES BOTH ABOVE AND BELOW THE TOE OF
SLOPE.
ENVIRONMENTAL: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-368 WAS PREPARED
FOR THIS REQUEST. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN
PREPARED FOR ZCA 98-062 BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.
BACKGROUND:
This request originated with the recent lawsuit settlement between the Tradition Club
and the California Department of Fish and Game who challenged the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Tradition project. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
The Tradition is required to request that the City consider allowing the installation of
fencing at the edge of its project. Such fencing is not permitted within the Hillside
Conservation (HC) Overlay Zoning District. In order to allow such fencing, the HC
Zoning Code would have to be amended to include it in the list of permitted uses.
If permitted, the fencing would typically result in solid fencing constructed to prevent
Bighorn sheep, if any, from gaining access to developed areas. The California
Department of Fish and Game has requested an 8-foot high chain link fence as
mitigation for several projects in the Coachella Valley.
The rationale of the Department of Fish and Game and United States Department of
the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service for wanting the fence is described in their letters
are attached (Attachment 1).
AMENDMENT REQUEST:
To authorize such fencing, the City would need to amend Chapter 9.140 to add the
following text to Subsection (c)(3) to permit mitigation fencing in the Hillside
Conservation District with slopes not exceeding 20 percent:
"J. Fencing necessary to mitigate adverse environmental impacts."
And to subsection (4) which would allow such fencing on slopes exceeding 20
percent:
"Fencing necessary to mitigate adverse environmental impacts."
These amendments are contained in their proper context in the Exhibit "A" to the
Zoning Code Resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
EA 98-368 was prepared to assess any potential environmental impacts of permitting
such fencing City-wide within the HC Zoning District. Potentially significant effects
were identified for Geology issues and Aesthetic issues.
Geologic issues include the common hazards from seismic events and ground shaking,
the hazards of potential landslides, and physical impact to unique geologic features.
Mitigation for geologic hazards would be addressed in the geology study assessing site
suitability and hazards required for all proposed development in the HC District.
Potential significant impacts to aesthetic issues include visual impacts to scenic vistas,
demonstrable negative aesthetic effects, and the potential for glare from sunlight
reflecting off the fencing. Mitigation for aesthetic impacts would include methods to
make the fencing invisible off -site of a project boundary. Methods could include
painting the fence, locating it in such a manner so as to hide the fence, or other.
DISCUSSION:
The Environmental Assessment has identified that fencing necessary to mitigate
environmental impacts would have potentially significant impacts on geologic issues
and aesthetic issues that would require mitigation. Such fencing would need to be
carefully placed so as not to create unstable rockfall hazards to homes and property
below. Aesthetically it is doubtful that an 8-foot high chain link fence could be
mitigated in such a way so to make it invisible off -site of a project boundary. However,
each application including such fencing would be reviewed individually for these
issues. In addition, the applicant would need to demonstrate the need for fencing. If
mitigation cannot be accomplished to a level of insignificance, then an EIR will be
required to analyze the impacts.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. If the Planning Commission wishes to allow for such fencing, adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 98- , recommending to the City Council certification
of Environmental Assessment 98-368 for Zoning Code Amendment 98-062;
and,
2. If the Planning Commission wishes to allow such fencing, adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 98- , recommending to the City Council approval of
Zoning Code Amendment 98-062, subject to the Findings as attached.
3. If the Planning Commission does not want to allow fencing, adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 98- denying Zoning Code Amendment 98-062.
Attachments:
1. Agency letters
Prepared by:
Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
P:\LESLIE\perptZCA98062fence.wpd
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 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 98-368 PREPARED FOR ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT 98-062
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-368
CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 8th day of December, 1998, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 98-368, and Zoning Code Amendment 98-062; and,
WHEREAS, said Zoning Code Amendment 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 98-368);
and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
said Zoning Code Amendment could have a significant adverse effect on the
environment unless mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact could 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. If the visual impact of the proposed fencing can be feasiblely mitigated, then the
proposed 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 Zoning Code standards.
2. If the visual impact of the proposed fencing can be feasiblely mitigated, then
the proposed 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 of rare or endangered plants or
animals or eliminate 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.
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Environmental Assessment 98-368
December 8, 1998
3. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment does have the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals, unless mitigation is implemented. Potential significant adverse effects on
geologic and aesthetic environmental factors have been identified.
4. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment will result in impacts which are
individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, unless mitigation measures are
implemented.
5. If the visual impact of the proposed fencing can be feasiblely mitigated, then the
proposed Zoning Code Amendment will not have environmental effects that will
significantly adversely affect human health, risk potential or public services,
either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which
would affect these issues.
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 98-368 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 8th day of December 1998, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
P:\I,ESLIE\pc Res F.A 98-368.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Environmental Assessment 98-368
December 8, 1998
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\LESLIE\pc Res EA 98-368.wpd
Appendix I - EA 98-368
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title: Zone Code Amendment 98-062
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner
(760) 777-7068
4. Project Location: City-wide, in 9.140.040 of the Hillside Conservation Zone
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: ®S 7. Zoning HC
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.)
To add fencing shown to be necessary to mitigate potential adverse environmental
impacts to the list of permitted uses in the HC District, and uses within the HC
District on slopes both above and below the toe of slope.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
N/A
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
None identified.
P:\FAcklist98-368.wpd
Environmental ]Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
Determination
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Mandatory Finds of Significance
(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 a
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. 11
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.
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. 11
Signature
Date
For
Printed Name
-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 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: \F.Ack1ist98-368.wpd -3 -
'ample question:
I.
I1.
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 of zoning? (Source#(s): )
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Uniess 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 X 1 :1
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( I I I I X
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
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? ( )
) I I I X 1 -1
IIL GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (
P AEAcklist98-3 68.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (
e) 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
1 -1 1 X 1 :1
I -- t I X 1 -1
I - I I I X :1
I I X I - I -- I
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?
( ) X
P:\IiAck1ist98-368.wpd
5
Im
VL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
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? ( )
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 any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? ( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change
in climate? ( I I I I X
d) Create objectionable odors'? (
TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (
b) Hazards to safety from 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'? ( )
-E
VIL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( )
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
1 -1 1 x 1 71
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( I 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)? ( ) X
b) Locally designated species (e.g.. heritage trees)? (
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (
VIII. ENERGY AND MUVERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? I I I I X
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:\EAck1ist98-368.wpd
LA'14
X.
XL
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact tititigated Impact Impact
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
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? ( I I I I X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) I I I I X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? I I I I X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? I I I I X
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (
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? ( )
e) Other governmental services? ( )
f
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
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? ( I I I I X
b) Communications systems'? ( I I I I X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) I I I X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) X
e) Storm water drainage? ( I I I I X
f) Solid waste disposal? ( I I I I X
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( I I I I X
XIIL AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( I I X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( I I X
c) Create light or glare'? ( I I X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( I I I I X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( I I I X
_c
P UiAckliA98-368.wpd
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 Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area'? ( ) X
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities? ( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (
XVL 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'?
Ir-
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
indirectly'?
P:\F,Ack1ist98-368.wpd
XVIL 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.
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.
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.
PAhAck1ist98-368.wpd
INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-368
Zoning Code Amendment 98-062
An Amendment to
9.140.040 -Hillside Conservation Regulations
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
November 18, 1998
P:\ea98-368mitfence. wpd
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I 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........................................................5
2.5 Discretionary Actions ................................................ 5
2.6 Related Projects ................................................... 5
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................................... 5
3.1
Land Use and Planning ..............................................
5
3.2
Population and Mousing .............................................
7
3.3
Earth Resources...................................................8
3.4
Water..........................................................11
3.5
Air Quality......................................................14
3.6
Transportation/Circulation..........................................
16
3.7
Biological Resources ..............................................
18
3.8
Energy and Mineral Resources .......................................
19
3.9
Hazards........................................................20
3.10
Noise..........................................................21
3.11
Public Services ...................................................
22
3.12
Utilities........................................................24
3.13
Aesthetics......................................................26
3.14
Cultural Resources ................................................
27
3.15
Recreation......................................................
28
4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................... 29
5 EARLIER ANALYSES ............................................... 29
P:1ea98-368mitferce.wpd 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 98-062 to Chapter 9.140.000 Hillside Conservation Regulations, for the
City of La Quinta. The proposed amendment is a request to allow fencing if shown to be necessary
mitigate environmental issues, and will affect all areas within the City of La Quinta that are within the
Hillside Conservation (HC) Overlay District. The amendment would add the following language:
Section 9.140.040 (C) (3) 0) Fencing if shown to be necessary to mitigate adverse
environmental iimpacts; and (4) (d) Fencing if shown to be necessary to mitigate adverse
environmental impacts. Proposed subsection 0) would add fencing for mitigation purposes to the
permitted uses within the Hillside Conservation district on alluvial fans with slopes not exceeding 20
percent. Proposed subsection (d) would also add mitigation fencing to the list of permitted uses
within the Hillside Conservation district on slopes exceeding 20 percent.
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 amendment;
To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the amendment, 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 EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those
issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed amendment;
To facilitate environmental review early in the crafting of the amendment;
PAea98-368mitferce.wpd Page 3
To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the amendment 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 amendment.
1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Zoning Code amendment was deemed subject to the environmental review
requirements of CEQA because of the potential for impacts to geological problems, biological
resources, and aesthetic resources both below and above toe of slope within the HC Zoning District.
An Initial Study Checklist and Addendum were prepared for review by the La Quinta Planning
Commission and certification by the La Quinta City Council.
1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Initial Study indicates that there is potential for adverse environmental impacts for three issue
areas contained in the Environmental Checklist. These issue areas are geologic, biological, and
aesthetics. Mitigation measures have been recommended for the proposed amendment which, if
feasible, will reduce any identified potential impacts to less than significant levels. As a result, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for this project.
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 Amendment will apply to all areas within La Quinta designated in the
Hillside Conservation Overlay District, or are indirectly affected by these regulations.
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Zoning Code Amendment would modify a regulatory document to allow fencing for
environmental mitigation purposes as a permitted use in the HC district both above and below toe of
slope.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 4
2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed text amendments would allow fencing for the purpose of mitigation, if shown to be
necessary, within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District, in the City of La Quinta. The amendment
would modify the Zoning Code which serves as the "local law" regarding hillside development.
2.4 OBJECTIVES
The objective of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment is to allow as a permitted use in areas above
and below toe of slope, fencing for the purpose of mitigation in the Hillside Conservation Overlay
District.
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 amendment 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 Amendment.
SECTION 3• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the land use compatibility
and zoning consistency considerations of the proposed text amendment. The CEQA Checklist issue
areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each 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.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 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.
P:\ea98-368mitferce.wpd Page 5
Local Environmental Setting
The proposed amendment will directly affect all areas of the City that are within the Hillside
Conservation Overlay District. Those areas within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District are also
designated as Open Space on the City's General Plan.
A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Zoning Code Amendment includes the proposal to add as a
permitted use fencing for mitigation purposes in those areas both above and below toe of slope in the
HC Zoning District. There is no identifiable significant adverse impact on land use anticipated from
the proposed amendment.
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 EIF, and the La Quinta
Master Environmental Assessment. The proposed amendment have been transmitted to various
agencies for review and comment regarding conflicts with environmental plans or policies. No
conflicts have been identified (Source: Fish & Game, Sept, 18, 1998, U.S. Fish & Wildlife service,
Sept. 17, 1998).
C. Would the project be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Less Than Significant Impact. Each request for mitigation fencing will be assessed on a project
-specific basis for potential impacts to this issue.
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 the hillsides are too steep and rocky. The proposed amendment would not affect
any agricultural land uses or policies (Source: La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, 1992).
E. Would the project disrupt. or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income minority community)?
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 6
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment permitting mitigation fencing could result
in the installation of chain link, or similar, fences constructed in the hillsides and alluvial fans that
would create a physical barrier between the urban and open space areas of the City.
3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Regional Environmental.Setting
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
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 current population count is 20,400. The projected population
of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000 (Source: Community Development
Department).
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: 1990 Census).
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: Community Development Department).
The total housing stock as of 1998, is listed at 9,957 units. Single family units make up 68 percent
of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 9,113 detached single
family, 597 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
$110,000 which is lower than the average for Riverside County ($115,240), but less than other
Southern California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overview, 1998 Edition).
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: Census/Estimates).
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 7
Local Environmental.Setting
The local hillside areas are not currently populated.
A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment does not include specific population -
generating development, but, rather, will add a permitted use to a land -use regulating document.
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)?
No Impact. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to induce substantial growth, as permitted
fencing would not require infrastructure.
C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
No Impact. The proposed amendment does not have any identifiable direct affect upon affordable
housing issues and likely would not include the displacement of existing housing units as there are
no housing units in the hillsides. Thus, there is no identifiable adverse impact to the supply of
affordable housing.
3.3 EARTH RESOURCES
Regional Environmental.Setting
The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the hillside 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.
Local Environmental.4etting
The areas where the Hillside Conservation Overlay Districts are located consist of hillside portions
of the City.
A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity:
fault rupture?
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 8
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: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; City of
La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA; UBC). The proposed amendment is not anticipated to
significantly impact fault rupture issues as development (including fences) proposed 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 (Source: Southland
Geotechnical 1996).
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: USGS, Cal Div.
of Mines and Geology).
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 Hillside Conservation Overlay District (Sources: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta General
Plan). The proposed amendment is not anticipated to have any adverse effect upon ground shaking
issues, as fencing is an accessory type of structure unlike habitable structures.
The primary seismic hazard in the City is strong ground shaking from earthquakes along the San
Andreas and San Jacinto (Source: La Quinta MEA; Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan).
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 9
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 Hillside Conservation Overlay Districts are typically not
within the liquefaction hazard zones, as these hazard zones are on the flatter desert floor areas of the
City and Hillside Conservation Overlay Districts are in the higher elevations (Source: La Quinta
MEA; Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan). The proposed amendment is not anticipated
to result in any significant adverse impact from ground failure or liquefaction events, as the fencing
would be constructed in the hillsides or alluvial fans, well above the liquefaction hazard areas.
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 Hillside Conservation Overlay District where
mitigation fencing would be typically located are at higher elevations and would not likely be
impacted by these kinds of natural events (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad
Map).
E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides
or mudflows?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The terrain of Hillside Conservation Overlay District
areas is typically rocky hillsides. There is a potential danger to structures and people from landslides
and rockfall at any slope gradient. 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. Development within the hillsides at
any slope gradient could be subject to landslides or rockfall. It is a requirement of development
applications to submit a report prepared by the Registered Geologist assessing the stability of a
project site, and the hillsides, this would include any proposed fencing (Source: La Quinta MEA; La
Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map).
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?
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 10
Less Than Significant Impact. Fencing could result in potential impacts involving erosion, and
possibly unstable soil conditions in the rocky hillsides. Site suitability studies are required to be
submitted with each development application, and should address potential problems with locating
fencing.
G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence
of the land?
No 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 located in areas designated with subsidence hazards, thus there is no significant
impact anticipated on fencing (Source: La Quinta MEA).
H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive
soils?
No Impact. Expansive soils are not typically found in the rocky hillsides where fencing would likely
be located.
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 (Source: MEA). There could be direct significant adverse impact on these
resources from the construction of the fencing. Each proposed hillside development application will
be reviewed for impacts to the geologic features present on specific project sites, with determinations
and recommended mitigation measures.
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).
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
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 11
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.
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 at lower elevations from flood waters.
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: Bechtel Civil, Inc. 1989:1).
Local Environmental &tting
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
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 12
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.
A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runotr
No Impact. There usually are changes in absorption rates, and sometimes drainage patterns or
surface runoff as a result of development projects. With mitigation fencing, there are no anticipated
impacts to natural drainage from the hillsides and alluvial fans as water can easily flow through chain
link.
B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards
such as flooding?
No Impact. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to the CVWD 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
project (including mitigation fencing) areas with blue -line streams, review by the Army Corps is
required. The proposed amendment is 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)?
No Impact. Storm and nuisance runoff for individual development projects is required to be retained
and disposed of on site in an approved percolation device. The proposed amendment to authorize
fencing as a permitted use is 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?
No Impact. There are vary few bodies of water in La Quinta, with no located in the hillsides. The
proposed amendment permitting fencing is not anticipated to 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 in the hillsides or on the alluvial fans that would be affected
by the proposed amendment. Future development of hillside areas at any slope gradient could affect,
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 13
to a significant degree, existing drainage corridors (Source: La Quinta MEA). 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?
No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought
in from the Colorado River. Water from the local hillside watersheds serve to recharge underground
supplies (Sources: La Quinta MEA). The proposed amendment is 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?
No Impact. It is not anticipated that there will be any significant alteration to the direction of flow
of the groundwater supply from the construction of mitigation fencing. Each project is considered
separately by the City and CVWD for water -related issues. The proposed amendment is not
anticipated to have any effect upon ground water issues.
H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to have a significant affect upon impacts to
groundwater quality in that fencing would be located at higher elevations in the hillsides.
I. Would the project result in substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
No Impact. Mitigation fencing is not anticipated to have any impact upon groundwater supplies.
3.5 AIR QUALITY
Regional Environmental.Setting
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
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 Agency (EPA) are often
exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 14
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?
No Impact. The current ownership of hillside land includes private, state and federal. With most
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 Hillside Conservation District will be reviewed and
assessed for air quality impacts during an Initial Study. The proposed amendment is not anticipated
to create any significant adverse impacts on air quality issues.
B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
No Impact. There are no anticipated impacts from the proposed amendment on sensitive receptors.
However, each development application will be assessed on an individual basis under the Conditional
Use Permit process.
C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
P:\ea98-368mitferce.wpd Page 15
No Impact. Hillside development, including mitigation fencing, 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?
No Impact. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to result in any adverse impact from odors
on the environment, as odors are not typically associated with fencing materials or construction.
3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Regional Environmental Setting
La Quinta is a desert community of over 20,400 permanent residents, and approximately 10,679
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. 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
development 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 in the hillside areas within the City.
A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
No Impact. Vehicles trips and traffic congestion are assessed on a project by project basis to
determine impacts and mitigation. The proposed Zone Code Amendment to allow fencing as a
permitted use in the Hillside Conservation District on hillsides both above and below the toe of slope
is not anticipated to have a significant impacts on vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 16
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)?
No Impact. Impacts and mitigation will be determined on a project by project basis. The proposed
amendment is not anticipated to impact circulation designs resulting in hazardous design features.
Fences would typically be located at higher elevations than roads.
C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses?
No Impact. Proposed fences would 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 amendment.
D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site?
No Impact. Parking needs and requirements are reviewed on a project by project basis in accordance
with Zoning Code Chapter 9.150 Parking. It is not anticipated that there would be significant impacts
from fencing in higher elevations.
E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists?
Less Than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that there will be hazards to bicyclists and
pedestrians alongside or within roadways as a result of the proposed amendment (Source: La Quinta
General Plan). 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)?
No 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 fencing amendment.
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. 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, is located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the City boundary, on Airport
Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map). This
issue is considered for each development application on a project by project basis. Thus, there are no
anticipated impacts upon these types of transportation from the proposed amendments.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 17
3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental.Setting
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 Desert Transition ecosystem is found in alluvial fan areas and the 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, hajadas, and rocky
mountain slopes (Source: La Quinta MEA).
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)?
No Impact. If permitted at all, fencing for mitigation of adverse environmental impacts would have
to be based upon the recommendation of a project -specific biology report in cooperation with the U.
S. Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Game Commission.
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 ordinance in place with which to designate local species.
C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found in the City of La Quinta.
D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)?
No Impact. There is no natural wetland habitat in the City of La Quinta (Source: MEA).
E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 18
No Impact. There are no designated wildlife corridors in the City (Source: La Quinta MEA).
3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental.4etting
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 (I113), Southern California Gas Company, and various petroleum companies.
Local Environmental.Setting
There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities or resources in the City. There is
no active mining in the City. Most areas within the HC Zoning District 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: La Quinta MEA). 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 amendment to the Hillside
Conservation Overlay District Regulations.
A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
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. Development in the HC District will be required to meet
Title 24 energy requirements as is all development in the City (Sources: La Quinta General Plan -
Housing Element; UBC). This issue is assessed on a project by project basis. There is no anticipated
significant impact from the proposed amendment to energy conservation issues.
B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
No 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. Landscaping
is also required to comply with the City's landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the
requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (Source: La Quinta MEA; Water Conservation
Ordinance, Coachella Valley Water District; UBC). Each development project is reviewed for impacts
on an individual basis. There are no anticipated significant impact from the proposed amendment to
permit fencing.
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:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 19
No Impact. There are no significant mineral resources within the HC District (Source: MEA).
3.9 HAZARDS
Regional Environmental Setting
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)?
No 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 regarding this issue from the proposed amendment as fencing
typically does not involve the use of chemicals that would be of a hazardous nature, once the fence
is installed.
B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. Fencing will not be permitted to interfere with emergency responses to the site or
surrounding areas nor will it be permitted to obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. Each request
for such fencing will be reviewed individually for specific impacts to emergency response issues.
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 fencing beyond those
normally associated with a construction project, which consist primarily of accidental injuries. This
PAea98-368mitferce.wpd Page 20
issue is reviewed for each development application. There are no impacts anticipated from the
proposed amendment
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 permitting of
proposed amendment to the Hillside Conservation Overlay District. All development is 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 amendment.
E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
No Impact. There is sparse vegetation in the rocky hillsides or sandy alluvial fans, thus, there is a
very low fire potential from the brush, grass, or trees as. This issue is reviewed individually for each
development project submitted to the City. There are no significant impacts anticipated from the
proposed amendment to the fire hazard issue.
3.10 NOISE
Regional Environmental 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 in developed areas of the City are dominated by
vehicular noise along the highway and major arterial roadways. Undeveloped alluvial fans and
hillsides have very low noise levels.
Local Environmental.Setting
The ambient noise levels at development project sites is typically dominated by vehicle traffic noise
from nearby roadways (Sources: La Quinta MEA, La Quinta General Plan). The existing noise level
in the hillsides is very low.
A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels?
No Impact. Walls typically serve as mitigation from sound affecting and originating from proposed
development project. Any hillside development will cumulatively add noise to the area, however, the
fencing is not anticipated to significantly contribute to the increase in ambient noise levels in hillsides
or on alluvial fans.
P:\ea98-368mitferce.wpd Page 21
B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels?
No Impact. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in the City by
establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Proposed mitigation fencing in hillside and
alluvial fan areas will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During
construction, some types of machinery would 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 (Source: La Quinta General Plan).
3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
Regional Environmental.4etting
Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County
Sheriff's Department The Sheriffs 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:
101-301 Police Services Supporting Information).
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 432 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: La Quinta MEA). Currently, there are
two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the
paid staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department).
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
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 22
to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was under served in space but over served in
terms of volumes (Source: La Quinta MEA, La Quinta Library staff).
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.Setting
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?
No Impact. It is not anticipated that fencing will increase the need for fire protection due to the
construction of fencing The comment letter from the Fire Department, dated September 18, 1998,
indicates no concerns for this issue.
B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered
government services in relation to police protection?
No Impact. Traffic collisions, patrol requests, and calls for service generated by development impact
the Sheriffs Department. Each project is reviewed by the Sheriffs Department with
recommendations provided on a project by project basis. The proposed zoning code amendment to
permit fencing is not anticipated to impact police protection services.
C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in relation to school services?
No Impact. 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. Mitigation
fencing would typically be a component of a proposed development project and would be reviewed
individually. There is no anticipated impact upon school services from the permitting of such fencing.
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?
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 23
No Impact. There is no identified potential for the need for government services from the fencing.
Fencing will be reviewed on a project by project basis for impacts to this issue.
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
the permitting of such fencing.
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 River. 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 currently open landfill (Edom Hill) within the Coachella Valley.
Local Environmental Setting
There are no utilities available in the hillside and alluvial fan areas where mitigation fencing would
typically be constructed.
A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power
and gas service?
No Impact. Power, water, sewer, and natural gas lines have been brought in to the urban areas of
the City. Each development project is reviewed on an individual basis.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 24
B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to
communication systems?
No Impact. Each project will be reviewed on an individual basis for potential impacts. However, the
proposed amendment is not anticipated to have any impact on communication systems as the
infrastructure for such systems is not typically located in hillside areas or alluvial fans.
C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local
or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
No Impact. It is not anticipated that the proposed amendment will result in any adverse impacts
upon the water treatment facilities of the area, as there are no such facilities in the hillsides or upper
alluvial fans areas (Source: MEA). No significant impacts are anticipated by the proposed
amendments.
D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer
services or septic tanks?
No Impact. Proposed hillside development 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 amendment is not anticipated to have any impact on sewer systems,
as fencing would typically be constructed in higher elevations.
E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm
water drainage?
No Impact. It is highly unlikely that mitigation fencing could require additions or changes to the
existing stormwater drainage system in the City. The fencing would typically be of chain link which
will allow water to flow through. However, this issue will be reviewed on a project by project basis.
F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid
waste disposal?
No Impact. All projects will cumulatively impact solid waste systems and facilities. Each project is
assessed for impacts individually. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to have a significant
effect on waste disposal, as fencing does not result in the production of waste.
G. Would the project result in a need for new local or regional water supplies?
No Impact. The fencing would not require water, therefore, there is no impact on water supplies
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 25
3.13 AESTHETICS
Regional Environmental Setting
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. Low
profile residential structures and commercial structures dominate the built environment in La Quinta.
Local Environmental Setting
The hillside and alluvial fan 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: La Quinta MEA).
A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. 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.
Project are reviewed for impacts to viewsheds and vistas on a individual basis. The proposed
amendment would permit fencing for mitigation purposes, where shown to be necessary. Unless fully
mitigated, fencing could be easily seen with the naked eye and result in an objectionable viewing
experience, with the fence being a man-made object interjected into a natural open space area. To
reduce the impact to a level of insignificance, the material of the fencing and its placement would have
to be such that it is not visible from beyond 200 feet off site of the project for which it is proposed
to be installed. This may not be feasible.
B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
Potentially significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed amendments would result in negative
impacts to aesthetic issues in and of themselves. The fencing will be required to comply with current
General Plan and Open Space policies and ordinances of the City regarding aesthetic issues. Negative
aesthetic effects will be assessed for each individual development application, with mitigation to be
project -specific. Mitigation must result in making the fence invisible to the naked eye at least 200 feet
off site of a development's boundaries. If this cannot be accomplished, the impacts cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance and should be considered significant.
C. Would the project create light or glare?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. The proposed amendment could result in
significant impacts to the area from glare. Chain link fencing materials could create glare when
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 26
sunlight reflects off of the fence. Mitigation consists of using materials or coating to prevent glare.
Each proposed fencing would be reviewed individually for impacts and appropriate mitigation
measures.
3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental.Setting
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 and
alluvial fans. 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?
No Impact. It is known that marine -associated paleontological resources are found at elevations
below 42 feet above mean sea level. The hillside and alluvial fan areas are typically located at higher
elevations. However, the ancient Lake Cahuilla water mark is visible in certain areas on the hillsides,
indicating that there could be marine -associated fossils in the hillsides below the water mark.
However, there are no known paleontological resources in the local hillsides. The proposed
amendment could serve to protect paleontological resources, if they exist, in areas of higher
elevations by providing a barrier to people who would damage or illegally take fossils. Each proposed
fence would be reviewed on an individual basis.
B. Would the project affect archaeological resources?
Less Than Significant Impacts. There are several recorded archaeological sites within the local
mountains. 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 documented. 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 amendment could
serve as protective mitigation for any archaeological resources in the steeper sloped areas, with the
fence serving as a barrier preventing access to potential sites.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 27
C. Would the project affect historical resources?
No Impacts. There were no known historic resources located in the hillsides, however, 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 impacted by mitigation fencing. Such fences 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 or alluvial fans, except the common desire to view the hills and keep them as natural
open spaces. See the discussion under Section 3.13, above.
E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
No Impact. The City is not aware of any documented current religious uses or sacred uses in the
hillsides or on alluvial fans. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to have any impacts on this
issue.
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
undesignated and designated 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?
No Impact. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to 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 is required.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 28
B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to significantly affect
existing parks and recreation facilities in the hillsides, as there are very few such facilities in the
hillsides. However, fencing may impede hiking in areas than on designated trails. This issue will be
reviewed for impacts and mitigation on a project by project basis.
SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed amendment 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 proposed amendment. 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 amendment will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures.
• The proposed amendment 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 amendment will have less than significant impacts which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
probable future projects, with the implementation of mitigation measures.
• The proposed amendment 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 was the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA),
prepared in 1991, in conjunction with the 1992 General Plan Update and related EIR. Other
references include:
1. Bechtel Civil, Inc., 1989.
2. Draft SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
3. Southland Geotechnical, 1996.
4. City of La Quinta Historic Context Statement (Draft- Dec. 1996).
B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential impact/issue areas, are considered to be
adequately addressed with this environmental assessment. Certification of this EA by the
Planning Commission and the City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental
assessment.
PAea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 29
C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are proposed with the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment. The amendment will be either approved and adopted or denied.
P:\ea98-368mitfence.wpd Page 30
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 9.140.
- HILLSIDE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 98-062
CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 8th day of December, 1998, held a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
a Zoning Code Amendment for Chapter 9.140.- Hillside Conservation 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 may not create
conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare if
feasible mitigated as indicated by the environmental review conducted for ZCA 97-
062;
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 97-062 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 8th day of December, 1998, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
F,:\LESLIE\pc Res ZCA 97-062FENCE.wpd
REQUESTED HC Hillside Conservation Zone Text to be amended
9.140.040...
C. Permitted Uses in HC District.
1. No development (except as provided under subsection C-4 of this section)
shall be approved for slopes exceeding 20 percent.
2. The following are exempt from the requirements of this section: tracts and
specific plans already approved.
3. The following uses within the HC district shall be permitted on alluvial fans
with slopes not exceeding 20 percent:
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, lakes, and passive recreation facilities;
d. Water wells, pumping stations, and water tanks (if properly screened),
e. Power, telephone and cable substations and transmission lines (if properly
screened or underground);
f TV, cable, and radio antennas;
g. Hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails;
h. Single family residential uses;
i. Accessory uses necessary to establish and maintain the permitted uses,
such as roads, gate -houses, on -side subdivision signs, parking lots,
noncommercial community association, recreation, and assembly
buildings and facilities.
,j Fencing necessary to mitdgate adverse environmental impacts
4. The following uses within the HC district shall be permitted on slopes
exceeding 20 percent:
a. Hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails not permitting vehicles;
b. Access roads shall be non -visible 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.
c. Uses listed in subsection C-3, above may be permitted, provided the land
was graded or otherwise significantly disturbed prior to January 1, 1996,
and only if the scarred location is visible from more than one -quarter of a
mile away.
d Fencing necessary to mitigate adverse environmental impacts
9
ATTACHMENT#1
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Loker Avenue, West
Carlsbad, California 92008
Ms. Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner
City of La Quinta Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
SEP 1 C E � V F�
u� SEP 21 1998
CITY OF LAQUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Re: Zone Code Amendment 98-062 to Amend Hillside Conservation Zone Text, City of La
Quinta, County of Riverside, California.
Dear Ms. Mouriquand:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the amended language for the proposed
Zone Code Amendment (98-062) to the City of La Quinta's Hillside Conservation Zone. The
proposed amendment will allow "fencing necessary to mitigate adverse environmental impacts" to
be constructed within Hillside Conservation Zones on slopes of less than and greater than 20
percent. The amendment is proposed in response to a lawsuit settlement with the California
Department of Fish and Game regarding detrimental impacts of the Traditions development in the
Coral Reef Mountains to the federally endangered/state threatened Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis
canadensis cremnobates)(PBS).
In response to previous proposed revisions to the conditions and configuration of Tentative
Tracts (e.g. TT 28470, TT 28867) within the Traditions development, we have recommended
fencing of the entire Traditions development to prevent exposure of PBS to factors that have
contributed to their decline. Such factors include exposure of PBS to vehicle strikes, man-made
structures in which PBS can become entangled, environments hospitable to PBS parasites and
disease -bearing insects that invite sheep foraging, and non-native toxic plant species. As the
proposed zone code amendment will allow for perimeter fencing to be constructed around the
Traditions development, we strongly support the proposed amendment.
With respect to the actual siting of fencing in relation to steep slope areas, we encourage project
proponents and the City to work with qualified bighorn sheep biologists to ensure that fencing is
located appropriately to act as an effective barrier to sheep movement into development areas
(i.e. to ensure that fencing is adequately set back from steep slope areas so that it is not easily
hurdled by bighorn sheep). We also would like to encourage the City to work with project
proponents and the wildlife agencies cooperatively during project planning phases to identify
appropriate measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to PBS habitat.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to the Hillside
0
•
Ms. Leslie Mouriquand
2
Conservation Zone, and welcomes the opportunity to advise the City of La Quinta and the project
proponent on appropriate fencing designs. If you have questions regarding these comments
please contact Will Miller or Ken Corey at (760) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
heryl L. ett
Assistant Id Supervisor
1-6-98-TA-312
cc: Kevin Brennan, CDFG
Curt Taucher, CDFG
State of California - The Resourlogency
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
http://www.dfg.ca.gov
Inland Deserts -Eastern Sierra Region
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, California 90802
(909) 659-2641
Ms. Leslie Mouriquand
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Dear Ms. Mouriquand:
September 18, 1998
•
PETE WILSON, Governor
D
RuMVE
D
SEP 2 11998
CITY OF IAQUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT .
Zone Code Amendment 98-062
The Department of Fish and Game ("Department") appreciates the opportunity to
provided comments on the proposed Code Amendments to the Hillside Conservation
Zone for the City of La Quinta. The Department's comments relate specifically to the
benefits fencing provides for peninsular bighorn sheep, a State -listed threatened
species. The Department believes that fencing is necessary to exclude bighorn sheep
from lethal threats associated with urbanization. The Department has recommended
fencing for new developments in the Santa Rosa Mountains. And fencing for the
purpose of protecting bighorn sheep has been incorporated into projects in the Cities of
Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City and Palm Desert.
The effects of urbanization have been shown to be the leading cause of mortality
of peninsular bighorn sheep in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains (De Forge, 1997).
Sources of mortality included poisoning from toxic plants, traffic collisions, strangulation
and parasites. Irrigated grass associated with lawns and golf courses provides a moist
environments which e^ables parasitic ;Sf1,-0^g1,1e- sp.N }3 flourish. The greenery
in these irrigated areas attractive nuisance to attracts bighorn sheep, which can ingest
the deadly parasitic worms when feeding (Georgi, 1900).
Fencing is a reasonable and effective measure to separate free -ranging bighorn
sheep from the lethal hazards associated with urban developments. To be effective,
fences should be a minimum of eight feet in height, constructed of chain link or
functional equivalent that provides an effective barrier to bighorn sheep. Fences should
not contain gaps or openings that would allow bighorn sheep to become entangled or
trapped. A barrier fence can help avoid the adverse impacts associated with urban
developments by reducing the opportunity for free -ranging bighorn sheep to come in
contact with the developments.
Ms. Leslie Mouriquand
September 18, 1998
Page Two
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. If you have any
questions, please contact me at (909) 659-2641.
Sincerely,
1 Q4t1m ,
Kevin -Barry Brennan
Associate Wildlife Biologist
U
•
Literature Cited
DeForge, J.R. and S.D. Ostermann. 1997. The effects of urbanization on desert
bighorn sheep population. In prep.
Georgi, J.R. 1969. Parasitology for Veterinarians. W.B. Suanders Company (publ.)
Philadelphia.
BI #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-638
APPLICANT: CITRUS DEVELOPMENT, LLC (PETER JACOBS)
ARCHITECT: ARTEK GROUP
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR A 4,408
SQUARE FOOT NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNIT
LOCATION: TRACT 24890 IN THE CITRUS PROJECT (ALICANTE ON
THE CITRUS)
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.
BACKGROUND:
The proposal is for approval of a new 4,408 square foot residential prototype plan for
Tract 24890 within the Citrus project, on the west side of Jefferson Street, north of
52"d Avenue.
Variations of one of the previously approved Heritage (3771 square feet) and one of
the Masters Collection (4542 square feet) prototype plans were approved for the
applicant on September 23, 1997. A 4,084 square foot unit was approved for the
applicant on May 12, 1998. Construction of these units has begun on Cetrino.
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of November 20, 1998, and
recommended approval, by adoption of Minute Motion 98-011, with the condition that
an additional facade may by reviewed and approved by Staff (Attachment 1)
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Proposed is a floor plan with 4,408 square feet. The unit has three bedrooms with an
office/library/bedroom, and 3.5 bathes. The unit is Spanish/Mediterranean in nature,
utilizing plaster walls, wood beams rafters, and clay the roofing. Colors of the plaster
C:pc rpt sdp 98-638
are white to light tan, with wood colors light tans to brown, and roof the a brown
blend to match previously approved colors. Roof height and type is varied and used
in combinations. The maximum height is 20'-6", with other lower heights due to the
roof variety. Special features include rounded plaster corners, plaster popouts around
all windows, decorative concrete columns supporting an entry trellis, decorative
wrought iron accents, and exposed wood rafter tails. The prototype proposes one
facade, with building sides and rears being the same within each plan. A second
facade may be available at the meeting for review. One space of the three car garage
will be a side entry space and sectional roll -up doors are proposed.
Typical front yard landscaping plans have not been submitted for the plan, but are
expected to be similar to those previously approved.
The applicant will construct a maximum of five of this unit type in their project.
Therefore, no public hearing is required for this request.
FINDINGS:
The Zoning Code specifies 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 wails which will match the existing walls
in the subdivision to provide compatibility.
3. The proposed residences are similar to the prototype plans approved in
September, 1997, and May, 1998, for this applicant. The unit is compatible
with those and the existing units in terms of architectural materials, style, and
colors with window and door surrounds, as recommended by Staff.
4. The recommended approval and Code requires a minimum of one 24" box size
tree in the front yard.
5. The proposed 4,408 square foot unit is between the existing and approved
residence size range of 2439 to 5000 + square feet.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The prototype unit is well designed and compatible with the applicant's previously
approved units and other units in the Citrus Course project, and complies with the
Compatibility Review requirements.
C:pc rpt sdp 98-638
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motoon 98-_, approving Site Development Permit 98-638, subject to
Findings and Conditions.
Attachment:
1. ALRC Minutes for the meeting of November 20, 1998
2. Plan exhibits
Prepared by:
STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI IORI , Planning Manager
C:pc rpt sdp 98-638
MINUTE MOTION 98- EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-638
DECEMBER 8, 1998
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. This approval is for the prototype unit containing approximately 4,408 square
feet of floor space.
2. The preliminary landscaping plans for this prototype shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of first
building permit for this unit type. The plans shall include a minimum of one 24-
inch box size tree on each lot. All box size trees shall have a minimum caliper
of 2 %z " and shall be at least 10 feet tall.
3. Lawn areas shall be either hybrid Bermuda (summer) or hybrid Bermuda/Rye
(winter) depending on the season installed. All trees shall be double staked to
prevent wind damage.
4. The perimeter walls around residences visible to the street shall match the
decorative concrete block or stucco walls used in the project. Gates shall be
constructed out of metal pickets or its equivalent.
5. Prior to issuance of first building permit for this unit type, the building plans
shall be revised to show stucco surrounds on side and rear windows and doors
where appropriate, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Department.
6. Plans for an additional facade may by submitted for approval to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Department.
pAstan\pc coa sdp 98-638
ATTACHMENT 1
Architectural & Landscaping Review Committee Minutes
November 20, 1998
foot, and he would prefer a six foot. ssociate Planner Greg Trousdell stated
it was a five feet wall proposed ove curb height. Discussion followed
regarding the pad elevations. M fLucas stated the wall could be placed on
the berm. Commissioner Cuingham stated this should be added to the
conditions.
25. There being no further disc 'sion, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Cuwnmninghm
obbitt to adopt Minute Motion 98-010
recommending approval of the architectural and landscaping plans for Site
Development Permit 9f -633 as followed:
a. Specimen tr es (24-, 36- and 48-inch boxes) shall be used for
planting purl5oses around the project perimeter and adjacent to open
parking sp ces.
b. The ove#11 height of the recreation building shall be reduced to 22
feet to c mply with Section 9.50.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. This
design/change shall be made before building permits are issued.
C. N4 to issuance of building permits, subject to the Community
Dev lopment Department approval, the building elevations shall be
mo ified as follows: 1) remove the middle gable eave-end from
gauge elevations; and 2) modify eave mounted architectural popouts
oii side building elevations of Buildings 6, 7, 9 and 10 to match other
d. Ibetached garage structures shall be architecturally compatible with
other on -site buildings including stucco walls and hip, and tile roofs.
e. Relocate and add landscaping/trees per the view analysis to best
screen the adjacent residences along Dulce Del Mar.
V Relocate the Date Palms and use a different species in the
common/pool areas.
Provide trees large enough to block the view into the single family
homes from the balconies that face to the west.
h. Provide berm and wall combination along Dulce Del Mar at six feet
fr='i'liE='Md-dZrIation of the project.
..._. G. Site Development Permit 98-638: a request of Citrus Development, LLC (Peter
Jacobs), for approval of architectural plans for a new prototype residential unit.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC11-20-98.wpd 6
Architectural & Landscaping Review Committee Minutes
November 20, 1998
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Committee Member Cunningham stated he had no concerns as it appeared to
tie in with what is existing.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he had no comments. He liked the units
and hoped the flowers will look that good when planted as they do on the
exhibit.
4. Mr. Peter Jacobs, representing the applicant, stated the minimum number of
front yard trees is four 24 inch box trees and they go up to six tree. They also
have different walkway and driveway schemes. Probably will have two
different elevations for each plan.
5. Principal Planner Stan Sawa suggested another facade be submitted for
approval by staff.
6. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 98-011
recommending approval of Site Development Permit 98-638 subject to the
following modifications to the conditions:
a. An additional facade be submitted and approved by staff.
Unanimously approved.
H. , Ijiffl Q4 , a request of David Chapman for approval of
'lding elevation modifications for a 550+ square foot expansion of an existing
bui g (formerly Sesame') for use as a restaurant
1. P cipal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
repo a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
2. Committee Nmber Cunningham stated the modifications enhance the
building and en lgsing the patios makes it more inviting.
3. Committee Member obbitt asked if the arches would remain. Staff stated
they would remain and window would be added against the inside of the
arch.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC I 1-20-98.wpd 7
PLANS FOR SDP 98-638, CITRUS DEVELOPMENT,
WILL BE DELIVERED
TO YOU ON
MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1998
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998
CASE NO.: MINOR USE PERMIT 98-104
APPLICANT: ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATED --
ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI CATHOLIC CHURCH
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A TEMPORARY TURFED PARKING LOT
WITH 219 PARKING SPACES FOR THE SAINT FRANCIS OF
ASSISI CATHOLIC CHURCH.
LOCATION: IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF 47-225 WASHINGTON STREET
(THE EXISTING CHURCH)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED PURSUANT TO THE
GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, SECTION 15304, CLASS
4A AND SECTION 15311, CLASS 11 B.
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE)
ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/
LAND USES: NORTH: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) CATHOLIC
CHURCH
SOUTH: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) VACANT
AND FUTURE HOME OF THE LA QUINTA
ARTS FOUNDATION FACILITIES
WEST: OS (OPEN SPACE) VACANT
EAST: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
P:\JERRY\perpt-mup98-104.wpd
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to Section 9.210.020 Minor Use Permits are processed administratively by
the Community Development Department. Projects may, at the discretion of the
Director be referred to the Planning Commission for their consideration. This project
has therefore, been referred to the Commission as a non-public hearing at the request
of the Community Development Director.
PROJECT PROPOSAL
The proposal is to construct a temporary parking lot on the front portion the 15 ±
acres recently acquired by the Saint Francis of Assisi Church for a future permanent
parking lot. The proposal includes; 1) a grassed parking lot; 2) a main driveway paved
with 3 inches of asphalt over native; 3) two retention areas; 4) the use of power poles
and railroad ties as parking lot bumpers and perimeter lot delineation; and 5) a graded
walkway to the existing church buildings.
Street improvements along Washington Street and or the frontage road, are not
required for this temporary use because of the uncertainty of the ultimate configuration
of the street system. The proposed temporary retention basins to be located at the
north and south ends of the site, will help eliminate the drainage problems that exist
in front of this area.
The temporary use will ultimately be replaced with permanent parking for the future
uses to be developed on the remaining property.
REQUIRED FINDINGS -
Consistency with General Plan. The temporary grass parking lot when part of,
or as an accessory use, in this case the St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church,
is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The Zoning Code permits accessory uses in
conjunction with a primary use. The church has provided the minimum parking
spaces for the use, these temporary parking space are for overflow parking
generated by special religious days.
3. Compliance with CEQA. The temporary parking lot is exempt. However, an
archaeology study has been prepared for the area to be used for temporary
parking. The church will have to comply with the recommendations of the
study as part of this development.
4. Surrounding uses. To the north of this site is the Catholic Church. To the
south is vacant land and future home of the La Quinta Arts Foundation facilities.
To the west is open space (mountains), and to the east are vacant commercial
lots. - The proposed project will not create conditions detrimental to these
properties.
P:\JERRY\perpt-mup98-104.wpd
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 98- approving Minor Use Permit 98-104 subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Minor Use Permit is valid for one year from the date of the Planning
Commission approval. A one year time extension may be approved by the
Community Development Department.
2. The applicant shall submit the archaeological report prepared for the temporary
parking lot to the City for review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The
recommendations of the report, including any modifications made by the
Historic Preservation Commission shall be implemented by the applicant
according to a schedule contained in the archaeology report allowing for
temporary capping and any necessary permanent mitigation measures.
3. No temporary signs are permitted unless separately approved by the Community
Development Department.
4. No lighting is allowed unless approved by the Community Development
Department prior to on -site installation. Should security lighting be required for
the project, all light fixtures shall be hooded to prevent light glare from being
cast onto adjacent properties or affecting the vision of passing motorists.
Tamper resistant light fixture covers are required to reduce vandalism.
5. The applicant shall apply and receive a grading permit from the Department of
Public Works.
6. Public street improvements shall be required when the permanent parking lot is
installed.
7. The City may elect to add Conditions to this application request to mitigate any
problems that arise not previously addressed herein.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Rough grading plan
PAJERRY\perpt-mup98-104.w pd
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-634
APPLICANT: RIELLY HOMES, INC.
REPRESENTATIVE: FORREST HAAG, ASLA
ARCHITECT: BASSENIAN/LAGONI ARCHITECTS
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR
SIX PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL PLANS AND MINOR
MATERIAL CHANGE
LOCATION: TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN TRACT 28838 IN SPECIFIC
PLAN 83-002 (PGA WEST) AND PART OF SPECIFIC PLAN
90-017 TO THE SOUTH
BACKGROUND:
The architectural plans for these prototype plans was originally reviewed by the ALRC
on October 20, and approved by the Planning Commission on October 27, 1998,
subject to conditions. As required, the applicant has submitted landscaping and
irrigation plans for the units.
The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee reviewed this request at its
meeting of December 3, 1998, and adopted Minute Motion 98-016, recommending
approval, subject to the conditions contained in this staff report.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant has submitted typical planting and irrigation plans for front yard
landscaping of the six prototype plans. Generally, each lot will have two 24" box size
shade trees or one 24" box size shade tree and several 10' to 14' palm trees. Five
gallon shrubs and vines and ground cover complete the front yard planting.
Plant material includes many of those Included in the Specific Plan plant pallette, as
well as others which are compatible and used in PGA West.
One unique design feature is that for Plan 1 the golf cart garage, which is separated
from the two car garage, uses lawn for an approach instead of concrete.
C:pc rpt sdp 98-634 amend
FINDING:
As required by Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Committee is required to review and comment on the following landscaping finding:
1. At least one specimen tree (min. 24-inch box size (minimum 2.5" caliper), and
minimum 10 feet tall, measured from top of box) shall be provided in the front
yard or street side yard.
Response:
The proposed landscaping plans will be required to provide a minimum of one
24" box size tree in the front yard area. All units will have at least one
additional tree and other shrubs and groundcover.
MINOR MATERIAL CHANGE:
The applicant has also requested a change in the roof material. The original approval
specified that "S" clay the would be used in either solid or blended color combinations.
In order to provide some variety in the "roofscape", they are requesting that they be
allowed to incorporate some flat concrete roof the in the same color range. Flat
concrete tile roofing is used in various housing product in PGA West. The applicants
will present samples at the meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The landscaping plans are well designed, use attractive plant material, and will be
compatible with surrounding development. Staff recommends approval provided the
samples presented are compatible with the clay tile roofing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 98- , approving the landscaping plans and minor material
change for Site Development Permit 98-634, subject to the attached conditions:
Attachment:
1. Plan exhibits (large plans for Planning Commission only)
Prepared by:
STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
i
l
CHRISTINE DI 10 10, Planning Manager
C:pc rpt sdp 98-634 amend
MINUTE MOTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-634
DECEMBER 8, 1998
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Planting shall be adjusted for sun exposure as needed when planted. Plans
and/or notes to ensure adjustments shall be added to the final plans and
approved by the Community Development Department prior to any planting
beginning.
2. All 24" box size trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5 inches.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, new roof material samples shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for approval.
c:\pc coa sdp 98-634
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee
December 3, 1998
C. Site Development Permit 98-634; a request of Rielly Homes, Inc. for approval of
preliminary landscaping plans for six prototype residential plans for the property east
of Madison Street, south of Airport Boulevard in Tract 28838 in Specific Plan 83-
002 (PGA West) and part of Specific Plan 90-017 to the south.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the plant pallet is very compatible with
the existing.
3. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing Rielly Homes, stated Mr. Rielly had asked
that he be allowed to use concrete tile as well as clay barrel tile. In his
opinion they are consistent with the existing units. Mr. Rielly was asking for
confirmation that in order to create the right effect for some of these
elevations he wanted the opportunity to use the clay and concrete tiles.
Predominately it will be clay tiles.
4. Staff asked what the colors would be. Mr. Haag stated it will be similar to
what is approved.
5. Committee Member Cunningham asked where the concrete tiles would be
used. Mr. Haag stated this tract was on the east side of Madison Street. Most
of the projects done by KSL has been predominately clay tiles. The use of
concrete tile is to create a little variety between the tracts. Mr. Rielly is
asking to have that variety.
6. Committee Member Cunningham stated that in his opinion if it did not make
a dramatic variation there is no problem. If it can be shown that the color
pallet works then he has no objection.
7. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if he was proposing
the flat tile, "S" tile, or both. Mr. Haag stated they were wanting to move
from the strict "S" style look whether concrete or clay. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated if they are "S" shaped whether
concrete or clay is all right. If they are asking for the flat tile, they will have
to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Haag stated they were not
specific on the concrete or clay. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated they
were specific in their submitted plans where each example was the "S" style.
Mr. Haag stated they were looking for the opportunity to have a variation in
the roof tile from what has been done at PGA West. The flat is compatible
and is not a high fired ceramic tile. They may be "S" shaped or flat.
Concrete flat tile is existing in PGA West and therefore, not inconsistent.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSWLRC12-3-98-a.wpd 3
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee
December 3, 1998
8. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the Committee for
their preference. Committee Member Cunningham stated recommended they
take it to the Planning Commission and he would suggest that if they want a
flat tile, they should take a demographic count of the area to support their
argument.
9. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if this Committee
was supporting the flat tile. Committee Member Cunningham stated they
cannot because they do not know the demographics on how it has been used.
10. Committee Member Bobbitt stated a mixture is already existing. There are
a number of units with flat tile roofs. There are no mudded tiles, but yes they
have the "S" and flat. He would have no objection to the applicant's request
to use concrete flat or "S" tiles.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 98-016 approving
Site Development Permit 98-634 as recommended by staff with the addition
of the use of flat or "S" concrete style tiles.
CE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
V. \COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
VI.
There being% further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members
Bobbitt/Cunning am to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping
Committee to the n t regular meeting to be held on January 6, 1999. This meeting was adjourned
at 10:53 a.m. on Dec�qnber 3, 1998.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\\ALRC12-3-98-a.wpd 4
T4hf 4 4 a"
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION \
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1998
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 26855 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVISIONS:
1. #23(A) The percentage should be 23.1%.
2. #23(B) The percentage should be 46.2%.
Land mass consists of: TT 26718 39.3 acres (53.8%)
TT 26855 33.8 acres (46.2%)
3. #81 "....tie a Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Addendum for the portion of this
tract that has not had the assessment completed...."
DELETIONS:
1. Conditions #45(B)
#45(C)
#80
ADDITIONS:
1. Common Lot "K" shall be designated as an "Undevelopable Open Space", unless it is
merged with the contiguous property lying on its east or west side. It cannot be merged
to Lot 45 of this tract.
2. Prior to final map approval, the north -south street that connects this tract with the
adjacent tract to the south shall have the same name.
3. Prior to final map approval, the entrance street from Jefferson Street shall be named
Pomello Street.
,30p R>-
8 Dec. '98
La Quinta Planning Commission
RE: Parking lot Eisenhower & 50th.
Sirs:
I think serious thought should be made, and possibly
a people's vote on this parking lot to be made on
site location of the La Quinta Country Club, The entrance
of Santa Rosa Cove, and viewing our new landscaped street
of Eisenhower.
This Parking lot could be an eyesore for the entrance of our
future City , and for those of us passing the location daily.
It could well become a graveyard of derelict cars, trucks,
and various machinery barely hidden by torn black screening
such as we view now.
In addition this lot is already a hazard for traffic with
cars and vans entering & exiting on Eisenhower.
I feel that KSL could find a less obvious place for the
above in their ample land holdings, and leave this very
prominate spot for something to enhance the village and
surrounding realestate, as well as compliment our new
landscaping to Beautify Eisenhower.
Sincerely,
Arlene Turi
DECOVE
DEC 0 81998
CITY OF LAQUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT