1999 07 27 PC5
CF�OF eN�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
July 27, 1999
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 99-056
Beginning Minute Motion 99-018
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 June 22, 1999 and July 13, 1999
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item .................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-384 ANI
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-045
Applicant.......... Nextel Communications
Location........... 47-950 Dune Palms Road.
Request............ Certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact an(
approval to install a 50-foot tall wireless radio communication;
monopole with up to 15 panel antennas designed to resemble a paln
tree, and related equipment shelter.
Action .............. Resolution 99- and Resolution 99-
B. Item .................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-385, SPECIFIC PLAID
99-037 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-654
Applicant.......... A. G. Spans Corporation
Location .......... The east side of Adams Street and north of 4e Avenue.
Request ........... Certification of an Initial Study/EIR Addendum for Environmental
Assessment 99-385 and recommendation for approval of
development standards and design guidelines for a 200 unit
apartment complex on 14.1 acres in the Regional Commercial
Zoning District, and building elevations and development plans.
Action .............. Resolution 99-_, Resolution 99-_, and Resolution 99-
C. Item .................. SPECIFIC PLAN 94-026 - FIRST TIME EXTENSION
Applicant.......... Travertine Corporation
Location .......... South side of 6Y' Avenue, north of 641h Avenue and west of
Madison Street.
Request ........... Approval of a time extension of development standards and design
guidelines for a master planned community of 2,300 dwelling units,
500 room hotel and other commercial uses oriented around two 18-
hole golf courses on 909.2 acres.
Action .............. Resolution 99-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ................ MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 99-007
Applicant......... Mr. Jack Clark, Jr.
Location.......... Throughout the Cove
Request .............. Approval of Master Design Guidelines
Action ................ Minute Motion 99-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of July 20,1999
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
July 13, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by
Chairman Tyler who lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Tyler requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels,
Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, and Chairman Robert Tyler.
Unanimously approved.
C. Election of Chair: It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to
nominate Tom Kirk. There being no further nominations, Tom Kirk was elected
Chair.
D. Election of Vice Chair. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk
to nominate Steve Robbins. There being no further nominations, Steve Robbins was
elected Vice Chair.
E. Chairman Kirk thanked Commissioner Tyler for his leadership for the last year.
E. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Planing Manager
Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Fred Baker and
Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 22, 1999.
Commissioner Abels moved to continue the Minutes to July 27, 1999, as they were
incomplete Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-13-99.wpd I
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1999
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Chairman Kirk opened the Public Hearings and asked if there was any objection to combining Public
Hearings "A" and "B" and Public Hearings "C" "D" and "E". There being no objection, he asked for
the staff report for Items "A" and "B".
A. Tentative Tract Map 29283; a request of T. D. Desert Development for a
recommendation of approval to subdivide 23 acres into 59 residential and other
common lots located at the northwest corner of 50' Avenue and Orchard Lane
(extended) within Rancho La Quinta.
B. Tentative Tract 29306; a request of T. D. Desert Development for a recommendation
of approval to subdivide 26.4 acres into 75 residential and other common lots for the
property located on the south side of 48`" Avenue and east of Dune Palms Road
within Rancho La Quinta Country Club.
1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff reports, copies of which are on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Grady Sparks stated he
was available to answer any questions.
3. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone
else would like to address the Commission on this project.
4. There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public
participation of the hearing and opened the issue for Commission discussion.
5. Commissioner Robbins asked that Condition #33 and #36 on Item B be
corrected.
6. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #8.C. on Tentative Tract 29283
concerning street widths. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified that Lot "B"
in Condition #8.C. is a single loaded street and the applicant is requesting a
33-foot wide street whereas the other street is 36-feet wide with parking on
both sides. Staff has written the condition to allow them to reduce the street
width to 29 feet if parking is eliminated.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #44 be deleted.
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC7-13-99.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1999
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
051 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map
29283 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as modified.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
052 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 29306, as modified:
a. Condition #44 deleted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report for Items "C", "D", and "E".
C. Tentative Tract 29347; a request of KSL Land Corporation for recommendation for
approval to subdivide 60+ acres into 39 single family lots, a golf course lot and
miscellaneous lots located on the west side of Monroe Street, north of Airport
Boulevard, within the Norman Golf Course at PGA West.
D. Tentative Tract 29348; a request of KSL Land Corporation for recommendation for
approval to subdivide 19.3+ acres into 58 single family lots, located on the north side
of Airport Boulevard, midway between Madison Street and Monroe Street within the
Norman Golf Course at PGA West.
E. Tentative Tract 29349; a request of KSL Land Corporation for recommendation for
approval to subdivide 32+ acres into 92 single family lots, a golf course lot and
miscellaneous lots located on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison
Street within the Norman Golf Course at PGA West.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
reports, copies of which are on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Robbins asked staff to explain a State Approved Golf Cart Plan.
Commissioner Butler asked staff to explain where the tunnel would be
constructed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that if the City wanted to
pursue golf cart lanes and crossing on City streets similar to what has been
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-13-99.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1999
done in the City of Palm Desert, the City would have to undertake
preparation of a State Approved Golf Cart Plan. There would need to be a
number of public meetings to decide what the City wants and believes is
appropriate. Following this process the plan is sent to the State for their
review and at that time the California Highway Patrol would become
involved. After it has been approved by the State, street striping can begin.
Without this type of plan, a golf cart cannot cross a street that has a speed
limit of 45 mph or greater. In regard to the location of the tunnel it could be
put across from Lot 27. The applicant has indicated the cost may be as much
as three quarters of a million dollars.
Commissioner Robbins asked how golf cart travel could be allowed on
Westward Ho at Jefferson Street. Staff stated that Jefferson Street presently
has a 35 mph speed limit. With the street widening, the City will be enacting
some plans to accommodate this access. If the speed limit is posted for more
than 45 mph they would not be able to have golf cart crossing without a State
approved plan.
4. Commissioner Abels asked when the golf cart crossing at Westward Ho and
Jefferson Street will be addressed during the Jefferson Street widening. Staff
stated it would not be considered until Phase 2 or 3.
Commissioner Robbins asked what the speed limit currently was on Madison
Street. Staff stated it was probably 50 mph or more. By the time Madison
Street is built out to its ultimate condition as an Arterial Street with a raised
median, speeds will not be under 50 mph.
6. Commissioner Butler asked that in comparing costs for both forms, the tunnel
and a State Approved Golf Cart Plan, does one balance out the other by the
time you have to acquire land and make street improvements? Staff stated
that on this street there are a couple of options. Currently, there is an
equestrian path required along the east side of Madison Street and the need
is diminishing. Therefore, this area could be used or it could be a shared
path. The street is wide enough for parking lanes and the City could stripe
a bike and golf car lane.
7. Commissioner Butler stated that at some point they will have to cross
Madison Street. Staff noted it would be a signalized intersection. KSL has
been proposing to put an access gate through the wall at Airport Boulevard
and that is where the golf carts would cross.
CAM), Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-13-99.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1999
8. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Norman Course
is not a part of PGA West. It is a separate specific plan and this condition
only applies to this development unless the applicant wishes to combine the
two specific plans. The condition is written to allow some options to KSL
regarding access between the two courses. A golf cart plan is subject to staff
review and approval. It the City Council determines not to prepare such a
plan, then the only other option to KSL is to construct a tunnel. Public safety
and not cost, is the concern of the City. If the applicant wants either option,
it is at their cost to develop it.
9. Commissioner Butler stated his concern is that they are approving a plan that
could be a safety concern. Staff stated it is a concern that has to be addressed
by the applicant if they wish to connect the two courses.
10. Chairman Kirk noted staff had stated this will not cause a serious health
concern. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that in the staff report, there is
a finding for public health which presumes compliance with State law. The
exception to meeting this finding is the Vehicle Code as there are safe ways
of doing it. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in
other words the Planning Commission cannot grant an at grade crossing to
this developer to connect the two projects. A condition can be added to allow
them flexibility to achieve this if they desire to do so.
11. Commissioner Tyler stated his concerns about the crossings and he believes
people will go back and forth between the two courses. It is up to the
Commission to recognize this and provide solutions. Condition #41 does not
give the applicant any options. He asked if a bridge was possible. It would
eliminate several of the cost factors. The applicant needs to be given
direction as to what he can do, tunnel or bridge. Staff stated the
recommended condition was worded so that if a State Approved Golf Cart
Plan is not approved, the only option to the applicant is to construct a tunnel.
12. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chevis Hosea,
representing KSL Land Corporation, stated they were planning to develop a
State Approved Golf Cart Plan as there is a need for such a plan as you
cannot now cross the street with a golf cart. They would like to have access
to this course from PGA West, but do not want to go to the cost of
constructing a bridge or tunnel. A bridge is not really an option because
more ground would be needed as well as earthquake issues and Caltrans
requirements make is cost prohibitive.
CAMy I)ocurrients\WPDOCS\PC7-13-99.wpd 5
I
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1999
13. Commissioner Tyler asked about the Caltrans requirement. Mr. Hosea stated
that by the time you ramp up to meet their height clearance the bridge would
be very long.
14. Commissioner Butler stated his concern about golf carts crossing Madison
Street. His concern is that a crossing and/or State approved plan is setting a
precedent for the development in that area. Mr. Hosea stated it would be an
unfair burden to impose a requirement on them to provide a tunnel for access.
They would agree to continue working with the City to obtain a surface
crossing.
15. Commissioner Tyler asked about the golf cart crossing on Park Avenue. Mr.
Hosea stated there have been no safety issues that he is aware of and it is
highly used. Commissioner Tyler stated the speed limit at this location is
only 30-35 mph. He asked if the applicant would agree with the condition
requiring a tunnel or State approved plan. Mr. Hosea stated he had no
objection to the State approved plan.
16. Commissioner Butler asked if he knew what the cost difference would be
between having a State approved plan which could include the taking of land
and street improvements, versus constructing a tunnel. Mr. Hosea stated the
last time they priced the cost of constructing a tunnel it was about $700,000.
Street crossing estimates were approximately $100,000.
17. Commissioner Tyler stated a State plan is not unique to the KSL area, but is
a City-wide concern. Mr. Hosea stated this is a semi -private course, so a lot
of the use will be hotel guests, etc., who would be driving to the course.
18. Commissioner Robbins asked if the homeowners of this course would be
members of PGA West. Mr. Hosea stated it is a potential, they are not
required to buy, but must own property to buy amenities.
19. Chairman Kirk asked staff if a State approved plan could be prepared for one
section of the City with a developers participation. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer stated there was no requirement to do a City-wide plan, but only if the
Council decided to do so.
20. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if
anyone else would like to speak on this issue. Mr. Dan Shepardson, 54-839
Shoal Creek, member of the PGA West Masters Association, stated he
disagreed with the applicant's cost estimates for the cost of constructing a
tunnel. They had a estimate of only $200,000. A member should not have to
get into their car or cross a busy street to play golf. The prior developer had
three tunnels built into the original plans.
CANly Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-13-99.wpd 6
Planning; Commission Minutes
July 13, 1999
21. Ms. Kelly MacGalliard, representing PGA West Residential Homeowners'
Association Res #1, stated their membership consisted of 1299 homeowners
who had all voted in favor of the tunnel as they believed it will be the safest
route for them to utilize.
22. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened it to Commission
discussion.
23. Commissioner Abels stated he was in favor of the tunnel and he believed it
should be required.
24. Commissioner Robbins stated he too agreed. A lot of golf courses can create
a lot of surface traffic and safety is the concern.
25. Commissioner Butler stated he too supports the tunnel in light of the safety
factor and number of people in that area.
26. Commissioner Tyler stated he had mixed emotions and wished the State
Approved Golf Cart Plan were in place. The alternative is to have a plan that
the developer can accomplish.
27. Chairman Kirk asked staff if they knew the cost of constructing a tunnel.
Staff stated they did not have any research available on tunnel costs. There
is however, a tunnel under construction on Miles Avenue, in the County, for
the new tennis complex and it is a sizeable undertaking and it will be
expensive. A tunnel on Madison Street would be expensive as they would
not be able to divert traffic to construct it which would make it more
expensive.
28. Commissioner Tyler suggested the following wording for Condition #41:
"The applicant shall provide a suitable tunnel under Madison Street to
accommodate golf cart transportation between Tentative Tract 29347, 29348,
and 29349, The Greg Norman Course development, and the existing PGA
West campus on the west side of Madison Street.
29. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City does not have a provision to
require a condition to cross from one tract map to another. If a tunnel is what
the Commission wants to act as the joint access from one tract to another, the
existing condition could be used with the deletion of the words: "State
Approved Golf Cart Plan."
30. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated this is a specific plan
and PGA West is its own specific plan and there is no nexus between them.
It is a private decision whether the two will have access to each other and not
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-13-99.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1999
mandatory from the City's standpoint. It then becomes an issue that if they
want to provide an access, then they must construct a tunnel. If they do not
want access, the access becomes via vehicles. It is a private decision of the
developer of the golf course.
31. Commissioner Robbins asked if using Airport Boulevard would make a
difference. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated Airport Boulevard will have
the same requirements due to the speed limit.
32. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any example for off -site improvements
which are done elsewhere. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City
does not have a development standard that requires tunnels for golf courses.
33. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
053 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 29347, as modified:
a. Condition #: 41: Add, "Under Madison Street and/or Airport
Boulevard" and delete "State Approved Golf Cart Plan."
34. Commissioner Robbins stated that if this condition is approved as written and
later a State approved plan is adopted that allows golf carts on Madison Street
or Airport Boulevard, the City would not be able to prohibit the residents
from using the golf cart path on these streets. Staff stated that was correct.
35. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the purpose of writing the condition
in this manner is to point out to the developer the options available to him.
36. Commissioner Butler stated that even with a golf cart plan, the area would
still be unsafe due to the amount of traffic in this rural area. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman suggested adding to the condition:
"West of Madison Street or south of Airport Boulevard..... Under Madison
Street or Airport Boulevard......."
37. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 99-053 recommending approval of
Tentative Tract 29347 with deletion of the word "golf' and the addition of
"Airport Boulevard" as an alternative street, and add "City directed State
Approved Golf Cart Plan."
38. Commissioner Butler stated he did not want a golf cart plan. The applicant
has mentioned he is going to use the equestrian trails for the golf cart path.
In his opinion the tunnel is still the safest.
CAMy I)ocuments\WP1)0CS\PC7-13-99.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1999
39. Commissioner Tyler stated he has been following these golf cart plans and
they have been highly successful.
40. Chairman Kirk asked legal counsel if they should vote on the second motion
first and if approved the first motion is void. He restated the condition:
a. Condition #41: "If a golf cart access is desired between the homes in
this tract and the facilities within the PGA West campus west of
Madison Street or south across Airport Boulevard, the access route
shall be either a tunnel under Madison Street or Airport Boulevard,
or a City directed State Approved Golf Cart Plan."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Tyler and Chairman Kirk. NOES:
Commissioner Butler, Robbins ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
42. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
99-054 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 29348, as modified:
a. Condition #41: "If a golf cart access is desired between the homes in
this tract and the facilities within the PGA West campus west of
Madison Street or south across Airport Boulevard, the access route
shall be either a tunnel under Madison Street or Airport Boulevard,
or a City directed State Approved Golf Cart Plan."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
43. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
99-055 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 29349, as modified:
a. Condition 441: "If a golf cart access is desired between the homes in
this tract and the facilities within the PGA West campus west of
Madison Street or south across Airport Boulevard, the access route
shall be either a tunnel under Madison Street or Airport Boulevard,
or a City directed State Approved Golf Cart Plan."
44. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant was required to build equestrian
trails as part of the tract. Staff stated they are required to build the trail.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Tyler and Chairman Kirk. NOES:
Commissioners Butler and Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
CAMy Documents\WPI)OCS\PC7-13-99.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1999
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Continued - Sign Application 99-466; a request of Airtouch Communications for
approval of a deviation to an approved sign program to permit corporate signs for a
new business located at 78-742 Highway 111 within the One Eleven La Quinta
Shopping Center.
1. Chairman Kirk 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. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant
would like to address the Commission.
3. Commissioner Abels asked why staff was recommending the letters on the
sign be so close together. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that staff
had requested the applicant supply information regarding their registered
trademark and why they were requesting the different sign. Based on that
information, staff is recommending they be required to match what they
supplied as their trademark.
4. Chairman Kirk questioned whether the material received was in fact their
corporate design. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated staff had not
researched it separate from what they submitted as their trademark.
5. Commissioner Abels stated that in their letter to the City, they state it is their
registered trademark. Chairman Kirk stated it appears to be design
guidelines.
6. Mr. Joe Richards, representing Airtouch, stated there is documentation that
the copy is their corporate guidelines and several are on file as trademarks.
They did however, agree with staff s recommendations. He went on to
explain how the design had been arrived at. He noted two inconsistencies
with staff's report: the acrylic faces are not opaque, they are illuminated and
the returns are matte black based on staff s prior recommendation.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 99-013, approving Sign
Application 99-466, as recommended. Unanimously approved.
B. Sign Application 99-468; a request of Imperial Sign Company for Dyson & Dyson
for approval of a business identification sign for the property located at 50-981
Washington Street, within the La Quinta Village Shopping Center.
CAMy Documents\WPI)OCS\PC7-13-99.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1999
1. Chairman Kirk 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. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Butler asked if the applicant could be required to paint over the word
"restaurant" from the building. Staff stated it was a part of the Conditions of
Approval.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission.
4. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if the
Commissioners had any comments.
5. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 99-014 approving Sign Application 99-
468, as amended. Unanimously approved.
a. Condition # 1: The area where the previous tenant's sign was installed
shall be painted and holes filled prior to issuance of a sign permit.
C. Site Development Permit 99-640; a request of Century -Crowell Communities for
approval of architectural plans for two new and one revised prototype residential unit
for the project located on the west side of Adams Street, north of the extension of
Westward Ho Drive within Tract 23997-7 through 10.
Commissioner Butler withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest and
withdrew from the dias.
2. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa
presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff and then asked
about the deletion of the home office from the plan. Staff stated it was to be
eliminated as its use would require a three car garage.
4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission.
5. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Tyler asked if the
Commissioners had any comments.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-13-99.wpd I I
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1999
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 99-015 approving
Site Development Permit 98-640, as recommended/amended.
7. Commissioner Tyler voiced his objection to the same flat ridge line as what
is existing there now. He asked that Century -Crowell develop some
imagination in their architecture.
8. Commissioner Robbins stated that every time a Century -Crowell home is
before the Commission, there is usually a problem with the number of
bedrooms and/or garages. Century -Crowell needs to look at the City's
ordinances and do their homework.
9. The motion was unanimously approved with Commissioner Butler being
absent.
Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission.
B. Master Design Guidelines 99-006; a request of Mumbil, Inc. for approval of Master
Design Guidelines.
1. Chairman Kirk 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 Tyler stated his objection to Plan I and asked to hear from
the developer concerning it.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else
would like to speak. Mr. Bill Howard, representing Mumbil, stated Plan 1 B
was unique. It is the same floor plan as Plan 1A, but customized. Staff stated
the one design could be deleted.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 99-016 approving
Master Design Guidelines 99-006, subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval as submitted with the deletion of Plan 1 B. Unanimously approved.
E. Street Vacation 99-038; a request of Mr. D. McHattie for determination of General
Plan consistency for portions of Avenida Alvarado at Avenida Montezuma.
Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-13-99.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13. 1999
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no
questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to speak
regarding this subject. There being none, Chairman Kirk asked for
Commission discussion.
3. Commissioner Robbins asked how close the City was to completing the street
vacations. Staff stated there were probably 20-25 still remaining. If the
homeowners are not willing to wait for the City, staff will bring them forward
individually. Commissioner Robbins asked if there was a program to move
all the street vacations forward at one time. Staff stated there was no money
in the budget to do this.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 99-017, finding that the
vacation of this portion of Avenida Alvarado right of way is consistent with
the adopted Circulation Element of the General Plan.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meetings of June 29`h and July
6, 1999.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held July 27, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was
adjourned at 8:37 P.M. on July 13, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
CAMy Documents\WPI)OCS\PC7-13-99.wpd 13
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 22, 1999
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by
Chairman Tyler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Tyler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk
Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planing Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planners Fred Baker and Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Chairman Tyler asked that Agenda Business Item C become Item B and Item B
become Item C. There being no further changes, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to confirm the Agenda as modified. Unanimously
approved.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 8, 1999.
Commissioner Abels asked that the Minutes be elaborated on regarding how staff
reaches justification for their recommendation s contained int eh staff report.
Commissioner Butler noted that he was recorded as voting on Business Item A and
he was absent. This needed to be corrected. Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 6,
Item B.1. be corrected to read, "...suggested that someone obtain an overall education
regarding this issue.", and Page 6, Item B.3., be revised. There being no further
corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Butler/Abels to approve
the Minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
CAMy I)ocuments\WPDOCS\PC6-22-99.wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1999
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Continued - Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #5; a request of Century -Crowell
Communities for approval of an amendment to increase the total unit count, revise
the boundaries to separate the Seasons from Duna La Quinta, and add a new
grading/unit type requirement necessitating retaining walls higher than four feet
along the 50 foot elevation of the channel berm.
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio informed the Commission the applicant
had not completed the plans proposed for the split-level units along the south
side of Calle Norte, within Duna La Quinta. Staff was therefore requesting
this item be tabled until such time as the applicant submitted new plans. The
item will then be readvertised for a new hearing date.
2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Kirk to table this item. Unanimously approved with Commissioner
Butler abstaining.
B. Tentative Tract 28409, Extension #l; a request of Mr. Charles B. Murphy and Mr.
Lynn R. Kunkle for a recommendation of approval for a one year time extension for
a previously approved subdivision of 9.15 acres into 19 custom single family and
other common or private street lots for the property located on the north side of
Avenida Montezuma, east of Bear Creek Channel and west of the Yucatan Peninsula
residential neighborhood.
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 how many extensions could be granted. Staff stated
three.. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Lynn Kunkle,
representing the applicant, stated they were working on the final map and had
no objection to the conditions as recommended by staff. They have
completed their grading plan and on- and off -site improvements. They are
requesting approval of their time extension.
3. There being no questions of the applicant nor any other public comment,
Chairman Tyler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and
opened the case for Commission discussion.
CAMy Docurrients\WPDOCS\PC6-22-99.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1999
4. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-049
recommending approval of a one year time extension for Tentative Tract Map
28409, Extension # 1, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman
Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
C. Site Development Permit 99-652; a request of T. D. Desert Development for
approval of design plans for a 13,400 square foot golf maintenance facility south of
48' Avenue and east of Dune Palms Road within Rancho La Quinta Country Club.
Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had submitted a line of site exhibit
for the facility. Staff explained the plans that had been submitted. Landscape
drawings were also discussed and the landscape architect was asked to
provide enough trees to block the view of the facility from the street.
3. Chairman Tyler asked how CVWD would gain access to their well site. Staff
stated the access is located on the south side and there was a possibility the
well site may be moved. Discussion followed regarding how vehicles would
enter/leave the well site.
4. Chairman Tyler asked Senior Engineer Steve Speer if the south leg of the
Dune Palms signal would be dedicated for the maintenance facility and if the
control for that signal would be cycled. Staff explained how the signal would
operate. Traffic hitting the loop will continue to trip the light up to 40
seconds.
5. Chairman Tyler asked about the chain link fencing that will be installed
across the storm channel and if it would be visible from 481 Avenue. Mr. Art
Gardner, representing the applicant, stated that when they spoke with CVWD
they were informed they would accept wrought iron in place of the chain link.
6. Commissioner Robbins stated wrought iron would be acceptable to CVWD.
Mr. Gardner stated the channel would be planted with grass and possible
palm trees. Staff recommended a condition be added requiring the wrought
iron fence and that it be subject to approval by CVWD.
CAM), I)ocurricnts\WPDOCS\PC6-22-99.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1999
7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if anyone
else would like to address the Commission. Mr. Grady Sparks, representing
T. D. Desert Development, stated they had no objections to the conditions as
recommended.
8. There being no questions of the applicant nor any other public comment,
Chairman Tyler closed the public participation of the hearing and opened the
case for Commission discussion.
9. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-050 approving Site
Development Permit 99-652, subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval as modified:
a. The chain link fencing proposed within the channel shall be replaced
with wrought iron fencing.
10. Chairman Tyler stated he had a hard time understanding why the applicant
would even propose an industrial metal building that would be visible from
the street. He suggested the applicant look at the maintenance building
constructed at the Tradition Country Club as an example. As submitted, he
could not support this metal building.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk and Robbins. NOES:
Chairman Tyler. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Continued - Sign Application 99-466; a request of Airtouch Communications for
approval of a deviation to an approved sign program to permit corporate signs for a
new business located at 78-742 Highway I I I within the One Eleven La Quinta
Shopping Center.
1. Chairman Tyler stated a request had been received from the applicant to
continue this item.
2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner
Abels/Robbins to continue Sign Application 99-466 to July 13, 1999.
Unanimously approved.
B. Master Design Guidelines; a request of Four Season Homes for approval of Master
Design Guidelines.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-22-99.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1999
Chairman Tyler asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker
presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Kirk asked if the "Gardena" plan was the only plan that would
be appropriate for a corner lot. Staff stated yes, as submitted.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if anyone
else would like to speak on this case.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 99-011 approving
Master Design Guidelines 99-005, subject to Findings and Conditions of
Approval as submitted.
5. Commissioner Robbins noted the front elevation of the "Gardena" plan was
no more than a great big garage door. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated that on a 50 foot wide lot, 20 feet of the frontage is
garage, with a 10 foot exterior sideyard and five foot interior sideyard setback
it leaves only 15 feet for front elevation.
6. Chairman Tyler stated he agreed with Commissioner Robbins, but there are
already several houses with the same problem.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to define the options within the plan.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that in the "Gardenia" plan there
are three design proposals and staff was requesting the columns on one of the
two options have a different architectural design treatment.
8. Chairman Tyler asked what roofing material was proposed for the Santa Fe
plan. Staff stated it was to be hot mopped.
9. The motion was approved with Commissioner Robbins voting no.
C. Capital Improvement Project 99-05; a request of the City for review and
recommendation to the City Council regarding a roundabout at the intersection of
Jefferson Street and Avenue 52.
Chairman Tyler asked for the staff report. Senior Engineer John Freeland
presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted changes to the
staff report and introduced Mr. Peter Doctors, consultant, who gave a history
CAM), Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-22-99.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1999
of roundabouts. He explained the three basic concepts, yielded entries,
circulation, and right of way. Second was the deflection design which would
cause all cars to slow down to less than 25 miles per hour to provide safety.
Roundabouts are twice as safe as a traffic signal with less injury and
fatalities. The third concept is the flair which consists of one or two lanes
around with a flair to three or four lanes which gives a lot of capacity. He
went on to site examples. He further stated that in a 20 year forecast, during
the peak hours, the intersection of Jefferson Street and 52"d Avenue, 3200
cars are expected. He went on to explain the plan.
2. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no
questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak
regarding this subject.
3. Commissioner Robbins stated that at buildout it would be just less than
60,000 trips per day or 2,500 per hour, and Caltrans states that roundabouts
are inappropriate for intersections in excess of 5,000 per hour. Mr. Doctors
stated Caltrans was not considering roundabouts for any locations that
exceeded 5,000 cars per hour. This is their comfort level. In reality
roundabouts can handle up to 7,200 cars per hour.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked how much more land was needed. Mr. Bob Ross
stated 1,600 square feet.
5. Commissioner Abels stated the City needs to think down the road and to the
future. He was experienced roundabouts and finds them very convenient and
this is an ideal location.
6. Commissioner Robbins asked if anyone had looked at the traffic counts
during a golf tournament and whether or not a roundabout would cause a
problem. Senior Engineer John Freeland stated staff had not looked into this,
but it should not be a problem. Commissioner Robbins stated his experience
with traffic circles had not been pleasant and he was concerned that Avenue
52 and Jefferson Street would be a major intersection in the City.
7. Public Works Director Chris Vogt stated that most special events do not take
place during the week day peak traffic. The City of Vail, Colorado has a
roundabout and on peak weekends it works well. In addition, traditionally
the golf classics do not generate that much traffic.
8. Commissioner Robbins asked what would be in the center of the roundabout.
Public Works Director Chris Vogt stated it could be a number of different
things.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-22-99.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1999
9. Commissioner Robbins stated another concern was the existing utilities to
reconfigure them would create issues. Mr. Ross stated that most of the utility
lines could be relocated and there would be more angle points.
Commissioner Robbins asked if the utility lines would be realigned or go
around the roundabout, and will it add to the cost. Also, there is a federal
easement which will add problems to the relocation issues. Mr. Ross stated
they were not proposing to relocate the federal easements, but prefer to keep
them as they are.
10. Commissioner Kirk asked about the cost difference between the standard
intersection design and a roundabout. Mr. Ross stated that a standard
intersection is approximately $150,000. A roundabout would be
approximately $10,000 less. Public Works Director Chris Vogt stated that
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) would be funding
75% of the improvements from Highway I I I to Avenue 54. There was some
question as to whether or not CVAG would support the roundabout, but both
committees would fund up to 75% of a standard intersection. However, this
does not include the right of way purchase.
11. Commissioner Kirk asked about the pedestrian access with the dedicated
right turn. Mr. Doctors stated it would not be a safety issue. The same
concerns are realized for a signalized intersection. The roundabout becomes
one single lane of traffic to cross.
12. Chairman Tyler asked about the right turn. Mr. Doctors stated it has its own
lane so it does not have to merge into the other lanes.
13. Commissioner Kirk asked if the right turn lane was a separate lane that would
later flair. Mr. Doctors stated that if a right turn was that heavy it would be
better to have a right turn bypass. The idea is to give flexibility.
14. Commissioner Robbins asked how they would work with bicycle traffic and
what about equestrian uses. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
stated that equestrian uses would go down Madison Street, not Jefferson
Street. The roundabout would have bicycle traffic on both sides of the street.
Mr. Doctors stated that bicycle lanes would lead up to the roundabout and
then, in the case of the recreational bicyclist, they would walk across the
street. In the case of the "seasoned" cyclist, they would enter the roundabout
with the vehicular traffic. Public Works Director Chris Vogt stated in a
standard crossing the bicyclist would be crossing in front of vehicles and the
chances that a driver isn't paying attention are high. With a roundabout a
driver is paying attention to the pedestrian.
CAMy.I)ocurnents\WPDOCS\PC6-22-99.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1999
15. Chairman Tyler asked why this intersection was chosen. Public Works
Director Chris Vogt stated because they are building down to Avenue 54 and
the right of way is available at this location and currently there is no
landscaping to disturb. Staff is looking at sites where roundabouts may be
suitable at the request of the city Council who is asking for alternatives to
traffic signals. Chairman Tyler stated pedestrians were not a strong element
in this case.
16. Chairman Tyler stated he was concerned that neither Caltrans nor CVAG had
traffic standards. No one knows if they work until they are built and then it
is too late. The Design Bulletin mentioned in the staff report does not
support it. He too is concerned about bicyclists. Also, there are no traffic
lane markings painted on the street. Mr. Doctors stated that if you mark the
street, people concentrate on the lanes and get trapped and can't get out.
Lack of striping works because the majority of the time people are driving at
staggered levels, or single file.
17. Commissioner Butler stated he is comfortable going forward with the
proposal as it shows the City has some foresight. It is controllable and if, or
when, the City outgrows it, it can be changed.
18. Commissioner Abels stated it was a great idea and he supported the project.
19. Commissioner Kirk stated this was a good idea and location and the City
should take a chance.
20. Mr. Doctors stated federal highways will be coming out with guidelines and
these guidelines are even more conservative than before.
21. Commissioner Robbins stated he would like to believe in them, but his
personal experience has not been with the modern roundabout. He would
rather see this experience take place in a less prominent location, such as an
intersection in the Village area. It is worth the try, but he is not sure it is the
best location.
22. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 99-012 recommending approval to the
City Council and applauding staff for looking at alternatives to address
traffic. The motion passed with Commissioners Robbins and Chairman Tyler
abstaining.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-22-99.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1999
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Chairman Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of June 15, 1999.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held July 13, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was
adjourned at 8:00 P.M. on June 22, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
CAMy I)ocuments\WPDOCS\PC6-22-99.wpd 9
DEPARTMENT REPORT:
T4ht 4 aCP Qa&ro
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 20, 1999
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE
Attached please find a copy of the Community Development Report.
These are the current cases being processed by staff.
PAMonthly Department Report wpd
Z
W
a
W
0
IL
W LU
a Z �
W
LLI
off=
W Q �
F-
D
U
Z
O_
� -
U
Q,
C
E
0
E
0
},
cc
L
Q
E
V
N
a)
O
CL c
a O
Q U
N
CL u
ai
.r
0
a
E
y O
U
w 0
m
co aL.
a) w
C a
c
m a'
w cn
a)
a)
U
U)
0
C O +=
CO � c
C
C N
+-f
N .
m O 0
v-
�• of
0
O U-
a)
O
0 CD U o
c to
vOj o
a w
O
E
0
0 0
C U
o
c c
+r -c
E U O
a co
0 oc
L co
cD" �;
c
v w vi
U v
O a co
a m
m
E o c v
O L v)
0 0
-o
ca 0
0
a 0 0
°
o r- U
a
c a)
a) a
Z
0
N> `-
o o
0 O U
.o C
o°
a
pc
.� 0
C a
O
D a c°
a>i o
O c
0
a)C
070 o
C O
C 0 .-�
>
�, a)
n
0
m °m
a c
m
E c
Vi
C
0 C
C V N vi
O a H
a
0
0
to
p0)Eom
0
►-
u00
E M
n
a
v a° a)Q
U in
m
C a)
c
in
r-
0 L ca 0
a.a
0 c E c
0 0 c6
L
co •• O
a) U
c
0 U
U)
0
°
o
n
c
a
0
a
D
D
0
a
0 0
>, c o
0-
0:
a: c
°
O .�
U
U
U
0
>
0
>
a)
>
U
E
a a�
U 0 '�
O
L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>
M 0 0
� 0
a o `
a
n`.
n
a
n
a.
°°
o Q
o m o`
a)
c U
0
c
c
c
Q
Q
Q
Q >
a°
0
a>) c
Q •O m
p o`
Q E co .. U
0 C
a. � �
a�i
r- C
L
°
0
t0
O
OD 0)
m
a)
n. CC
°
0
Q a
m
U m
U)
w
«�
^ c
f"'
a)
c
a
Q
�
r" C7
M
U
to 0
M C1
U
W
-0
p
0)
c
c0
Q
"o
c
ao a)
O
}.
w c
y
n
c
U
=
0 .�
y
G.
a)
°)
0
-0
rn
v)
y
0
0
f
It
v) Al
E
a) c
oc M
ap cr
co
a`)
<
0 0
E
O
N
co �-
m 0
O .0Go
a)
Q
0
0
rn
C
c 0
Op o
a)
0
'�
J �
U
U
c`0
a.
a
J
D
P
M 0
2 U
ti
CDhN�•--
in
U
w°
F- M
0 n to
J cn Y
N to
U O �S
004.
U
Q
°
a
a
Q
cc
U
U
° °
n, a
a s
Q Q
N r-
U U
a. U
°
a
a
Q
N N
U U
IL U
O o
a °
a
Q a
N Q
m N
U CO
U
Q a.
>
°
a
C
M
e- M
^ 00
U U
a. v
>
°
a
Q
M
M
i 00
U U
CL v
t*-
N
n
U
a.
o
L
a
Q
eM
r' M
fl%
U U
a. U
0
•-
a
Q
eM
e-
ico
U U
a. U
0
a
Q
M
00
U U
a. U
j.
V O
+�+
L
L
° y C
O C
` d
O
co
OL
C O
Vi 0
y 0
C
C
C°
C V
N
C�
C
y
O
0
CO
},
O
O
U
>
to Z
L -cn Oj
C
C
> J
y
E
G>
V C3
� 0
C
+L-+ O
4y C
O
��
�co
°+3
'�v
Ea
�yl�
>o
O�
a *'
cn
L
+a
o :�
c
'co
m °
co
�- a�
°' CO
a o
E °
c v
E v
� .
rn
c
>
°
m
O
O
0+
y C
y cm W
t0
M ,
H H
N
N
'-
n y
C
y +r
Cl)
eq Cc
CL
(„
o
C
top
O
+r
> CV) ai
cr) 0
c c
M
C V
CDO
c�a
C)
C D
O
H
C
(n
0 tC9
O
M c
E
C C
y M
a +y+
C C
O y
C y
uj
0
�O
C ^..
ny
o
m
y a�
(D>
ao
'd
c C1
to m
0
L
co o m
t0 0
E
H
c
0 Q
t00
o
a) ai
d—
°
O
U
0-
0 U
c
p
o°
m
`° "-
o
It°
o 'E o in
coo m
oi o c
m c
a O
0 0�
m C
c N
+•
CL r
(„
N d
cfl 0
w
r.
d co
�y n c�
06 O
C y
cma
N>
CD
O
CC")
N>
y O
C
-
O
►-
O.i
N
C_O D'
O
O
OZo�^
Z
V W
C C
p Q
O
+y,
X
CVO+
C
O
C
o 0
w
0 00
L'O-
O
O -C�
m0
C
C
•t
'
y
O
pj
)
O
OO
>
> ` fl
>n.
W"D
CD CO
�
�a
M E y
a a�
o
CL
+•
U
O c0 ca
(n a
v w-
V— O
C) �.
OC m
O O
(n C
O 0
cn w
� O 0
e- N U
O L
in Q ++
O O ►-
w m tc
O �-
in Q co
n
m
W
a
a
a
cliL
C0
0
L-
0
v
C
c
c
0
O
L
C
O
J
ccJ
t>o
a:
pyC
i—
Y
Y
Y
O Y
y
00
O
0
co
CD
it
to
M Y
M
0000 c
a
0)
�
It
a)
�
�
Q cp
N J
N �-
a
N
N
a)
N
N
N
rY
r�
C7cf
iinn�
003
Z
O
H
U
Q
ccoo
CLU
n0°
au
OV-
auaa
r-
(0
d
p
'C
C
M
X
0
++
O
M
C
a) '0 M
> C a)
to
cc
cn
O
N
O
CL
_O
a
s
70
O as
X
CD
U
O
r
o
¢n
�
a
E
c
y
Q
Lm
c
ca
a
c
m
o
CD
q"
+�
E
m
0
a
'c 'C
+..
00
cn
E
O
c
aci
-o
�
C C
0
s�
},
co
c
CD
E
o°
y-
_
co
0
E
a�
O
0
�.
c
CD
c_
Q
y;
t�
y
E
y
E
O
O
co
+-%
y-0
C
tq
c
C
ZO
-o
m
Q
c+1
o
a>i
'-
E
�
°'
o
c
°
0°
�
m
Q
O
O
°'
o
O
°
t°
p
a>i
,.-0
W
w-
n
o
n.NO
y
cN
E
� °o
'�!
m
U
m
a)
-0
E
•�
`°
c
0
•-
E
n
3
(n
W
U
-
O
0
U
C�
c0
C
O
+�
O
L
O
to
C
C
C
O c
cfl
fA
°
`
cr
N
U
`
O
'~
>
n
Ccn
ao
+;
O
c
Q
U
C C
O
C_
m
00
cv)C
w
n.
C
W
a-
•y
H
e-
ca
E
)
a
U°
r-
co
c
O
>, O
°
�
c
c
o
c�
4-
0
E
C
O
+�
V
O
CA
C
0
C
a)FL
d.
�O
• V
CD
E��'°'-o
C
O
+.�.
(n
C
°
cn
O
���'�
'�
t0
Ems'
O
r
=°
0
c
m
j a
E
o
f
a�
o
ora-0>
•°
>
v (n
w
E
Q-D
0
0
m
OC
m
w
m
�a°i
m m
'n
0
Q
°r
m
V-
c
rn
O
M
CD
m
N
�
Q
-j
ui
in
CD
fh
J
rn
O
m
m
x
z
i
0
0_ �
Q
O
O m
M
co 00
O
(7
p
d)
m
cr)
a)
a
CY)
O
=
a
o_
o
n.
oo
Q
7-)
(n
U
in
it
w F--
U
004
0- a
--
N
N
r-
oE
t?f
t`G
ttoo
'-
0
C�
_m
v
.=
Qf
Qf
m
OD
to
H H
}
^
M
to
t
m
r
� m
a
C C
Lo
000
Lo
cn
M
�
O
M
CU
Ile
0
d C
o
of
LO
L
�
o
N
V b
O
c
Ln
n
O
O
C r
�'�
O
O a
3
O
00
O p
p
O
CD O
O E
0e-
M
ad0
N
M o
O m
co
ri d
tl}
r
m
o
ice
CCO)
J
W
L
U
p
1
C C
U
y
m
L
7
aao d
O
H
J
r
a
J
N
Y H
V
C
O
r
my
C
�
m
�
m
o
O C.)c .�.
O
O
m
r W
J
h
0
.
m G
CL
c m
Y
s
c
r
CL
or
~-
O
•-
m
Mu
m
t a
V
v10
crn t
c
U
p
c
_U
r .Q
N� 06
a
oo
ao
o
a
o r
o
o
f
c►
0
1..
6.o,
c
m
m
m
m
°
°CL
c d
C7
Q
G 'a
a
W
W
VJ G
ca
v V
c
y
to
m a
a
r
a
OY V
t
m
J
C
0
o
b.
go
m
i
U
o► aca
Z
LLoC
V
OIL
a
'c y
.0
m o
CL
005
PH #,
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DULY 27, 1999
CASE NOS.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-384;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-045
APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
PROPERTY
OWNER: DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
LOCATION: 47-950 DUNE PALMS ROAD
REQUESTS: CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR EA 99-
384;
APPROVAL TO INSTALL A 50-FT TALL WIRELESS RADIO
COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE WITH UP TO 15 PANEL
ANTENNAS DESIGNED TO RESEMBLE A PALM TREE,
AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHELTER.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-384.
BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL
NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS
RECOMMENDED.
ZONING DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (M/RC)
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (VACANT -
APPROVED FOR LAPIS ENERGY PROJECT)
CHANNEL), LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
AND GOLF COURSE (RANCHO LA QUINTA),
48T" AVENUE ROADWAY
WEST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (VACANT)
EAST: FLOOD PLAIN (LA QUINTA EVACUATION
CHANNEL), AND REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
(MIRA FLORES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT)
BACKGROUND:
The project site consists of an administrative office and maintenance complex at 47-950
Dune Palms Road, north of 48th Avenue (Attachment 1). The existing building complex
houses the Desert Sands Unified School District Educational Services Center and
maintenance facilities. The building height adjacent to the proposed monopole is 25 feet.
Project Request
Nextel Communications has applied to the City for approval to install a wireless radio
communications monopole with up to 15 antennas on three panels to be located adjacent
to the southern end of the district's transportation maintenance building near the
evacuation channel (Attachment 2). Nextel will be leasing 810 square feet from the
property owner. Related electrical and radio equipment will be housed in the proposed
equipment shelter to be located adjacent to the monopole.
The monopole is designed to resemble a date palm tree, with antenna painted to match
artificial psalm fronds (Attachment 3). The antennas will be able to send out signals to, and
receive signals from, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radios (ESMR).
The proposed 50-foot tall monopole will be made of laminated wood (Coastal Douglas Fir)
that is pressure treated after gluing. The surface of the pole will be textured with a date
palm tree pattern. The monopole is square in shape with a diameter of 18-inches, and is
designed to withstand wind speeds up to 90 mph. The artificial palm frond cluster at the
top of the monopole will be approximately 35 square feet in area, with fronds made of a
flexible resin material. (The proposed monopole is similar to the one located near Cook
Street and Merle, in Palm Desert.)
The applicant proposes to plant two live date palm trees, 35 and 40 feet in height, so as
to create a clustered effect to help screen the antennas. Other existing landscaping will
be replaced after the installation of the monopole.
CAMydata\perptCUP99-045Ju1y15,1999.wpd
The monopole site will be accessed by an existing gated service road leading to the
maintenance building from the complex's front parking area. The facility will be unmanned
except for periodic maintenance visits.
Public Notice:
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 6, 1999, as well as mailed
to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. No public comments have been received.
Any comments received will be handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency Review:
The applicant's request was sent to responsible agencies, and any pertinent comments
received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve this request for Conditional Use Permit 99-045, as required
by Section 9.210.020(F) and 9.170.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, can be made and are
contained in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- to certify a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 99-384.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- approving Conditional Use Permit
99-045, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Monopole plan and photos
Prepared by:
Leslie Mouriquand
Associate Planner
Submitted by: r
— 5 �✓ef� �6 ��. J �..Ja... h_ fff
Christine di lorio
Planning Manager
3
C1Mydata\perptCUP99-045Ju1y15,1999.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-046 TO ALLOW A
WIRELESS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE WITH
UP TO 15 ANTENNAS ON 3 PANELS DESIGNED TO
RESEMBLE A DATE PALM TREE, AND RELATED
EQUIPMENT SHELTER TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) ZONING DISTRICT AT 47-
950 DUNE PALMS ROAD.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-384
APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 27t' day of July, 1999, hold a duty noticed Public Hearing, at the request of
Nextel Communications, to allow a wireless radio communications monopole and related
equipment shelter at 47-950 Dune Palms Road, within the Regional Commercial (RC)
Zoning District; and,
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended,
(Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community
Development Department has prepared an Initial Study, and has determined that although
there is some potential for the proposed monopole facility to have potentially significant
adverse impacts, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate
mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and are included in the
Conditions of Approval, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the
following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certifying said Environmental Assessment:
The proposed wireless radio communication monopole and related equipment
shelter will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts
have been identified by Environmental Assessment 99-384.
2. The proposed wireless radio communication monopole and related equipment
shelter do not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to result in a drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
P:\LESLIE\Pc:EARSOea99-384nEXTELcup99-045jULY16,1999 wpd
Planning commission Resolution 99-
Environmental Assessment
July 27 1999
reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory,
as these resources have already been mitigated.
3. The proposed wireless telecommunication monopole and related equipment shelter
do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects or
environmental factors have been identified by Environmental Assessment 99-384.
4. The proposed wireless telecommunication monopole and related equipment shelter
will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively significant
when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as
the project site is a fully developed administrative and maintenance facility with
infrastructure in place to support the requested monopole site, and the proposal is
considered an ancillary part of the existing use which will not effect an increase in
growth through any modification of the current conditions on the site.
5. The proposed wireless telecommunication monopole and related equipment shelter
will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population,
either directly or indirectly, as supporting documentation submitted by the applicant
indicates that electromagnetic emissions from the ESMR antennas associated with
the proposal will be substantially below nationally recognized safety thresholds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 99-384 for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist
and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27' day of July, 1999, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Environment,al Assessment 99-384
July 27, 1999
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\LESLIE\PCEARSOea99-384nEXTELcup99-045jULY16,1999.wpd
EA 99-384
Appendix G
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 99-045
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
760-777-7068
4. Project Location: Desert Sands Unified School District Administrative Center
47-950 Dune Palms Road
La Quinta, CA 92253
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Nextel Communications, Inc.
17275 Derian Ave.
Irvine, CA 92614
6. General Plan Designation: Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC)
7. Zoning Regional Commercial (CR)
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.)
Installation of a 50-ft. tall wireless radio communication monopole with up to 15 panel
antennas designed to resemble a palm tree. In addition, there will be an equipment
shelter to house radio equipment, electrical panels, and batteries. The facility will be
unmanned but will transmit continuously.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
The project site is the Desert Sands Unified School District Educational Center and
Administrative Offices. Lands to the west and north of the project site are generally
vacant regional commercial parcels. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan occurs to the
south of the project site. To the southeast is the La Quinta Evacuation Channel and the
Mira Flores Residential project.
-1-
PA T.SLIETAc ieck1ist99-384Nextc1.wpd
17
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Communication Commission
State Aeronautics Division
-2-
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Determination
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
X Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED 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. a
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant: unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing farther is required. a
406!i�Zur�
Da - /
i LI
P•\I.F,SLIF.\FAchecklist99-384NexteLwpd
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
proiiect will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening
analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -
site., cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) _-Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the
checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
S) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
P :\I,I;SI.IF.\EAchecklist99-3R4Nextel.wpd
Less than
Significant
Potentially
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (MEA 5-13)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(MEA 5-13)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings? (Application Materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application Materials)
IL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use? (MEA 5-29)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ActEl El 1-1 X
contract? (Zoning Code Sections 9.70.030 & 9.80.040)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their a El El/�jj'
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- �1
agricultural use? (MEA 5-29)
III. AIR OUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by
the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may
be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan? (RF Certification)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existingF1 El 1-1 X
or projected air quality violation? (EA 95-300; RF Certification)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Application
Materials; RF Certification)
rJ
Y:\LESLIE\hAchecklist99-384NcxtcLwpd
Less than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (RF ❑
❑
❑
X
Certification)
e) Create otjectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Application Materials; EA 96-323)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species, in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(EA 95-300)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural corranunity identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service? (EA 95-300)
❑ ❑
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, ❑ ❑
hydrological interruption, or other means? (EA 95-300)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
El
❑
❑
x
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (EA
95-300)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
❑
❑
❑
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (EA 95-300)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
❑
❑
❑
or state habitat conservation plan? (EA 95-300)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
❑
❑
❑
A
resource as defined in § 15064.5? (EA 95-300)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
❑
❑
❑
archaeologncal resource pursuant to § 15064.5? (EA 95-300)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
❑
❑
❑
unique geologic feature? (EA 95-300)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
❑
❑
❑
cemeteries" (EA 95-300)
Less than
Significant
Potentiallv with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
VI, GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer ❑ ❑ ❑ W
to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (MEA 6-7, EA
95-300)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA 6-7, EA 95-300) ( El
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (MEA 6-7, EA
95-300)
iv) Landslides? (USGS Topo Quad Map - La Quinta 7.5% EA 95-300)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil'? (Application
Materials, EA 95-300)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would _
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off El ION
-
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (EA
95-300)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UniformEl ❑ X
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (MEA
5-29, UBG-Table 18-I-B; EA 95-300)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available forEl El F X
the disposal of waste water? (Application Materials, MEA 5-29; EA 95-300)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: -
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use. or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application
Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment? (RF Certification) LON
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (RF Certification, USGS Topo Quad Map -La Quinta 7.51)
P:\I,F,SI,IF.\F.Achecklist99-3 R4Nextel.wpd
;�
VIIL
Less than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
(EA 95-300)
e) For a proiect located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
❑
El
El
working m the project area? (USGS Topo Quad Map -La Quinta 7.5')
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
❑
D A
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area'?
(USGS Topo Quad Map -La Quinta 7.5')
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
El
El
F
emergency ;response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Application
Materials; EA 95-300)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving ❑ El ❑
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where resid-nces are intermixed with wildlands? (MEA 5-5, 5-27, USGS
Topo Quad Map -La Quinta 7.5')
HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
(Application Materials)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted? (Application Materials)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
(EA 95-300)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (MEA 6-13)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial El ILIXII
additional sources of polluted runoff? (Application Materials)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Application Materials) El ❑ X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map`? (MEA 6-13)
Less than
Significant
Potentially
with
I ess than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede ❑
❑
❑
or redirect flood flows? (Application Materials, MEA 6-13)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death El ❑ ❑ 1NZ
Z
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam? (MEA. 6-13)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (MEA 6-13) ❑ ❑ El L>KJ
DL LAND USE; AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Application Materials, EA ❑ ❑ ❑ LON
95-300)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance) ❑ ® ❑ ❑
adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(Zoning Code Section 9.70.030)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑
community conservation plan'? (MEA 5-5; EA 95-300)
X. MINERAL, RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would ❑ ❑ ❑
be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (EA 95-300, MEA 5-
29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land ❑ ❑ ❑
use plan? (EA 95-300; MEA 5-29)
XL NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable ❑ ❑ ® ❑
standards of other agencies? (Application Materials)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or grotmdborne noise levels? (Application Materials)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Application Materials)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (EA 95-300)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (USGS Topo Quad Map -La Quinta 7.5')
P: U,F,SI,: E\F,Acheeklist99-384Ncxtel.wpd
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
_c
.J 10
Less than
Significant
Potentially
with
Less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels?
�l
(Application Materials, USGS Topo Quad Map -La Quinta 7.5')
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (Application
LON
Materials, EA 93-268, EA 96-323)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
IV
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials, EA
YN
95-300)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials, EA 95-300, Aerial
LZN
Photographs)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Fire protection? (Fire Marshal letter dated June 22, 1999)
Police protection? (Sheriff Dept. letter dated June 23, 1999)
Schools? (DSUSD letter dated June 17, 1999) ❑ ® O
Parks? (Parks and Recreation Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (Community Development
Department)
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical El 1:1 El IM
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application
materials; EA 95-300)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical �(
effect on the environment? (Application Materials) l� V
-10
P:,LESLIE\EAcliecklist99-384Nextel.wpd
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
rV
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on ❑ ❑ ❑
roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Application Materials, EA 95-300)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways? (Application Materials, General Plan 3-13)
c) Result In a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase In
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks'?
(EA 95-300)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) ?
(Application Materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (EA 95-300, Application
Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (EA 95-300; Application
Materials; ironing Code Section 9.170.060(G))
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ?(EA 95-300)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board'? (Application Materials)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects? (Application Materials)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects? (Application Materials)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
(Application Materials)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or play serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (Application Materials)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal needs'? (Application Materials)
P:\I.ESI.iEU? Achecklist99-384Nextel.wpd
❑ ❑
�,�
04
❑
❑
❑
VN
❑
❑
❑
X
❑
❑
❑
X
❑
❑
❑
IL�J
❑
❑
❑
l.bl
El
El❑
tAl
❑ ❑ ❑ WI
Less than
Significant
Potentially
with
less than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incotporation
Impact Impact
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste`' (Application Materials)
XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial ® ❑
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
c) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? x
d) 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 probably future projects)?
±,ARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR or other CEQA process, one or more effects have bee
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identii
the following; on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis 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 analyze
in an earlier- document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigatie
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less then Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measure
which wee incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for tt
project
P:\I.FSI.IF.\EAcheeklist99-384Nextel.wpd r,�
Addendum to Environmental Checklist 99-384
for Conditional Use Permit 99-045- Nextel Communications
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
VI. aii)
The proposed project occurs in a Zone IV groundshaking zone, approximately'/2 mile east of an
inferred and inactive fault. The project site can expect to experience significant groundshaking in the
event of a major earthquake in the Coachella Valley. In order to mitigate the potential impacts of
groundshakng on buildings throughout the City, the Building Department has implemented the
Uniform Building Code, as amended, which requires reinforced construction in groundshaking zones.
The project does not occur in an area prone to liquefaction, and the distance from an active fault
makes ground rupture unlikely. The project will be required to meet or exceed the City's building
standards, thereby reducing the potential impact from groundshaking hazards to a level of
insignificance.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
IX. b)
Commercial communications monopoles, such as proposed by the applicant, are permitted with a
Conditional Use Permit in any zoning district. When such uses are approved, conditions are placed
on their establishment and operation to mitigate or eliminate such impacts. Approval of the requested
Conditional Use Permit, as conditioned, will mitigate the potential adverse impacts identified in this
document.
EARLIER ANALYSIS
a) Earlier Analysis Used.
EA 95-300 - prepared for Public Use Permit 95-016 for the Desert Sands Unified School
District Educational Services Center. On file with the Community Development Department,
City of La Quinta.
EA 96-323 - prepared for Conditional Use Permit 96-026 for Pacific Bell Mobile. On file with
the Community Development Department, City of La Quinta.
EA 93-268 - prepared for Public Use Permit 93-015 for Pactel Cellular. On file with the
Community Development Department, City of La Quinta.
iL .
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed.
EA 95-300 adequately analyzed the entire existing site development plan for the Desert Sands
Unified School District Educational Services Center project and gives comprehensive
background to the pre -development environmental setting and conditions as well as those
related to the proposed project. The following effects were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the above referenced earlier documents to applicable legal standards:
Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and
Wager Quality, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, and
Transportation/Traffic. These effects were addressed by mitigation measures assigned to the
previous analyses which largely reduced previously identified impacts to less than significant,
and by those identified by this document.
c) Mitigation Measures.
Effects identified by this document that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated" that are mitigated by measures based on earlier analyses consist of Geology and
Soils, for which the Uniform Building Code requires mitigation. This criteria applied to the
construction of the Desert Sands Unified School District Educational Service Center
structures and also applies to the proposed project. Compliance with the UBC criteria will
address the site -specific seismic conditions for the proposed project.
P:\LESLIE\E:A99-384Addendum-Nextel.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A WIRELESS
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE AND A RELATED
EQUIPMENT SHELTER WITHIN THE REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL (RC) ZONING DISTRICT AT 47-950 DUNE
PALMS ROAD.
CASE NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-045
APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 27th day of July, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request
of Nextel Communications, to consider a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless radio
communications monopole with up to 15 antennas on 3 panels designed to resemble
a date palm tree and a related equipment shelter within the Regional Commercial (RC)
Zoning District, located at 47-950 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. The design and improvements of the proposed monopole are consistent with
La Quinta General Plan Policy 7-1.4.10 that requires adequate screening of
utilities and communication facilities and their sensitive integration with the
desert landscape in that the project proposes to include two live palm trees
next to the monopole to give the appearance of a cluster of trees commonly
found in the local desert landscaping schemes, which will serve as a visual
buffer for adjacent land uses.
2. The proposed monopole, antennas, and equipment shelter are consistent with
current standards of the Zoning Code, with respect to compliance with Section
9.170.010 - Commercial Communications Towers, of the Zoning Code, in that
potential adverse visual effects have been mitigated by design with the two live
date palm trees planted next to the proposed monopole.
3. The design of the monopole, antennas, and equipment shelter is not likely to
cause serious public health problems, or adversely impact the general public
welfare or safety, in that the Fire Department, Community Development
Department, Public Works Department, and the City's Building & Safety
Department have reviewed the project for these issues with no significant
concerns identified.
4. The design of the monopole, antennas, and equipment shelter is not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially, and unavoidable
injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat, the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact did not identify any significant impacts for this issue.
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 27th day of July, 1999, by the following
vote, to Wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\peresCiJP99-045NextelJuly27,1999.wpd
• r. ,-)
kJ 4, 4-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-045
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS - DSUSD COMPLEX
J U LY 27, 1999
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The! applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
(thei "City'), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding
to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The
City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of an improvement or building permit, the applicant shall
obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department
• Community Development Department
• Riverside County Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Imperial Irrigation District
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from
those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans,
applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the
plans.
3. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits approved
and contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 99-045, unless amended by the
following conditions.
4. This approval of Conditional Use Permit shall be used within one year; otherwise,
it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means
beginning of substantial construction toward installation of antennas and equipment
cabinets as allowed by this approval.
5. The trees shall be permanently irrigated and maintained by the applicant and/or
DSUSD. Should the trees die, they shall be replaced immediately.
Page 1 of 2
r, 9
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditional Use Permit 99-045 - Recommended
Nextel Communications - DSUSD
July 27, 1999
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
6. In accordance with LA Quinta Municipal Code and/or Riverside County Fire
Department protection standards, install portable fire extinguisher(s) per NFPA,
Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher
company for proper placement of equipment. All questions regarding the meaning
of this condition should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering
staff at (760) 863-8886.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
7. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking
and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect
when the applicant makes application for the plan checks, permits, and inspections.
8. Within three days after Planning Commission approval, the applicant shall submit
to the Community Development Department a check payable to the County of
Riverside for $78.00. This fee shall be forwarded to the Riverside County Clerk's
Office for payment of the State -required Fish and Game Fees and administrative
handling fee.
P:\pccoaCLJP99-045NextelJuly27,1999.wpd Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT #1
v
co
0
vra Hwy.111 E j
a
P
4 0 '
6 DESERT SANDS U.S CITY LIM
EDUCATIONAL SERVICE NTER :�,�P j
SITE -4 �x j
AV 48
ci
CO-
cf-
CASE MAP
CASE No.
CUP 99-045 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
NORTH
SCALE:
^� 126428' N8%'48'90, V ^�
� jJyl
1
mu 9 qp
ec a� a m iD °Ca
aim �m all -A
Sent by: WIRELESS WORKS 5108
ITE 09:17 FAX 1,
0
30 05/11/99 8:45AM Job 992 Page 15/2
34374 LAMUNATET) wow)
0 —tit 1 .ASS 7
ATTACHMENT A
LZ
4"A
or
and
1 10 Prevent
N
Atyfan,,a
/vote.
textured Wfh
FLAA1
pattern Ilron I
QM
is Pole ShoNm S'x7
122 114lxr4,.22:w77,.0y V4' 54uaro
PVC plasf,�
rUb* RaCGK-C�V
5'-0' dio
Au srs<i a!0/0
r lbosod on
FW10d with RePor//
co
ALws I
9"
REVISION
Wo FiLE NEX!�3iw .
�X-0 5Q.06A1-
/WO Col 5truclu —
Mrx1191 CO--unlcafions. (nc
Laminated Wood Systems. Inc.
E- LAM -� - P.O. sag 306- SEWARD, Nt $8114 I-Vf049-E1Akl
ORAWN—
OVA 1
PH #B
DATE:
CASE NUMBERS:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 27, 1999
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-037 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
99-654
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-
385 AND APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN OUTLINING
THE DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
FOR A 200 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX (AVENTINE) ON
14.1 ACRES AND REVIEW OF THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS
AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATION: ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, APPROXIMATELY
507 FEET NORTH OF AVENUE 48
APPLICANT: A. G. SPANOS CORPORATION
PROPERTY
OWNER: LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ENGINEER: MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GENERAL. PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (M/RC); REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL (CR)
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT: THIS PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
IMPLEMENTS THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2
PLAN, PURSUANT TO THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.
88041111). AN ADDENDUM AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT (99-385) HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED, ANALYZED AND
APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE MADE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
STPC Spanos SP - 34, COND.35
Page 1 of 5
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (FUTURE AUTO MALL
AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO
SPECIFIC PLAN 97-029)
SOUTH: VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
EAST: VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
WEST: ACROSS ADAMS STREET, LAKE LA QUINTA
BACKGROUND:
Site Description
The '14.1 acre site is vacant and located on the east side of Adams Street,
approximately 507 feet north of Avenue 48 (see Attachment 1). Surrounding
properties to the north, south and east are vacant. Adams Street is currently a two
lane paved street.
Project Request
The applicant requests approval of a 200 unit apartment complex at 14.18 units per
acre (see Attachment 2). The buildings are two story with a maximum height of 30'-
2" having 4:12 roof pitches. Ten percent (20) of the residential units are designated
as affordable. Buildings are grouped in clusters around common open space. Two
story building elements are typically set back 70 feet or more from adjacent property
lines and 150 feet from Adams Street. Floor plans are one- and two -bedrooms ranging
in size: from 792 square feet to 1,121 square feet. Perimeter parking areas are setback
5' to 10' from north, south, and east property lines. Changes to the Zoning Code
requested by the Specific Plan include 1► reducing perimeter setbacks for parking
structures to a minimum of five feet, 2) reducing the percentage of affordable units
from 150Xo to 10%, and 3) providing minor modifications to parking design standards.
Each of the six different building types will have roofs covered with flat concrete tiles.
Exterior walls will be clad with stucco. Desert color tones are proposed (e.g., beige,
etc.). The color material sample board will be available for viewing at the meeting.
Multi -pane windows are proposed on the first floor, with single pane, single hung sash
windows on the second story. The proposed first floor windows will have stucco
surrounds. All proposed windows including the sliding glass doors will have aluminum
frames. Each of the proposed units have covered outdoor patios or balconies.
Project access is limited to three driveways spaced at 200 foot intervals on Adams
Street. Each access point is accented with stamped concrete paving. Automatic
swing gates will be used to control access into the project at the north and south
STPC Spanos SP - 34, COND.35
Page 2 of 5
J ►�
entrances;. Gated access is not being proposed for the middle driveway serving the
recreational and rental office building complex only.
Two way access is provided for this project by a private loop street measuring 28-feet
in width. The looping street provides access to many of the building complexes and
to other 26-foot wide parking lanes. Parking for the project consists of open parking
for guests; and covered parking (carports and garages) for residents. Attached garages
are proposed for several of the buildings. Carport structures are freestanding and
constructed of prefabricated metal. The total number of parking spaces for the project
is 406, with 300 spaces being covered. This is a ratio of two parking spaces per unit.
The two structure recreation complex, proposed near Adams Street, is single story
(3,144 square feet) and a maximum 23'-9" in height (i.e., 7:12 roof pitch). The
buildings will have an open air breezeway between them. Each building will have a hip
roof covered with flat concrete tiles. The proposed walls will be clad in stucco to
match other on -site buildings. Solid, flat roofed patio covers are provided at each of
the four building entrances. Recreational amenities include a 75' long lap pool, spa,
putting greens, basketball and volleyball courts, and other uses. Fourteen open parking
spaces are provided on the west side of the recreation buildings to accommodate
leasing activities and temporary guest parking. Pedestrian sidewalks connect the
buildings to the parking and recreation areas.
Landscaping plans reflect a varied plant palette. Mature Date Palm trees, measuring
25 feet in height, will accentuate and frame the two gated project entrances and other
types of ornamental palms are used for common areas. Trees are spread throughout
the development in a random pattern and are sited to provide shading for buildings and
open parking areas. The trees consist of Chilean Mesquite, African Sumac, and
California Pepper in 24" to 36" box sizes with 1.5 to 3.0 calipers. Low level lighting
is planned for landscaping and pedestrian areas and other forms of lighting will be
submitted prior to building permit issuance (i.e., game courts, etc.). Hooded parking
lot light fixtures are proposed with poles being 24 feet or less in height. A perimeter
6' high rnasonry wall clad in stucco is planned for privacy and security except along
Adams Street which will have a combination fence of stucco masonry with wrought
iron on the top three feet.
Storm water retention is proposed adjacent to Adams Street, north and south of the
recreation complex parking lot. This area will be sodded and available for passive
recreational opportunities.
STPC Spanos SP - 34, COND.35
Page 3 of 5
J3
Public Notice
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 3, 1999, as well as
mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. No comments have been
received.
Public Agency Review
The applicant's request was sent on June 28, 1999, and any pertinent comments
received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve this request, per Chapter 9.150 (Parking) and Sections,
9.210.010 (Site Development Permit) and 9.240.010 (Specific Plan Review) of the
Zoning Ordinance can be made with the exceptions as noted below and are contained
in the attached Resolutions.
Special issues concerning this project are:
1. Landscape Design: Coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to
provide visual relief, complement buildings, and provide a harmonious transition
between adjacent land uses.
Due to the large area of asphalt at the northeast and southeast corners of the
project staff is recommending landscape planter islands within the perimeter
drive aisles at the northeast and southeast corners of the site to reduce the
amount of asphalt paving between the parking areas and perimeter landscape
areas. Each planter would be approximately 10' wide by 30' long to support
planting of shade trees and other low level shrub hedges (see Condition 71 of
SDP 99-654).
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-_, recommending to the City
Council certification of an Addedum (Environmental Assessment 99-385) to the
Environmental Impact Report for Redevelopment Project Area #2 (State
Clearinghouse No. 88041 111) for Specific Plan 99-037 and Site Development
Permit 99-654; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Specific Plan 99-037, subject to Findings and Conditions of
Approval as attached; and
STPC Spanos SP - 34, COND.35
Page 4 of 5 i I, ;J <
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- , recommending to the City
Council approval of Site Development Permit 99-654, subject to Findings and
Conditions of Approval as attached.
Attachments:
1 . Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Specific Plan Document and Large Exhibits (Commission only)
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Greg 'I Usdell, Associate Planner Cfiristine di lorio, anning Manager
L
STPC 13panos SP - 34, COND.35
Page 5 of 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN INITIAL
STUDY/EIR ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 99-385 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 99-
037 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-654.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-385
THE SPANOS CORPORATION/LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 27th day of July, 1999 hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 99-385 prepared for Specific Plan 99-037 and Site
Development Permit 99-654; and,
WHEREAS, the applications 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 99-385); and,
WHEREAS, it is the determination of the Community Development Director
that the proposed applications implement the La Quinta Redevelopment Plan for Project
Area #2, for which an EIR was certified by the City Council (SCH #88041111) on May 16,
1989, and that pursuant to Public Resources Code 21090, actions taken to implement a
redevelopment plan are deemed a single project, and no further environmental review is
necessary beyond analysis of project -specific impacts. The Community Development
Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 99-385 as an addendum to the EIR.
No changed circumstances or conditions exist which require preparation of a subsequent
EIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code 21166; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the EIR for
Redevelopment Project Area #2 and Addendum thereto; 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 certification of said Environmental
Assessment:
The proposed Specific Plan 99-037 and Site Development Permit 99-654 will not
be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either
indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigable impacts were identified by
Environmental Assessment 99-385.
PAGREMppereso EA 99-385 Spanosmpd tJ t;
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Specific Plan 99-037, Site Development Permit 99-654
2. The proposed Specific Plan 99-037 and Site Development Permit 99-654 will not
have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in
question is consistent with General Plan goals, policies and objectives and other
current City standards. The project does not have the potential to eliminate an
important example of California prehistory, as extensive archaeological investigation
of the site has been conducted and mitigation measures recommended. The
applicant has agreed to implement the necessary mitigation measures during site
development, and concurs with project conditions of approval relating to this matter.
3. The proposed Specific Plan 99-037 and Site Development Permit 99-654 do not
have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals, as the project will help to implement the La Quinta
Redevelopment Plan for Project Area #2.
4. The proposed Specific Plan 99-037 and Site Development Permit 99-654 will not
result in impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when
considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as the
proposed project is being undertaken pursuant to a redevelopment plan for which
a final EIR has been certified, and no changes in conditions or circumstances, as
outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21166 have occurred.
5. The proposed Specific Plan 99-037 and Site Development Permit 99-654 will not
have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either
directly or indirectly, as the proposed project will develop residential land uses which
have lower impacts than the commercial land uses contemplated in the General
Plan and analyzed in the certified General Plan EIR.
6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be adequate
to address impacts to school facilities, in that the Specific Plan and Site
Development Permit, as proposed, do not affect the current land use as it would be
assessed at time of development, whether or not the project was implemented.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 99-385 for the reasons set
forth in the Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist
and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
P:\GREG\pereso EA 99-385 Spanos.wpd '
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Specific Plan 99-037, Site Development Permit 99-654
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27t' day of July, 1999, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAGREG\pereso EA 99-385 Spanos.wpd
Initial Study and EIR Addendum
State Clearinghouse #88041111
for
Environmental Assessment 99-385
Prepared for
Aventine Apartments
The Spanos Corporation
and the
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Applications under Review:
Affordable Housing Agreement
Specific Plan 99-037
Site Development Permit 99-654
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
July 12,1999
A:\EA 99-385, FIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Aventine Apartments
Specific Plan 99-037
Site Development Permit 99-654
Affordable Housing Agreement
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine DiIorio
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: East side of Adams Street, approximately 407 feet north of Avenue
48.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: A.G. Spanos Corp.
5029 La Mart Drive, Suite A2
Riverside, CA 92507
6. General Plan Designation: Mixed/Regional Commercial
7. Zoning: Regional Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.)
The; project will consist of 200 multi -family dwelling units in two story structures, with a
central common recreational area to include a recreation building, putting course,
volleyball and basketball courts, and a pool and spa. Carports and garages are generally to
be located along the perimeter of the project.
Five percent (10 units) of the proposed apartments will be restricted to low income
households, and an additional five percent (10 units) will be restricted to moderate
income households for a total of 20 units. The project occurs within the boundaries of
Redevelopment Area #2.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
Lands to the north, south and east are currently vacant. Lands to the west beyond Adams
Street are partially developed low density residential (Lake La Quinta).
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.) - Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, etc.
A:\FA 99-385, FIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least; one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Transportation/Circulation
X
Public Services
Population and Housing
X
Biological Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
X
Geological Problems
Energy and Mineral Resources
X
Aesthetics
X
Water
Hazards
Cultural Resources
Air Quality
X
Noise
X
Recreation
Mandatory Finds of Significance
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
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.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
Department
A:\I:A 94-385, EIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
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.
A:\EA 99-385, FIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
ample question:
I.
lI.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1,6)
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a USGS
topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1 )
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by X
agencies with jurisdiction over the project. ( 1, 21 3 )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( 4) I I I I X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or X
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (4, 5)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established X
community (including a low-income or minority community)? (4 )
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X
(1)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., X
through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major
infrastructure)? (1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (4)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (5)
AAF:A 99-385, EIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
4y f
IV.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( 5, 6)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( 5 )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( 5)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (5)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill? ( 6 )
g) Subsidence of the land? (6)
h) Expansive soils? ( 6 )
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
mmm
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount X
of surface ntnoff? ( 7)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding? ( 5,6,7 )
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( 7)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( 7)
mmm
mmm
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X
(5,7)
A:\EA 99-385, HIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
V
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 X
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (5,6,7)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( 5, 7)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (7)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water supplies? (5)
AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? ( 5)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (5 )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in X
climate? ( 7 )
d) Create objectionable odors? (7)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (8)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or danger- X
ous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (8)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( 7 )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (7 )
A:\l:A 99-385, EIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
VII.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (7 )
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation X
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( 7 )
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (5)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including X
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( 5 )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (5 )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitat., etc.)? ( 5)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (5)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (5)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1, 3, 5)
M �
M��
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X
(5,7) 1 j
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 7{
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State?
(1,5) - _j
A:\1?A 99-385, I_IR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
IX.
q.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances X
(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
(1, 7)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency X
evacuation plan? ( 1, 7 )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (7) 1 1 1 1 X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X
(1)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X
(5)
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (5,9) X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( 9)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? (5)
b) Police protection? (5)
c) Schools? (5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (5)
e) Other governmental services? (5)
M��
A:\EA 99-385,1 IR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
i �
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result
in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (5, 7 )
b) Communications systems? (5, 7 )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( 5, 7 )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( 5, 7 )
e) Storm water drainage? (5, 7 )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( 5, 7)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (5, 7 )
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (5, 7)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (7)
c) Create light or glare? (7)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (10)
b) Disturb archaeological resources'? (10)
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X1- 17
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
A:\I:A 99-385, FIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
10
r- i
t .! -L
c) Affect historical resources? (10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? (10)
MMM
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact X
area? (10)
XV. RECREAT'ION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase i:he demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities? (7)
b) Affi;ct existing recreational opportunities? (5, 7)
XVI. 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?
MMM
M��
94
MMM
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X
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.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direct or
indirectly?
AM'A 99-385, EIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
M
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Introdluction
This section of the EIR Addendum addresses the issues found to have a potential impact in the
Initial Study. Those issues identified as "No Impact" require no further discussion, and are not
included in the discussion below.
This discussion tiers off the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared and certified for La
Quinta's Redevelopment Area #2 (SCH 88041111). The Public Resources Code defines all
implementation projects of the Redevelopment Plan as one project, analyzed in the
Redevelopment Area #2 EIR, and requiring no further analysis. Issues discussed in this
Addendum pertain directly to the proposed project's site -specific impacts, as required by Public
Resources Code 21090.
Project Description
Three applications are under review as part of this Addendum: Specific Plan 99-037, Site
Development Permit 99-654, and an Affordable Housing Agreement. These applications would
allow the construction of 200 multi -family dwelling units on 14.1± acres on the east side of
Adams Street, approximately 407 feet north of Avenue 48.
The Affordable Housing Agreement being considered as part of this proposal will require the
dedication of 5% of the units to low income households (10 units), and 5% of units to moderate
income households (10 units).
The project. site is currently vacant stabilized sand dunes, and slopes from the northwest to the
southeast. Lands occurring to the north, south and east of the site are currently vacant. The
approved La Quinta Auto Mall Specific Plan will occur on the lands to the north of the site.
Lands to the west across Adams Street are partially developed within the Lake La Quinta project.
The two story buildings proposed for this project will contain clusters of 8 and 16 apartments
units. Three floor plans are proposed, ranging in size from 792 square feet to 1,121 square feet.
The proposal calls for 136 one -bedroom units and 64 two -bedroom units. All buildings will be
sited around a central recreation area, which will include a recreation building, pool and spa,
basketball court, putting course, volleyball and horse shoe courts.
Access to the project will be provided along a loop road. The Specific Plan calls for 106
uncovered parking spaces, 204 carport spaces, and 96 garages, clustered adjacent to the
apartment buildings they serve.
Two retention basins occur at the western property boundary, and provide considerable setback
for the buildings themselves. The retention basins are proposed to also be used as park areas, and
are sited behind the project fence.
INITIAL STUDY DISCUSSION
The following discussion is based on the numbered source in the Initial Study Checklist, and
addresses those issues identified therein as having a potential impact.
A:\EA 99-385, EIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
13
Land Use and Planning
I. a)
Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map designates the subject property as
M.ixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) Overlay District. The property's Zoning
designation is Regional Commercial. The proposed project is proposed to be entirely
residential in nature. The proposed site is part of a larger parcel, also designated
Mixed/Regional Commercial totaling approximately 50 acres.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
The General Plan supports the development of high density residential land uses in the
M_/RC designation, particularly outside the Highway 111 corridor. Policy 2-3.1.7
requires "strict design and development standards and a high ratio of affordability."
Policy 2-3.1.9 states "a specific plan must be approved prior to any land division or
other development approval...." The proposed project will provide 10% of its units for
low and moderate income families, addressing the requirements of policy 2-3.1.7, and
the submittal of Specific Plan 99-037 will satisfy the requirements of policy 2-3.1.9.
The Land Use Element further states (Policy 2-1.1.8) "Appropriate locations for HDR
areas include areas where planned community facilities, major vehicular transportation
system access, appropriately sized utilities, commercial services and employment uses
are easily available..." Under Section 9.80.030 of the Zoning Ordinance, a minimum of
1 _`i% of the proposed dwelling units shall be set aside for low- and/or very -low income
households. The proposed project will be located on a Primary Arterial roadway, less
than a half mile from Highway 111, and adjacent to the planned La Quinta Auto Mall
project. Residents at the site will be within easy reach of shopping and employment
opportunities, and public transportation. The project location is also supported in the
City's Housing Element, by providing affordable housing near employment and
transportation systems.
The size of the parcel, 14.1± acres does not represent a substantial loss in commercial
lands (1% of total commercial acreage), and will provide a buffer to low density land
uses located to the west. Implementation of the proposed project therefore represents a
less than significant impact.
Population and Housing
II.a&b)
Environmental Setting
The project site, designated for Regional Commercial, was not anticipated to contribute
directly to the City's population base. The General Plan, however, does support the
availability of affordable housing adjacent to employment centers. The City's buildout
population is projected to total 59,392, in 31,243 dwelling units.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
The proposed project has the potential to generate a population of 646 persons, based on
current household size in the City (Department of Finance household size of 3.228
persons). The increase represents only 1% of the City's buildout population, and does
not represent a significant impact to population projections.
P:\EA 99-385, FIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan
14
The proposed project lies adjacent or near existing or approved commercial
development along the Highway 111 corridor. These projects have or will create a need
for residential development insofar as they have or will need to house their employees.
The proposed project will provide residential support to these projects, and can be
expected to represent a beneficial impact to the area.
Geologic Problems
III. a, b, & c)
Environmental Setting
The proposed project occurs in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The project site can
expect to experience significant groundshaking in the event of a major earthquake in the
Coachella Valley. The project does not occur in an area prone to liquefaction, and its
distance from an active fault makes ground rupture unlikely.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
In order to mitigate the potential impacts of groundshaking on buildings throughout the
City, the Building Department has implemented the Uniform Building Code, as
amended, which requires reinforced construction in groundshaking zones. The project
will be required to meet or exceed the City's building standards, thereby reducing the
potential impact from groundshaking hazards to a level of insignificance.
Ill. f,g&11)
Environmental Setting
Portions of the City are subject to wind erosion, as well as erosion under flooding
conditions. The area of the project site slopes slightly, and is typical of the stabilized
sand dune environment found in much of the northern portion of the City. The
Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10, particles of dust of 10 microns or
less. The City participates in the regional mitigation of PM10 through the
implementation of dust control plans for all construction projects.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
A geotechnical investigation was undertaken for the proposed project'. The project site
does not occur within a blowsand hazard area. The site does, however, have a potential
for erosion from both wind and flooding. The geotechnical engineer found the upper
soils on the site to be "relatively loose." Mitigation measures are recommended as
follows:
Grading plans for the proposed project shall include over excavation and
recompaction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All grading plans shall be
accompanied by soils engineering data which demonstrates that the techniques used
in grading will improve soil bearing capacity and reduce the potential for settlement
from static loading.
"Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed 200 Unit Apartment Complex, Adams Street, North of
Avenue 48, La Quinta, California." Earth Systems Consultants. June 1999.
AAE:A 99-385, FIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
15
n -)
4.
2. Soil testing by a qualified professional shall occur during site grading, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, to demonstrate that recompaction meets the
required standards.
3. Any area of the site which is graded but not immediately constructed shall be
stabilized using chemical stabilizers or revegetation.
4. In conformance with the Municipal Code, a dust control plan shall be approved by
the City Engineer prior to any ground disturbing activity on the site.
The implementation of these mitigation measures should reduce the impacts to a less
than significant level.
Water
IV. a&b)
Environmental Setting
The construction of any project on vacant land reduces the potential land available for
the absorption of surface water, and changes surface water runoff patterns. Federal and
local standards require that all projects contain the 100 year 24-hour storm on -site, to
reduce potential impacts to down -stream properties. Flood control within the City is
managed through the City Engineer's office, which has responsibility for the review of
storm water retention and detention plans.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
The proposed project includes, in conformance with the City Engineer's requirements
for the retention of the 100 year storm event on site, the construction of retention basins
along the site frontage on Adams Street, as well as a central retention basin to also be
used as a golf putting course. The retention basins shall be designed to meet the City's
standards for such structures, and shall be incorporated into the landscaping concept for
the proposed project. The retention basins will provide for the absorption of water, and
reduce this potential impact. The basins will also control the flow of storm water
generated on the site, and will reduce the potential impacts to an insignificant level.
Controlling runoff through the site will also reduce the hazard to people and property to
a level of insignificance.
IV. f) Environmental Setting
The City's water supply comes from groundwater extracted by the Coachella Valley
Water District through a system of wells. The aquifer and groundwater basins are
recharged through natural percolation, augmented by surface water from the Colorado
River. The Coachella Valley Water District participates in regional recharge through
percolation ponds located in the north end of the Coachella Valley.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
The construction of the proposed project will result in an increased demand for domestic
water. The Valley's water supplies are recharged through contractual agreement with
the Metropolitan Water District, utilizing California Water Project resources. Although
the regional groundwater basin is in an overdraft condition, the efforts of the Coachella
Valley Water District, the City's water conservation requirements, and other outside
agency efforts are mitigating the regional draw -down of groundwater.
AAFA 99.385, FIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
16
IV. h) Environmental Setting
The covering of ground with impermeable surfaces can concentrate pollutants generated
by urbanized areas, including solvents, oils and chemicals. These pollutants are carried
through streets to storm water facilities. If untreated, these pollutants can eventually
affect the groundwater supply.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
Impermeable surfaces within the proposed project can increase the potential for
pollutants to occur and eventually contaminate groundwater. The site will drain to
retention basins along Adams Street. The retention basins are required, in order to meet
City standards, to include filtration devices or other methods to ensure that water being
absorbed into the ground does not contain pollutants or other foreign materials. The
drainage system shall be required to meet the standards established by the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), as implemented by the City. The
implementation of this program will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance.
Air Quality
V.a&b)
Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta and Coachella Valley are under the jurisdiction of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, which is responsible for maintaining federal
and state air quality standards. The Coachella Valley does not meet these standards,
particularly as regards dust generation (PM 10). It is expected, however, that
improvements in the management of dust in the Valley have improved the air basin's
air quality, and that PM 10 management has been effective in lowering the potential
impacts. The primary source of air pollution in the City is vehicle traffic.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
Residential land uses are considered sensitive receptors to air quality. The proposed
project site's air quality was analyzed as part of both the Redevelopment Plan EIR and
the General Plan EIR, with the assumption that development on the site would be
commercial in nature.
The vehicle traffic generated by a commercial development on 14 acres can be expected
to be higher than that generated by residential development on the same site. The
impacts to air quality at and around the site can therefore be expected to be lower than
those previously analyzed.
The City and Coachella Valley's air quality is substantially impacted by PM 10. In order
to mitigate the impacts of PM 10 on and near the site, the project proponent will be
required to submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a PM 10 dust control
plan. The PM 10 plan will help to reduce the potential impacts on and near the site
during grading.
Long term impacts to residents of the project site will also be reduced by project design,
which proposes setbacks from the primary potential generator, Adams Street, by the use
of retention basins along the frontage.
A:\E:A 99-385, EIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
17
Transportation/Circulation
VI. a&b)
Environmental Setting
The project area is located on Adams Street, a Primary Arterial on the City's General
Plan Circulation Map. Current traffic volumes on Adams Street and surrounding
roadways are generally within acceptable levels of service. Adams Street is not
currently improved to its full cross section as a Primary Arterial. Sunline Transit is
responsible for the provision of public transit in the City. It currently does not provide
service to the project area.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project'. The study found that
the proposed project will generate 1,330 daily trips, and that the circulation system at or
near the site will operate within the City's standards at project buildout. The study
assumes that the project proponent shall improve Adams Street along the frontage of
the property to its General Plan configuration. The study recommends several
mitigation measures to ensure that safe traffic operations occur after project buildout:
1. Left turns from the project site to Adams Street shall be prohibited. All traffic
leaving the site shall be restricted to right turns only.
2. A left turn lane on southbound Adams Street at the southern entry drive will be
required to allow left turns from Adams Street into the site.
3. Stop signs shall be required at all site egress points.
4. The lane geometrics shown in Figure VI-2 of the above -referenced traffic study
shall be implemented at all site access locations.
The applicant shall work with Sunline Transit Agency to locate a bus stop
adjacent to the project site on Adams Street. The bus stop will include such
amenities as a covered shelter, bench and trash receptacle.
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential traffic
impacts to a less than significant level.
Biological Resources
VII.a,,c&:e)
Environmental Setting
The project area can be characterized as Creosote Scrub community, found throughout
the Coachella Valley on the Valley floor. The project area is designated as potential
habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard. The City, in conjunction with other
cities in the Coachella Valley, has adopted and implemented a Habitat Conservation
Plan for this endangered species. The General Plan does not designate the project
"La Quinta Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis." Endo Engineering, June 1999.
A:\EiA 99-385, FIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
18
vicinity as likely habitat for other species of concern.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
The proposed project occurs within the habitat boundaries of the Coachella Valley
fringe -toed lizard, an endangered species. The Habitat Conservation Plan requires the
payment of a fee by the project proponent. This payment will provide sufficient
mitigation to reduce the impacts to the fringe -toed lizard to a less than significant level.
No other species of concern are expected to occur on the project site.
Noise
X.a&b)
Environmental Setting
The City's primary noise generator is vehicular transportation. The General Plan Master
Environmental Assessment estimates that current noise levels in the project vicinity are
50 to 60 dBA CNEL. The City has adopted standards for exterior and interior noise
levels for all land uses. The standard for residential land uses is 60 dBA CNEL or less
exterior, and 45 dBA CNEL or less for interior noise levels.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
A :noise impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project'. The study found that the
project site will be impacted by noise on Adams Street, but that with the
implementation of planned project perimeter walls, the units closest to Adams Street
will experience a noise level of 58.8 dBA CNEL. This noise level is within the City's
standard, which requires that all exterior residential noise levels be 60 dBA CNEL or
less. The study further found that the interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL will be
achieved through standard construction practices, with the exception of the westernmost
units facing Adams Street, which will experience a higher noise level with windows
open. Those units will require mechanical ventilation to City standard. The following
mitigation measure is therefore incorporated into the project:
The first row of units facing Adams Street shall be provided with mechanical
ventilation which supplies two air changes per hour for each habitable room,
including 20% fresh air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh air inlet
duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of
ten feet of straight or curved duct, or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend.
This mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Public Services
XI. a through g)
Environmental Setting
Fiire protection is provided to the City by contract with the Riverside County Fire
"Indoor and Outdoor Noise Analysis for Aventine Apartments, City of La Quinta." Mestre Greve
Associates, June 1999.
A:\I:A 99-385, FIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
19
Department. Police protection is contracted through the Riverside County Sheriff's
Department. The project is within the boundary of the Desert Sands Unified School
District. Roads and other governmental services are the responsibility of the City of La
Quinta.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
The project will have an impact on all public service providers, but does not
significantly impact any level of service established by the City. The Desert Sands
Unified School District will be impacted by additional students who are likely to reside
within the project. The California Legislature has established a School Mitigation Fee,
payable at the issuance of building permits, to mitigate the impacts of new construction
to the school system. The project proponent will be require to contribute the fee in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Utilities and Service Systems
XII. a through g)
Environmental Setting
A number of providers are responsible for the provision of utilities to the City of La
Quinta. They include: The Gas Company for natural gas, General Telephone Company
for telephone service, the Coachella Valley Water District for domestic water service
and sewage treatment, the City of La Quinta for local drainage, the Coachella Valley
Water District for regional drainage, and Waste Management of the Desert for solid
waste disposal.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
The proposed project will have an impact on all utility providers, but is well within their
ability to service the area. The project will be required to demonstrate the ability of all
these providers to service the site prior to the issuance of building permits. The project
proponent will work with all the utilities to provide extensions or improvements
required to the project site. By meeting the City Engineer's requirement for on -site
retention, the applicant will reduce impacts to the local and regional drainage system.
The impact to utility providers is expected to be less than significant.
Aesthetics
XIII.a.&c)
Environmental Setting
The project area is designated a Secondary Image Corridor in the General Plan. Vistas in
the City include the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west, and the Coral Reef Mountains
to the south. The project area is not within a Visual Focal point, as defined by the
Master Environmental Assessment. Lands in the project vicinity are generally vacant,
with the exception of low density residential to the west.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
The construction of the proposed project will not have a significant impact on visual
resources in the City. The improvement of Adams Street along the project boundary
will further the goals and policies of the General Plan by improving the street frontage
to the standards required of Secondary Image Corridors, thereby creating an appealing
A:\E:A 99-385, FIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
20
vista along the streetscape.
The project will create additional light in the area. The City has implemented standards
for outdoor lighting, which the project will be required to meet or exceed. These
provisions include requirements for shielding, limits on light pole heights, and types of
lighting allowed. These standards and requirements will reduce the potential impacts
from light or glare to a less than significant level.
Cultural Resources
XIV.a,b,c&d)
Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta falls within the territory of the ancient Lake Cahuilla, and has
proven to be a rich repository of archaeological and historic resources. The area in
which the proposed project occurs is generally a Creosote Scrub community, typical of
the desert floor. Sand deposition caused by the prevailing winds have formed sand
dunes throughout the area. The project area's proximity to ancient Lake Cahuilla's
shore increases the possibility for the occurrence of cultural resources in the area.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
A cultural resource analysis was conducted for the project site and land immediately
adjacent'. The study found four recorded sites within the 50 acre City -owned parcel,
and a number of additional sites within one mile. On -site investigation discovered no
new sites, but did extensively study the previously recorded sites. The study found that
the previously identified sites do not qualify as significant under either CEQA or
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Although the testing program
undertaken was extensive, the potential for additional buried resources is not precluded.
The following mitigation measure shall therefore be implemented to reduce impacts to
a :less than significant level:
A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on -site during all grading and
trenching activities on the site. The monitor shall prepare a report detailing
monitoring activities and professional conclusions and submit same to the
Community Development Department for review.
"Phase II Test Excavation for APN 649-036-030, Northeast Corner of Avenue 48 and Adams Street, City
of La Quinta, California." Archaeological Advisory Group, June 1999.
A:\l:A 99-385, EIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
21
EARLIER ANALYSES.
a) Earlier analyses used. The following documents were used in the preparation of the
Checklist. The number used below corresponds to the Source number used in the Checklist.
1. La Quinta General Plan, October 1992
2. La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area #2 EIR, July 1988
3. La Quinta General Plan EIR, October 1992
4. Aerial Photograph, Exhibit 2 of Specific Plan 99-037
5. La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, October 1992
6. "Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed 200 Unit Apartment Complex, Adams Street,
North of Avenue 48, La Quinta, California." Earth Systems Consultants, June 1999
7. "Aventine, A Specific Plan for the City of La Quinta." Mainiero, Smith & Associates, June
1999
8. "La Quinta Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis." Endo Engineering, June 1999
9. "Indoor and Outdoor Noise Analysis for Aventine Apartments." Mestre Greve Associates,
June 1999
10. "Phase II Test Excavation for APN 649-036-030, Northeast corner of Avenue 48 and Adams
Street, City of La Quinta, California." Archaeological Advisory Group, June 1999
b) Impacts adequately addressed.
The Environmental Impact Report certified for Redevelopment Area #2 addressed buildout of the
entire area, and proposed mitigation measures adequate to reduce potential impacts. The
mitigation treasures contained in this Addendum adequately mitigate the project -specific
impacts associated with this development. The proposed project is within the scope of the
original EIR, and implements its goals and objectives. Potentially significant impacts addressed
in this document include impacts associated with geologic problems, water resources, noise and
cultural resources are addressed in this document.
C) Mitigation measures. The mitigation measures contained herein, combined with the
conditions of approval proposed for the proposed project, address potentially significant impacts
and lower these impacts to a less than significant level.
A:\F1A 99.385, FIR Addendum, Aventine Specific Plan - 35
22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT
PRINCIPALS AND GUIDELINES FOR A 200 UNIT
APARTMENT COMPLEX
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 99-037
A. G. SPANOS CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
271h day of July, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
A. G. Spanos Corporation to approve the development principals and guidelines for a
200 unit apartment complex located on the east side of Adams Street, and
approximately 507 feet north of Avenue 48, more particularly described as:
Portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 649-030-036; Portions of S %2 of
Section 29, T5S, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, the proposed Specific Plan is an implementation action under
the Lai Quinta Redevelopment Plan for Project Area #2. An Environmental Impact
Report was certified for this Plan by the City Council (State Clearinghouse
#88041 1 1 1). Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21090, all actions taken to
implement a Redevelopment Plan are deemed a single project and no further
environmental review is necessary beyond analysis of project -specific impacts.
Therefore, an Environmental Assessment (EA 99-385) as an Addendum to the EIR was
prepared to determine whether the conditions referenced in Public Resources Code
Section 21 166 are present; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the EIR for
Redevelopment Area #2 and Addendum thereto; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the
recommendation for approval of the Specific Plan:
1. The Specific Plan, as proposed, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated for either commercial
uses or medium and high density residential uses under the Mixed/Regional
Commercial category (Policy 2-3.1.7). The proposed density will be 14 units
per acre where 16 units per acre is allowed. Additionally, the applicant is
providing 20 of the 200 units as affordable (low and moderate income) in
compliance with criteria for residential uses.
2. The Specific Plan document outlines development principles and design
guidelines that ensure the apartment complex will not be detrimental to public
health, safety and general welfare.
A:\ResopcSP37Spanos.wpd- 34
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Specific Plan 99-037 (Spanos)
July 27, 1999
3. The; Specific Plan document allows for a 200 unit apartment complex. Low
density residential units exist across Adams Street, to the east and south the
property is owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency and intended for
residential development, thereby providing land use compatibility.
4. The Specific Plan property is suitable and appropriate in that it is accessible
from Adams Street, and provides a transitional buffer between adjacent future
land uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend that the EIR Addendum of Environmental
Impact be certified for this project.
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the Specific Plan
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27" day of July, 1999, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
AAResopcSP37Spanos.wpd- 34
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-037, A. G. SPANOS CORP.
JULY 27, 1999
GENERAL
1. The development shall comply with Exhibit "A" of Specific Plan 99-037, unless
otherwise amended herein.
2. Developer/applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of
La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's
approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its
defense counsel in its sole discretion.
3. The; Conditions of Approval for Site Development Permit 99-654 are binding for
this Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL
4. The developer shall comply with any provisions outlined in Environmental
Assessment 99-385.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Final fire protection requirements will be determined when specific project plans are
submitted. The Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures
be provided in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code and/or Riverside County
Fire Department protection standards:
5. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flows shall be
constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of CVWD Standard W-
33, subject to the approval by the Riverside County Fire Department.
6. All roads need to be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed width.
7. Specific access plans shall be submitted.
TEXT AMENDMENT CHANGES
The Specific Plan document shall be revised as follows:
Page 33, Parkland Fee - The project does not have to contribute parkland fees because
the site is not being subdivided.
AACOASP37spanos.wpd - 35 Page 1 of 2
Conditions of Approval
Specific Plan 99-037 - AG Spanos
July 27, 1999
Exhibits 5 & 9 (and any other applicable location in the document) - Remove "6' high
masonry wall" notation from north property line. The grade difference with the
approved grading plan for the property to the north will require a stepped -back
retaining wall approximately 12' in height.
Exhibit 6 (and any other applicable location in the document) - Revise note on the
landscape lot. The 20-foot landscape setback will remain under private ownership.
The only dedication(s) over this area would be sidewalk easement if the sidewalk
meanders into the setback and any needed utility or bus waiting shelter easements.
AACOASP37.spanos.wpd - 35 Page 2 of 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW
200 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT UNIT PROJECT
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-654
APPLICANT: A. G. SPANOS CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 271h day of July, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of A. G. Spanos Corporation for approval of a 200 residential apartment unit
project in the Regional Commercial Zone, located on the east side of Adams Street and
507-feet north of Avenue 48, more particularly described as:
Portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 649-030-036; S %2 of Section 29,
Township 5 South, Range 6 East, SBBM
WHEREAS, the proposed Site Development Permit is an implementation
action under the La Quinta Redevelopment Plan for Project Area #2. An Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was certified for this Plan by the City Council (State Clearinghouse
#88041 1 1 1). Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21090, all actions taken to
implement a Redevelopment Plan are deemed a single project and no further
environmental review is necessary beyond analysis of project -specific impacts.
Therefore an Environmental Assessment (Environmental Assessment 99-385) as an
Addendum to the EIR was prepared to determine whether the conditions referenced
in Public Resources Code Section 21 166 are present; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the EIR for
Redevelopment Area #2 and Addendum thereto; 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 99-654:
The project is consistent with the General Plan in that residential units of this
type are permitted in the Regional Commercial designation with adoption of a
Specific Plan.
2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the
Specific Plan 99-037.
3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act in that an Environmental Assessment
has been prepared and EIR Addendum is recommended.
4. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding
development in that it is of a compatible architectural design, colors, and
materials.
r.h x
PAss\resopcsdpp645 - 34
Planning; Commission Resolution 99-_
Site Development Permit 99-654 (Spans)
July 27, 1999
5. The: site design of the project is attractive and well designed and appropriate for
the area. Parking has been kept around the perimeter of the site to increase the
pedestrian aspect of the project and two parking spaces per unit is provided via
a shared parking plan.
6. The: landscape design of the project will utilize plants compatible with existing
and future developments. An emphasis on mature landscaping has been
proposed to reinforce the resort community image and character of the area.
Additional planter islands shall be installed within the perimeter loop drive aisle
to provide additional buffering of two story building complexes.
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 Site
Development Permit 99-654 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject
to the attached conditions;
3. That it does hereby recommend that the EIR Addendum of Environmental
Impact be certified for this project.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 271h day of July, 1999, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
P:\ss\resopcsdp645 - 34 f ; .
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Site Development Permit 99-654 (Spans)
July 27, 1999
JERRY HE,RMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\ss\resopcsdp645 - 34
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-654, A.G. SPANOS CORP.
JULY 27, 1999
GENERAL
1. The development shall comply with the City's Zoning Code, Specific Plan 99-037
(on file in the Community Development Department), the approved exhibits and
the following conditions.
2. Appliicant 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.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
3. -T'he Site Development Permit shall expire within one year from approval, unless
building permits are issued pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Time extensions may be granted pursuant to Section 9.200.080.
4. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, or ground disturbance,
mitigation measures as recommended by the Archaeological Assessment for the
site shall be completed at the applicant/developer's expense. This consists of
having an archaeological monitor on site during grading and earth disturbance
operations. A final report shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy of the first building.
5. Handicap access, facilities and parking shall be provided per State and local
requirements.
6. Prior to any site disturbance being permitted, including construction, preliminary
site work and/or archaeological investigation, the project developer shall submit
and have approved a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP), in accordance with
Chapter 6.16 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. The plan shall define all areas
proposed for development and shall indicate time lines for phasing of the project,
and shall establish standards for comprehensive control of both anthropogenic
and natural creation of airborne dust due to development activities on site.
Phased projects must prepare a plan that addresses control measures over the
entire build -out of the project (e.g., for disturbed lands pending future
development).
COA PC SDP654 Spanos - 35 Page 1 of 17
,J B
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
7. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as
determined by the Building and Safety Director.
8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit
a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating
compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of SP 99-
037, and EA 99-385. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director
demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation
measures of SP 99-037 and EA 99-385. The Community Development Director
may require inspection or other mitigation monitoring measures to assure such
compliance.
9. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
storrnwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES
construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB
acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading
or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm
Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site.
COA PC SDP654 Spanos - 35 Page 2 of 17
j V
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 19!39
PROPERTY RIGHTS
10. Prior to approval of a grading permit, the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights required of these conditions or otherwise
necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development.
11. The applicant shall grant public and private street right of way and utility
easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer.
12. Right of way grants required of this development include:
Adams Street - 55-foot half of a 1 10-foot right of way.
13. Grants shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
14. If the City Engineer determines that 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 the right of way within 60
days of written request by the City.
15. The applicant shall create privately -owned and maintained perimeter setbacks
along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth
if meandering wall design is approved):
Adams Street - 20 feet
The setback requirement applies to ail frontage including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
-the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
16. 'The applicant shall grant easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and
common areas.
COA PC SDP654 Spanos - 35 Page 3 of 17 , ,o
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
17. The applicant shall vacate 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 site plan.
18. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as
appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining
wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur.
19. If the; applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way
or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned
by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access
easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property
owners.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
20. As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as
'"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or
licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
21. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be
submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise
Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall
have: signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building
Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans
are not approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike
paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally
include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
Page 4 of 17 , w
COA PC' SDP654 Spanos - 35
l_� ' 1 l
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
22. 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.
23. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to
the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they
may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of
construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall
update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
plans.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
24. Portions of the improvements required herein may be defrayed through
participation in the Development Impact Fee program which becomes effective
August 16, 1999.
25. The subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to reimburse others
who construct improvements that are obligations of this development, to secure
the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination
of these methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the
City prior to construction of this development, the Applicant shall, prior to
issuance of grading or building permits, reimburse the City for the cost of those
improvements.
26. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish
an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy
obligations required by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. For secured
agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with
Chapter 13, LQMC.
Page 5 of 17 4
COA PC' SDP654 Spanos - 35 , a
k1 4 1
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing
structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
27. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of
improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates
shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or
ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of other
agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for
telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, final acceptance of all
required improvements and release of security will not be scheduled for City
Council approval prior to the applicant meeting all requirements for telephone
service to the units created by this development.
28. If improvements are phased, off -site improvements and common improvements
(e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed
or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the
City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be
completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent
buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing
plan is approved by the City Engineer.
29. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement
agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or
final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of
the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
30. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard
Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is
or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors
and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year)
flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in
Title; 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to
COA PC' SDPO54 Spanos - 35 Page 6 of 17
%jI
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall
furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been
met.
31. The applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and a
grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform
with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a
soils engineer or engineering geologist. The plan must be approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A statement shall appear on final
maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been
prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
32. 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.
33. 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 or parcel map, 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. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant
shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in
accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in
a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance
with the provisions of the permit.
35. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water
erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided
with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development
and Public Works Departments.
36. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each
pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the
COA PC' SDP654 Spanos - 35 Page 7 of 17 �) 4 J
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditions cf Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be
organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and
the following:
37. Storrnwater 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.
38. Storrnwater shall be retained in common retention basins.
39. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated,
unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route.
40. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on
site or passed through to the overflow outlet.
41. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which
shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design
percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour.
42. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be
six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention.
43. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance
water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the
City Engineer. The sand filter and leechfield shall be designed to contain surges
of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
UTILITIES
44. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water
COA PC SDPG54 Spanos - 35 Page 8 of 17
rJ
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
45. Existing overhead utility lines and all proposed utilities within or adjacent to the
proposed development shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding
34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement.
46. Utilitiles shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities
in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration
requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
47. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall
conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
OFF -SITE STREETS
Adams Street - Construct remainder of 86-foot improvement (travel width,
excluding curbs), six-foot sidewalk. Applicant is responsible for 50% of the
cost of the 18-foot wide landscape median. The applicant may be required
to construct the full median subject to reimbursement of costs for all or
50% thereof depending on whether this development is subject to the
Infrastructure Fee or the Development Impact Fee.
ON -SITE ENTRIES AND DRIVEWAY
Twenty-eight foot travel width on driveway with 100% off-street parking,
except as shown on the Preliminary Grading plan received by the City on
June 21, 1999. North and south entry drive shall be 34 feet. Center entry
shall be 36 feet.
Turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, and other features contained
in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as
determined by the City Engineer.
COA PC' SDP654 Spanos - 35 Page 9 of 17 t =�
•J -�,j
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
48. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings
and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks.
Mid -block street lighting is not required.
49. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g.,
grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or
dimensions of streets and sidewalks).
50. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC,
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved
by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
51. 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.
52. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which
convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and
residiue for 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.
53. (3eneral access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to three entry
drives centered approximately 60', 290' and 526' south of the north project
boundary. The southerly entry shall be restricted to left-in/left-out/right-out
traffic movements with an appropriate left -in median opening. The center and
northerly drives shall be restricted to right-in/right-out movements.
54. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design
procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall
be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" 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"
COA PC SDP654 Spanos - 35 Page 10 of 17 ,,
4«
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
55. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete.
The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include
recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation
test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current
production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix
designs are approved.
56. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings
only when the buildings have improved access to publicly -maintained streets.
The improvements shall include required traffic control devices and pavement
markings.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
57. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
58. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient
construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings.
59. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by
the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans,
specifications and applicable regulations.
60. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City.
Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD
or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed
conditions.
Page 11 of 17 t
COA PC' SDP654 Spanos - 35 `x `M
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
MAINTENANCE
61. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all
on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The
applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released
from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
62. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makers application for plan checking and permits.
63. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the development
fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Building permits
issued prior to August 16, 1999 will be subject to the Infrastructure Fee
Program. Beginning August 16, 1999, permits will be subject to the
Development Impact Fee program.
64. Within 24 hours after review by the City Council, the property owner/developer
shall submit to the Community Development Department two checks made out
to the County of Riverside in the amount of $78.00 and $1,250.00 to permit the
filing and posting of the Notice of Determination for EA 99-385.
65. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall pay school mitigation fees
to the Desert Sands Unified School District based on the State imposed fee in
effect at that time. The school facilities' fee shall be established by Resolution
(i.e., State of California School Facilities Financing Act).
66. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the applicant shall pay the
required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $100 per acre
of disturbed land.
LANDSCAPING AND PERIMETER FENCING
67. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect, and approved by the Community Development Department pursuant
-to Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code. Prior to submission of the plans to the
COA PC SDP654 Spanos - 35 Page 12 of 17
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27,, 1999
City, the developer shall obtain approval by the Coachella Valley Water District
and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. The plans are not approved
for construction until they have been approved and signed by each approval
agency.
68. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated
to provide visual screening of aboveground utility structures.
69. Once the trees have been delivered to the site for installation, a field inspection
by the Community Development Department is required before planting to insure
they meet minimum size and caliper requirements noted in approved plans. All
trees shall be double staked or guyed to prevent damage from seasonal winds.
70. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit for the first building,
perimeter project walls shall be constructed.
71 . Landscaping planter island medians, measuring 10 feet wide by 30 feet long,
shall be added to the loop driveway at the northeast and southeast corners of the
site without impacting required fire lane access.
72. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn
or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
73. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline
Transit and/or the City. Improvements shall include a bus turnout location and
passenger waiting shelter along Adams Street.
FIRE MARSHAL
The Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and/or Riverside County Fire Department
protection standards:
74. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1,750 g.p.m.
for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
COA PC SDP654 Spanos - 35 Page 13 of 17 a
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
75. The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from
the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the
existing water system is capable of delivering 1,750 g.p.m. fire flow for a 3 hour
duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does
not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide written
certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them.
76. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"
x 4" x 2' /2" x 2' /z") 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.
77. 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.
78. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one
blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review.
Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the
system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a
registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following
certification: 'V certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department".
79. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and
operational prior to the start of construction.
80. All buildings shall be accessible by an approved all-weather roadway extending
to within 150' of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story. Several
buildings shown near the "Putting Course" will require adjustments to meet
standards. Revised plans are required for review and approval by the Fire
Department.
81. Install a complete fire sprinkler system for all structures over 5,000 square feet.
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.
Page 14 of 17
COA PC' SDP654 Spanos - 35
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
82. 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.
83. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to
the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with
appropriate lane painting and/or signs.
84. The minimum dimensions for fire apparatus access roads entering and exiting this
project shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet in each
direction and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches.
Parking is permitted on one side of roadways with a minimum width of 28 feet.
Parking is permitted on both sides of roadways with a minimum width of 36 feet.
85. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than
2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement
of equipment.
86. 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.
87. Gate openings shall be not less than 16 feet in width. All gates shall be located
at least 40' feet from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop
without obstructing traffic on the road. Gates shall have either a secondary
power supply or an approved manual means to release mechanical control of the
gate in the event of loss of primary power.
Nan -Residential Buildings
88. 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.
89. If the building/facility is protected with a fire alarm system or burglar alarm
system, the lock boxes will require "tamper" monitoring.
Page 15 of 17
COA PC SDP654 Spanos - 35
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
90. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within twelve (12) months.
91. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan
check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are
submitted.
LIGHTING
92. Lighting plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department
Director prior to issuance of building permits. Interior security lighting for carport
structures (i.e., recessed flourescent tubes) shall be mounted to the underside of
the roof.
MISCELLANEOUS
93. All agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents
for plan checking purposes.
94. A centralized mailbox delivery system shall be used for the project pursuant to
any requirements of the U.S. Postal Service.
95. Prior to building permit issuance, trash and recycling areas for the project shall
be approved by the Community Development Department pursuant to Section
9.60.220 of the Zoning Ordinance. The plan will be reviewed for acceptability
by applicable trash company prior to review by the Community Development
Department.
96. Permanent identification signs for the development shall be lit by an indirect
source as required by Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Ordinance. Temporary
and permanent signs for the development shall be approved by the City prior to
installation.
97. Garage parking spaces shall measure minimum 10-feet wide by 20-feet deep
inside clear dimension pursuant to Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Ordinance.
98. Oversized vehicles, recreational vehicles and trailers shall be prohibited in open
or carport spaces. Parking restrictions shall be enforced by the property owner
and/or manager.
99. The developer shall comply with any provisions outlined in Environmental
Assessment 99-385.
COA PC SDP6.54 Spanos - 35 Page 16 of 17, ` '
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Permit 99-654
July 27, 1999
100. Vertical support poles for carport structures shall be mounted within the
first 6' of the front of the stall (including overhang) pursuant to Section
9.150.080 (135) of the Zoning Code.
Page 17 of 17
COA PC SDP6.54 Spanos - 35 ►� ,.
ATTACHMENTS
�
,j51
Attachment 1
w .,�. :.::�,°� ate, .. •.: ;., •:, �M..;� �; - ..
.. - -,� � : ;� �_ � ;� �,� • .• _fir
< �' .a -.•K
� +�.+ �, �; ,'.. s '\��:"',•2`.� ^'fir s'�i. a_ � '
Wy
� /•y.C• �.� �.� •..-- "y`y•�. .�• �`,'• : i•.,. ter}
I•• ••n ' ". • `""••. •,"p�A'.p.'s•,F{� . _ t_ ,ff `i��a:s,'#i` a. y"Y...s.�•
• �. ::.�<• ,, ;' - j-���.._::m��_� �F�, .fir Hwy. 111
7
,A �! \. ` a •-� , ''Ll�'i!rgEay;.y_ fit.
•.•.'_ !!'••+•):•s w='�,..' ..F.•- , ',A,.•
Or
•ty Hwy �;. •� ; t;,•5 ;:
x' 'n ... •".'*'� r •: ems• • �,{„ ::., :. r:'�L. . i!be�z �:`, • ^'„fib,• � .
17
SITE,'..
�L y'/,`y!"' t a••1 �••.- `.,t2: �.', •�%.0 :.<• ;%r. _, •z�'•.a �•'.._f auJJ�
- +• =!'�'l a' 1.�, •. l� � �•` 7• .�: ri�:•r. t:i-r •'y�):_Z�A•,�t,'•,'• '• .• � "�_•:!(( �, �•r
�'�/.� 1 r� r f ' :' f i+•• • . _ •- . v-eirw •x+, 'L.-'1''ifs f'.%
' � -'�• AvenueA Q.:.:.:,:,:��--:'� •. •,�` '"�;.
r�'• : M O3f �•-
�,�,, r %G^Si':iY� ^ • � .; • p ,`eke o �„'.�,'
- wi r ..1 �r1r-'�ti'v��,.� ° ; i-. : '1 ' 1 a' '.--•-'�`1 ' f • ' .';•� x�`' 8�.!�., � �7
• s ,� i Sit; ? is Yn- �j�M s'rsTs!/?x•'
;i."•-. n ", .�x C'f `.. u'z' �w. .. `b.t':
'�..,. r: }yiq'is.'_ _: �Y.-tL �,.4,.Y
y
17
Wit•:,': ,; 'WON kE,'•='ft:..e,
,,J,r
Attachment 2
J ('
PH #C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 27, 1999
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 94-026, TIME EXTENSION #1
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: TRAVERTINE CORPORATION (MR. JAMES E. LENNON,
PRESIDENT)
REPRE-
SENTATIVES: THE KEITH COMPANIES AND WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, LLC
LOCATION: TO THE SOUTH OF 60TH AVENUE, NORTH OF 64T" AVENUE AND
WEST OF MADISON STREET
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN TIME EXTENSION OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR A
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY OF 2,300 DWELLING UNITS, A
500-ROOM HOTEL AND OTHER COMMERCIAL USES ORIENTED
AROUND TWO 18 HOLE GOLF COURSES ON APPROXIMATELY
909.2 ACRES.
GENERAL
PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR), TOURIST COMMERCIAL (TC),
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) AND GOLF COURSE OPEN
SPACE (G)
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RE 1-2), MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (RR 1-5), MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(VR 1-2), RESORT/HOTEL (R/H), COMMERCIAL (C), GOLF
COURSE (GC), TENNIS CLUB (TC) AND MAINTENANCE (M)
STPCS]?26-35/RESOSP26-35
CONDSP26-35 1
BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 1995, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report and
approved design guidelines and development standards for the Travertine Specific Plan
(SP 94-026), a master planned development of 2,300 housing units, a 500-room hotel
and commercial uses oriented around two 18-hole golf courses on approximately
909.2 acres generally bounded on the north by 60" Avenue, 64" Avenue on the
south, and Madison Street on the east (see Attachments 1 and 2). Condition #7 of
Resolution 95-39 requires a review of the Specific Plan by the Planning Commission
on or before June 6, 1999.
The Travertine project is located approximately one mile south of The Quarry and PGA
West. The extension of Jefferson Street south of PGA West shares primary internal
access to the community and connects Madison Street, the location of the
development's future primary commercial activities. A tennis club, situated on 3.7
acres, will be located at the southeast corner of the project, and will serve residents
and visitors.
Time Extension Request
On April 9, 1999, the applicant submitted a request for an extension of time and
review of the Specific Plan (see Attachment 3). Various exhibits and tables within the
Travertine Specific Plan have also been updated and/or revised to integrate the
Conditions of Approval and EIR mitigation measures by showing an environmental
buffer, removing the time limitation, and clarifying the timing for construction of
Madison Street and Jefferson Street.
Public: Notice - The time extension (periodic review) request was advertised in the
Desert Sun newspaper on July 12, 1999. All property owners within 500-feet of the
site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. Any comments received will be
handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency Comments - Public agencies and City departments were sent a copy of
the request on April 13, 1999, requesting comments by May 5, 1999. All written
correspondence is on file with the Community Development Department. All
applicable comments have been incorporated into Conditions of Approval for this case.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in the
attached Resolution.
STPCS:P26-35/RESOSP26-35
CONDS:P26-35 2 iJ
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-_, approving an extension of time for
Specific Plan 94-026, subject to the recommended Conditions.
Attachments:
1 . Location Map Exhibit
2. SP 94-026 Land Use Exhibit
3. Letter from Mr. James S. Lennon dated April 9, 1999
4. Specific Plan Document dated July 20, 1999
Prepared -by: Submitted by:
i
re6 'T Edell, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
STPCSP26-35/RESOSP26-35
CONDSP26-35 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME
EXTENSION OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY OF 2,300 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, A 500
ROOM HOTEL, AND OTHER COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
ORIENTED AROUND GOLF COURSE FAIRWAYS ON
APPROXIMATELY 909 + ACRES (SPECIFIC PLAN 94-026)
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 60 AND
NORTH OF AVENUE 64 AND WEST OF MADISON STREET
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 94-026, TIME EXTENSION #1
APPLICANT: TRAVERTINE CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 27th day of July, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for an extension
of time for design guidelines and development standards for a master planned
community of 2,300 housing units, a 500 room hotel, and other supplemental
commercial uses oriented around golf course fairways on approximately 909 + acres,
generally located between Avenues 60 and 64 and westerly of Madison Street, more
particularly described as:
Portion of the N'/2 and S %2 of Section 5, T7S, R7E, Sections 3 and
4, T7S, R7E and N%2 and S% of Section 33, T6S, R7E S.B.B.M.
(APN: 753-040-009, -023, 753-050-007, -008, -013, -014, -017,
-019, -024, -025, -028, -029, 753-060-004, 753-070-003, -005,
-010, -01 1, 753-080-001, -003, 753-130-001, -003, -005, -007,
-009, 753-120-023, 761-030-001, 761-040-003, 761 -110-01 1,
761-120-001, -009, -013, -015, -025, 761-130-001, -017)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 6" day of June, 1995, approve Specific Plan 94-026 and certify its accompanying
EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 94112047) permitting design guidelines and development
standards for development of a mixed use development on approximately 909 acres
by adoption of Resolution 95-39.
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 an extension of time for SP 94-
026:
1 . Mitigation measures have been required for the project to reduce environmental
impacts associated with development of this project.
r � �
RESOP(:SP26Traver - 35
'J
Planning Commission Resolution 99-—
Specific Plan 94-026 (Extension #1)
Travertine Corp.
July 27, 1999
2. Specific plan project implementation will ultimately create new jobs for facilities
construction, future development construction, the provision of public services
for a larger population base, and to staff new business and operations
associated with the SP 94-026.
3. Improvements to local roadways will occur that will increase efficiency and local
access.
4. Implementation of the project will indirectly result in the elimination of the
negative impacts associated with vacant property in favor of a quality housing
and commercial development.
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; and
2. That it does hereby approve an extension of time for SP 94-026 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached revised conditions for
Specific Plan 94-026.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this 27' day of July, 1999, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPCSP26Traver - 35 ` r--
Planning Commission Resolution 99-—
Specific Plan 94-026 (Extension #1)
Travertine Corp.
July 27, 1999
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC'SP26,rraver - 35
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 94-026 (TIME EXTENSION #1), TRAVERTINE
J U LY 27, 1999
GENERAL
1. The development shall comply with Exhibit "A" of Specific Plan 94-026 (Time
Extension #1) and those exhibits contained in the Final EIR and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan. The developer shall update the plan after review approval by the
Planning Commission and submit seven (7) copies of the final Specific Plan
document to the Community Development Department by August 27, 1999.
ENVIRONMENTAL
2. The mitigation measures contained in the Technical Appendix shall be incorporated
into the various Chapters of the Specific Plan document.
TEXT AMENDMENT CHANGES
The Specific Plan document shall be revised as follows:
3. Page III-2: Add to the end of the fourth paragraph the following: "provided approval
is granted by the Planning Commission and City Council during review of the future
subdivision map applications."
4. Page 111-7: Add Estate Homes Development Standard #15, "All houses planned for
this District shall be subject to review by the Community Development Director and
meet the requirements of Section 9.60.340 (Custom Home Design Guidelines) of
the Zoning Ordinance."
5. Page III-9: Add Resort Homes Development Standard #15, "Any residential
development proposal shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission
pursuant to Sections 9.210.010 (Site Development Permit) and 9.60.330
(Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance."
6. Page III-9: Villas Permitted Uses, Revise Item #5 as follows: Churches, educational
institutions, public libraries, museums and art galleries not operated for
compensation shall only be allowed in VR-1 Planning Areas, subject to approval by
the Planning Commission."
7. Page I11-11: Add Villas Development Standard #15, "Any residential development
proposal shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission pursuant to
Sections 9.210.010 (Site Development Permit) and 9.60.330 (Residential Tract
Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance."
RIGREGICOASP94.0261wpd - 35
Page 1 of 12
Conditions of Approval
Specific; Plan 94-026 (Ext. #1) - Travertine
July 27., 1999
8. Page III-11: Add the following new section to the bottom of this page: "Resort/Hotel
- The permitted uses and development standards of this planning area shall
conform to the requirements of the Tourist Commercial District pursuant to Section
9.70.070 of the Zoning Ordinance."
9. Page III-12: Commercial Permitted Uses/Development Standards, Replace as
follows: "The permitted uses and development standards of the Neighborhood
Commercial District of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 9.70.060) shall be used to
review projects in this planning area."
10. Page III-15: Add the following provision before the Design Guidelines Section:
"Maintenance - A Conditional Use Permit application shall be required for any golf
course maintenance facility proposed in a "MN" Planning Area."
11. Page III-15: Add the following provision after the above -mentioned section: "Tennis
Club - A Site Development Permit application is required for recreational uses
planned for the "TC" Planning Area. Tennis and other game courts shall comply
with the design requirements of Section 9.60.150 of the Zoning Ordinance. Court
lighting may be permitted. Other uses planned shall comply with any requirement
addressed in the La Quinta Zoning Ordinance (i.e., swimming pools, etc.)."
12. Page III-17: Add to Condition #70 the following: "The conceptual landscape plan for
public parkway areas shall be approved by the Planning Commission during review
of a Site Development Permit and/or a subdivision map application for the
applicable area. Seventy -percent (70%) of the trees planted in the parkway shall
be specimen trees having a minimum caliper size of 1.5- to 2.5-inches. Specimen
trees shall be a minimum of 10 feet tall measured from the top of the container."
13. Page 111-17: Modify the second sentence of Condition #72 to state: "Use of lawn
shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18-inches of curbs along
public and private streets."
14. Page 111-18: Add at the end of Condition #79: "Conceptual front yard landscaping
plans shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission during
consideration of any Site Development Plan application for approval of prototype
house plans."
15. Page V-6: E. Amendments, Add the following: "This specific plan shall be subject
to the requirements of Section 9.240.010 (Specific Plan Review) of the Zoning
Ordinance."
P-MEMCOASP94-0261wpd - 35 Page 2 of 12
Conditions of Approval
Specific Plan 94-026 (Ext. #1) - Travertine
July 27„ 1999
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
16. All easements, rights -of -way and other property rights necessary to facilitate the
ultimate use of the subdivision 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 required improvements which are located on
privately -held lots or parcels.
17. 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 to those properties alternate rights -of -way or
access easements on alignments approved by the City Council.
18. The applicant shall dedicate public 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.
Dedication required of this development include:
A. Jefferson Street (includes former segment of 62"d Avenue west of Madison
Street) - Provide right of way from Travertine Specific Plan area for a Primary
Arterial as required by Specific Plan alignment plans resulting from Jefferson
Street Realignment Study.
B. Madison Street: North of 62"d Avenue - Primary Arterial - half of 110-foot
right of way for all Travertine Specific Plan frontage.
South of 62"d Avenue - Half of 88-foot right of way for Secondary Arterial to
south property line of maintenance facility. At the north end of the segment,
the applicant shall dedicate right of way as required by the City Engineer to
match centerline alignment of Madison Street where it crosses 62"d Avenue.
This portion of the dedication is subject to partial reimbursement by the City.
Adjacent to the proposed maintenance facility, the applicant shall dedicate
full width right of way.
South of proposed facility - Local Street - half of 60-foot right of way.
Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, etc.
NGREGIC0ASP94-026X.wpd - 35 Page 3 of 12
Conditions of Approval
Specific; Plan 94-026 (Ext. #1) - Travertine
July 27„ 1999
The applicant shall dedicate street rights -of -way prior to required approvals of any
proposed subdivision or improvements to land within the specific plan boundaries.
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, then developer shall grant temporary public access
easements to those areas within 60-days of written request by the City.
19. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot wide public utility easements contiguous with
and along both sides of all private streets.
20. The applicant shall create setback lots, of widths noted, adjacent to the following
public street rights -of -way:
Jefferson Street - 20 feet
Madison Street - 20 feet
62"d Avenue - 20 feet
Widths may be used as average widths for meandering wall designs.
If interior streets are private, the dedication shall be to a homeowner's association.
If interior streets are public, the dedication shall be to the City.
Where sidewalks, bike paths, and/or equestrian trails are required, the applicant
shall dedicate blanket easements over the setback lots for those purposes.
21. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Jefferson Street, Madison Street
and 62"d Avenue from lots abutting the streets. Access to these streets shall be
restricted to that shown on the "Circulation" diagram in the specific plan.
22. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, park lands, drainage basins, common areas, and mailbox
clusters.
23. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion
of this property between the date of approval of this specific plan 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.
24. 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.
11:IGREGICOASP94-026X.wpd - 35 Page 4 of 12 J ��
Conditions of Approval
Specific; Plan 94-026 (Ext. #1) - Travertine
July 27„ 1999
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.
Grading plans adjacent to General Plan designated open space areas shall comply
with the requirements of Sections 9.110.070 (Hillside Conservation Overlay District)
and 9.140.040 (Hillside Conservation Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance.
25. 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 for the tentative tract map, parcel map, or approved phase of
development prior to approval of the map or phase or issuance of a Certificate of
Compliance in -lieu of a final map.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing
structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
26. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of the
improvement costs. The estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs
adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not contained in the City's
schedule of costs, 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.
27. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative
approvals (plot plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements (i.e.,
streets) and development -wide improvements (i.e., perimeter walls, common area
and setback landscaping, and gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to
approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the engineer.
28. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for
applicant's required share of future improvements to be constructed by others
(deferred improvements).
Deferred improvements for this development include:
A. Traffic signal at 62"d Avenue and Madison Street - 50% cost participation.
The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the deferred 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.
PAGREGIC0ASP94-026X.wpd - 35 Page 5 of 12
alil
Conditions of Approval
Specific. Plan 94-026 (Ext. #1) - Travertine
July 27, 1999
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
29. 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 and
Drainage", and "Landscaping". All plans shall have signature blocks for the City
Engineer and are not approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths,
gates and entryways, parking lots, and water and sewer plans. Combined plans
including water and sewer improvements shall have an additional signature block
for the CVWD. The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their
submittal for the City Engineer's signature.
"Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscaping improvements, irrigation,
lighting, and perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above, shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
30. The City may maintain digitized standard plans for elements of construction. For
a fee established by City resolution, the developer may acquire the standard plan
computer files or standard plan sheets prepared by the City.
When final plans are approved by the City, the developer shall furnish accurate
computer files of the complete, approved plans on storage media and in program
format acceptable to the City Engineer.
GRADING
31. Graded but 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.
32. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance.
33. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation
shall be conducted. The report of the investigation ("the soils report") shall be
submitted with the grading plan.
34. 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.
P 1GREGIC0ASP94.0=wpd - 35 Page 6 of 12
1 i_
Conditions of Approval
Specific; Plan 94-026 (Ext. #1) - Travertine
July 27„ 1999
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.
35. 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 6.10, La Quinta Municipal Code. 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.
36. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate
document bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer,
geotechnical engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The
document shall, for each building pad in the development, state the pad elevation
approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the
difference, if any. The data shall be organized by development phase and lot
number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
37. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall
be retained on site (rather than detained and released as proposed in the specific
plan document). The tributary drainage area for which the developed is responsible
shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets.
38. 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
2.5 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is determined by
the City Engineer to be impracticable.
39. If individual lot retention is approved, the following conditions shall apply:
A. Each private lot proposed for on -site retention shall be designed to receive
and safely convey stormwater in excess of retention capacity, including
inflow from adjacent properties. Front yards shall drain to the street unless
constrained by the overall lay of the land. Basin capacity calculations and
grading plans for each lot shall consider previously -approved grading plans
for adjacent properties and shall be submitted, with copies of the previously
approved adjacent lot plans, to the City Engineer for plan checking and
approval.
B. Prior to or concurrently with recordation of the final subdivision map, a
homeowners' association or lot owner's association (HOA) shall be legally
P:IGREGICOASP94-026X.wpd - 35 Page 7 of 12
Conditions of Approval
Specific; Plan 94-026 (Ext. #1) - Travertine
July 27, 1999
established and Covenants, Conditions and Restriction (CC & Rs) recorded.
The CC & Rs shall stipulate the requirement for design, construction and
maintenance of individual on lot basins and the required retention capacity
for each individual lot. The CC & Rs shall grant the HOA irrevocable rights
to enter and maintain each individual retention basin and all other grading
and facilities necessary for the stormwater retention design.
The CC & Rs shall establish, in an irrevocable manner that:
1. The HOA has responsibility for the overall retention capacity of the
development;
2. If the HOA fails to maintain the overall retention capacity, the City
shall have the right to seek other remedies to restore and/or maintain
the overall capacity or to establish or expand downstream facilities to
mitigate the off -site effects of the HOA's failure to maintain the overall
capacity; and;
3. The HOA shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all costs
incurred in exercising such right.
C. The final subdivision map shall establish a perpetual easement granting the
City the right to enter and maintain retention basins and other drainage
facilities and grading as necessary to preserve or restore the approved
stormwater conveyance and retention design with no compensation to any
property owner of the HOA.
40. In design of retention facilities, the basin percolation rate shall be considered to be
zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise.
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 except if incorporated
into the golfing elements of the development.
41. All nuisance water shall be retained on -site. A trickling sand filter and leachfield
approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to dispose and percolate nuisance
water.
42. No fence or wall shall be constructed around retention basins except as approved
by the Community Development Director and City Engineer.
43. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
NGREGI1j'OASP64-026X.wpd - 35 Page 8 of 12 L
Conditions of Approval
Specific; Plan 94-026 (Ext. #1) - Travertine
July 27„ 1999
44. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention
capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow outlet and
into the historic drainage relief route.
45. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
46. If any portion of the 100-year, 24-hour storm flow from this development is to be
conveyed directly or indirectly to the Whitewater Storm Evacuation Channel or the
La Quinta Evacuation Channel or will otherwise drain to water bodies subject to the
NPDES, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage,
oil/water separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to
minimize the potential for conveyance of stormwater contamination to off -site
locations. Drainage to off -site locations an methods of treatment or screening shall
meet the approval of the City Engineer and CVWD.
UTILITIES
47. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development
shall be underground. Power lines with voltage higher than 35 kv are exempt from
this requirement.
48. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities
shall be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant
shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the
City Engineer.
STREETS AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
49. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of environmental studies or reports
required in the realignment and/or construction of Jefferson Street south of 58th
Avenue and 62nd Avenue west of Madison Street. The applicant may seek
reimbursement for portions of the cost of said reports from other benefitting
properties through any assessment districts which may be formed for improvement
of Jefferson Street or through entering a reimbursement agreement with the City in
accordance with the City's reimbursement policy.
50. 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.
P 1GREGIC0ASP94.026X.wpd - 35 Page 9 of 12
Conditions of Approval
Specific: Plan 94-026 (Ext. #1) - Travertine
July 27, 1999
If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the
applicant shall design and construct street improvements as listed below.
51. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be
prepared by a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard
and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City
Engineer.
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 City Engineer.
Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure 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"
If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section which will be
subjected to traffic loadings, the partial section shall be designed with a strength
equivalent to the 20-year design strength.
52. 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 City
Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
53. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond subdivision
boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width
transitions, or other incidental work which will insure that newly constructed
improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the
City's standards and practices.
54. All streets proposed for residential or other access drives 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.
NGREG100ASP94-02GX.wpd - 35 Page 10 of 12 i s
Conditions of Approval
Specific: Plan 94-026 (Ext. #1) - Travertine
July 27, 1999
55. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to locations shown
on the "Circulation" diagram of the specific plan.
56. Prior to occupancy of completed buildings within the development, the applicant shall
install traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those
buildings.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
57. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
58. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents
provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish
and sign accurate record drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved
plans, specifications and applicable codes.
59. 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.
MAINTENANCE
60. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of landscaping and
related improvements in landscaped setbacks, retention basins and other public or
common areas until those areas have been accepted for maintenance by a
homeowner's association (developments with private and/or gated interior streets)
or the City's Landscape and Lighting District (developments without private or gated
interior streets). The applicant shall maintain all other improvements until final
acceptance, by the City Council, of all improvements within each map or phase.
61. The applicant shall provide an Executive Summary Maintenance Booklet for streets,
landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any
other improvements to be maintained by an HOA. The booklet should include
drawings of the facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency, and
a costing algorithm with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for
routine and long term maintenance.
P:IGREGICOASP94-026X.wpd - 35 Page 11 of 12
Conditions of Approval
Specific; Plan 94-026 (Ext. #1) - Travertine
July 27, 1999
FEES AND DEPOSITS
62. 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 the plan checks and permits.
63. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification
of boundaries of the property subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process
a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay all
costs of the reapportionment.
P:IGREG1C0ASP94-026X.wpd - 35 Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENTS
Is Keith CompenieelNEMC
Attachment 1
INDIAN
RIDGE
co
z
0
c�
z
z
0
LA QUINTA
HOTEL. LL
u-
w
PGA
WEST
LAKE CAHUILLA Q
THE
QUARRY
HIGHWAY 11
52nd AVE.
z
0
0
Site
54th AVE.
56th AVE.
56th AVE.
60th AVE.
62nd AVE.
..ter
iM t
`N 0 T T 0 S C A L EDEVELOPMENT
a Quinta, California
CZ
Cu
�C=
�0
F
Attachment 2
4 A
Lo
w w w W M w W M W M M W W W W W W W
TRAVERTINE CORPORATION"'
54234 Shoal Creek
La Quinta, CA 92253
Phone 760-771-9011
Pax 760-771-5737
April 6, 1999
Mr. Jerry Herman
Planning Director
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Res: Specific Plan 94-026 and EIR
Dear Mr. Herman:
Attachment 3
L M 9 1,999
CITY C'r LJ�QUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT i
The Travertine Corporation requests a two-year extension to June 6,
200f, of the Specific Plan and EIR which was passed, approved and
adopted by the La Quinta City Council on June 6, 1995.
Our efforts to proceed within the allowed time have been delayed.
Following a 30 month effort by the City of La Quinta and Travertine
Corporation, construction of Jefferson Street was stopped when the
federal government denied crossing over the five acres of section
32. This action by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife hampered progress by causing concern that the federal
government would stop at nothing to curtail the development of
Travertine. That concern has since been dispelled. The federal
government has no jurisdiction and can only stop development on land
owned by the federal government.
As you know, over the past ten months, we have had numerous meetings
with you, your staff and other City departments in preparation of
the start of construction. Hopefully, construction will start in
the next 12 months. We are encouraged the Travertine development
will be of high quality and a showcase of the City of La Quinta.
Your attention to this request is greatly appreciated.
Since -rely,
i
L
Ja s E. Lennon
President
Enclosure
CC: Steve Delateur, Esq.
Mike Rowe
GURALNICK cog ns
& G I L L I L A N D Dice1981
Member of
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Cm aaCACM
notice to Homeowners 8 Residents
Attention All Homeowners & Residents:
Some of your neighbors are concerned about the constriction of their homes.
If you are Interested In attending an informative meeting with your neighbors
and local Palm Desert attorneys who specialize In construction defect issues
with a proven track record of success, please reserve Saturday, August 14.
Representatives from the law firm of Guralnick & Gilliland will attend the meet
Ing and answer your legal questions. In addition, licensed construction experts
(architects and engineers) will be in attendance at the meeting to discuss the
nature and scope of constriction defects that typically plague tract homes.
Get answers to the following questions:
1) What is a construction deflect?
2) How does a construction defect differ from a maintenance Item?
3) How should I get the builder to respond to my complaints?
4) What legal rights do I have as a homeowner when faced with
construction defects?
Date: August 14, 1999
Time: 10:00 a.m. -12:30 p . n.
Place: Palm Desert Country Club (Association Room)
77-800 California Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Should you have any questions concerning the meeting, please contact
DJ Conlon or Terri Nichols at (760) 340-1515 for more information.
Don't Miss This Important Meeting!!!
THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE - Thursday, July 9, 1998 - B-3
Homeowners settle
lawsuit for $276,000
The Lincoln View group now
has received nearly $1.3 million
for repairs of alleged faulty
constimction
By Susan Thurston
The Press -Enterprise
VALLE VISTA
The Lincoln View homeowners Associa-
tion has received $276,000 to settle a com-
plicated lawsuit it filed against about 20 sub-
contractors alleging faulty construction of
townhouses.
The money is in addition to the $1 million
settlement reached in January with the
developer's insurance company.
Robert J. Gil[liland Jr., the association's lead
attorney, said the subcontractors' settlement
reached last month ends the lawsuit first
filed in March 1996 against now -defunct
Lincoln View Associates and Sharp
Construction.
"Now (the association) can start recon-
struction work. That is wonderful news for
them, he; said.
Major repairs could begin in about three
months, after the association board decides
what work should be done and interviews
construction companies, Gilliland said.
Richard Lanford, president of the board,
said work on curbs, sidewalks and garage
doors started about two weeks ago. He pre-
dicts properly values will jump 20 percent
by Jan. 1.
The lawsuit alleged defects in the roofs,
floors, walls, ceilings, balconies, patios,
walkways, sliding glass doors, windows,
cabinets, gates and fences. It also cited prob-
lems with the drainage, landscaping and
pavement, and electrical, ventilation and
heating systems.
Ted M. Lee, one of more than a dozen
attorneys who represented the subcontrac-
tors, said his client, Ley Heating & Air
Conditioning of San Jacinto, settled to avoid
future damages.
"We have always taken the position that
he did nothing wrong. It was not based on
liability or exposure but on a business deci-
sion," Lee said.
The lawsuit covered 5F units built in
1989, 37 units built in 1992 and areas used
by all residents of the complex east of
Hemet. It did not include the first 73 units.
Because the case involved so many defen-
dants, a judge was appointed to sort through
the facts and manage mediation efforts. All
of the subcontractors settled before the June
1 court date in Riverside Superior Court in
Indio.
TZ 0 Atom Mitt
Sunday, May 3, 1998
Irate residents target developer
Indio: California Palms
II homeowners say
their complaints not
addressed.
By ELIZABETH WILBERG
The Desert Sun
INDIO — It was a costly and
tiresome game they played.
Homeowners, finding fault
with their brand-new homes,
would call the developer seek-
ing repairs. But servicemen sel-
dom would. surface, they said,
and the homeowners would end
up fixing it themselves.
Fed up with what they said
were chronic breakdowns and
lack of response from the devel-
oper, the residents of California
Palms II got serious.
They got a lawyer.
The decision came after two
years of faxes and calls to devel-
oper Kaufman and Broad and
lobbying City Hall to intervene.
More than 30 residents
appeared at the April 1 City
Council meeting, in solidarity
with those who implored the
council to join forces and bar
Kaufman and Broad from future
developments in the city.
"We have an attorney now,
and we're trying to get more
people signed up," said John
Gentry, the resident who has
acted as representative for many
residents. Gentry's 60-signature
petition listed each home-
owner's complaints and was
submitted to city staff for
review.
"I'm pretty sure we're going
to get 90 to 95 percent of the
residents into this," he said.
Homeowners shared similar
complaints: leaking roofs, bend-
ing walls, air -conditioner break-
down and debris (concrete, nails
and wire) found buried in the
yard.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Craig Pottenger, a representative
from Kaufman and Broad, has
said homeowner complaints had
been addressed promptly and
the company is eager to work
with city officials and residents
to solve the problems.
He said the developer had
shown its commitment last fall
by sending a representative to
tour the neighborhood with
council member Chris Silva.
Requests for service, he said,
would be happily accepted, but
the company hadn't received
any recently.
Under City Council order,
one of the problems Gentry
complained about is being recti-
fied. Gentry told the council that
private irrigation lines were
used to water the strips of city
land lining the streets; he said
city crews have been to the
neighborhood to address that
concern.
CITY ASSISTANCE: City
crews also helped residents carry
debris from their homes and
yards, said Ben Salazar, superin-
tendent of public works.
But the City Council is
unable to do more; further action
would endanger the city legally.
I've met with a majority of
the homeowners," said Robert
Gilliland Jr. "Many have
expressed an interest in retaining
me."
Gilliland said he plans to
continue meeting with home-
owners before moving forward.
The next step, he said, is contact-
ing Kaufman and Broad so they
may devise some kind of agree-
ment that would resolve the
homeowners' complaints.
"We had a construction
expert visit the site and verify the
reports mentioned in (a previous
story in The Desert Sun)," he
said. "... Clearly there are prob-
lems that need to be discussed."
ToMean bun THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1998
Variety Club in Legal Battle
Wall Woes: Joe Aliberti (left), chairman of the building committee, and attorney
Robert J. Gilliland Jr. show cracks in the stucco at the Variety Boys and Girls
Club building in Cathedral City.
INDIO — A leaky roof, cracks
in the stucco, doors that fall off
and other structural defects in
the 3-1/2-year-old Variety Boys
and Girlsr Club of the Desert
form the basis for a legal battle
weaving its way through the
Indio counts.
Attempts to settle the October
1997 lawsuit filed by Variety
against the O, .,ario-based Shook
Building Systems so far have
failed, and. the next step is the
court appointment of a "special
master" to help both sides try to
resolve the base, attorneys said.
SPECIAL MASTER: The
special master's role will be to
sort out all of the technicalities
of the case:, streamline the legal
process and serve as a mediator.
The case has become compli-
cated because Shook filed a
cross -complaint against numer-
ous subcontractors involved in
construction of the Variety
Club's childcare center and gym-
nasium.
In this lawsuit, the Variety
Club alleges numerous deficien-
cies in the design and construc-
tion of the building located on
Whispering Palms Trail in
Cathedral City. Construction
began in August 1993 and was
completed in November 1994 at
a cost of about $591,000.
The deficiencies alleged in the
lawsuit includes:
• Water leakage from roofs and
walls.
• Improperly installed walls,
ceilings, doors and frames.
• Inadequate heating, ventila-
tion and air-conditioning
systems.
• Malfunctioning electrical
equipment.
• Structural defects and slab
cracks.
"Doors are just falling off, and
the stucco cracks are the worst
I've ever seen," said attorney
Robert J. Gilliland Jr., who rep-
resents the Variety Club.
Gilliland said the lawsuit was
a last-ditch effort to resolve the
problems after negotiations with
Shook and its insurance compa-
ny produced unsatisfactory
results.
FULL STEAM AHEAD:
"We've given them every oppor-
tunity to resolve this, so we
finally decided to push full
steam head," he said.
Gilliland said temporary
repairs have been made so that
the building can be used until
permanent improvements are
completed.
Stewart Reid, Shook's attor-
ney in San Bernardino, said he
has little comment on the case,
mainly because an investigation
is in progress to determine what
work subcontractors did and
what their responsibilities were.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages, including the cost of
temporary repairs already made
as well as permanent repairs
needed to correct the structural
deficiencies.
u,
E
u
m
C '
00
'c
a
E
E
m
a
0
CD
uD
v
co
CD
.D
c
Go
d
c
0
d
r
d
m
m
m
a
d
U
L
6mo'5�
�a�
Y B �„ au�',3 o Y�.Q •9 �'D �,
°c�v uu N
u a•C .0 �A O
wOG P..Y, Os«O E'� 3 cF'cdJ'n
•t7 .. � 0� 7 0.5 J.aw 3
J.
y 0 d u O,o 0 7
Eu p 00E D o
�o Gu A
O a^C; u? cL• of
O'er E a .G i! �+ u � LL
-as u � a to
I pub!,I e.,
o tp o o
p a� s^
E a'a Y U•p u � 7= � Eu
0t u a�4atia�s@A
A
qu C� $ " `O" p� up
Y G rc3 6 u
«u O.9v vaAO 8 �•0 E
�y�Y IV -0 i ut.0
u—o� O •'u�' ee O
ca > P ..9.p
�SAmb'.oil
3Y
p v •qpw0q via oA p.5
puu p v Aaoz�o
��°m
�r' Q fb �4 oa uA E is
o ' E'fAF ^ep a �q 1pvy
�.�
p 8 p o N 4 V > O W
v ^ u o
.0 g 10 -a TOG u
3 y
N off° ea0
p �v+E•y _ a
N Vo O D 'l7 y A
V �7
^ V Y ^ V p0
�uC
rJ QF"JJ p
-
� � •� a � ��C7 u
w ^ -oil
U V °u DD
(d (�,� T 0 bO U
V
P.
N n O V V p
o
ri C•� E4
0^ cd ^0
`�
v Uo's � u,,"Gc7b a�
Q� > r r a 'C �
V) 0 oUw
u -00�u �
a9r°o�� 5sb.. a
�1 61 17 4j :Z 0. 0 W bqD" boo u
20 5 3 0 6c7 .5
O E•aU ygCA 0
101-
Q x 0 W.0
> 0.
W V p ha ��op au, r in
H .��NgAa�u0Y�
v� o of S �
E,5.5
pe Aegert bun
Wednesday, April 1, 1998
Residents Rattling developer in Indio
California Palms 11:
Neighborhood leaders
approach city for help.
Company says it's done
all it can do.
By EuzABETH WILBERG
The Desert Sun
INDIO — It looks like a perfect
place to grow -- modest -sized
and relatively inexpensive cook-
ie -cutter homes in a village of
young families where streets
named Daffodil and Begonia
intersect with Violet.
It's a neighborhood where
on a weekday., garage doors
hang at perpetual yawn and tod-
dler, dad and dog fly a kite in the
grassy basin near the develop-
ment's entry.
But curiously, alongside a
rose bush on Iris Street, a rusted
steel strap bursts through the
earth.
And according to residents
of California Palms H — a 3-
year-old development at Avenue
40 and Hjorth Street — nails,
twine and cement chunks have a
habit of unearthing themselves,
too.
LONG LIST: Then there's
the list of inside complaints: air
conditioner breakdowns, leak-
ing roofs, faulty window frames
and splitting support beams.
More than 60 residents have
signed a petition asking for city
backing in their crusade against
the developer, who they claim
has abandoned them in their col-
lapsing homes.
"I asked the city to make
(developer) Kaufman and Broad
make these repairs," said John
Gentry, who after two years of
complaints and calls to City
Hall made his battle a point of
public record when he blasted
the City Council at its March 18
meeting.
"The city has not made them
comply."
Yet, Kaufman and Broad
stands by its credo, "Where trust
is built."
A company spokesman who
had dealt with both Gentry and
city officials said complaints
were handled in a timely and
orderly manner.
"There's not one warranty
claim open right now," said
Craig Pottenger, vice president
of customer service for the
branch that covers Indio to
Bakersfield.
"Although most (homes) are
out of warranty now," he added,
"all they need to do is write us a
letter telling us what to do "
REPORT EXPE('fED:
The council ordered city devel-
opment staffers to look into the
complaints — including the
claim that private irrigation lines
are watering city property —
and report their findings today.
One of the complaining resi-
dents is Julie Madril. She said
her air conditioning has broken
three summers in a row, forcing
her from her 110-degree home
last summer to a neighbor's. And
her window frames keep popping
out, the closets are crooked and
nails are dropping from the wood
over her front porch, she said.
"I called at least four or five
times, but they never came out,"
Madril said.
Jeronimo Cota said he was
planting grass when he found
two -foot -deep pockets of rusty
nails buried a couple of inches
underground. He's kept the nails
in an over -sized coffee tin as a
souvenir.
"I had plumbers come out
three times and the toilet still
leaks. They replaced the front
porch beams — they used to be
all twisted," Cota said. He said
Kaufman and Broad said the
splits and twists were natural.
Kaufman and Broad main-
tains that underground debris left
by workers is not uncommon,
nor is wear and tear on a
home. A staff report submitted by
Indio's Interim Community
Development Director Keith
Scott and released to council
members Friday says the same
thing.
The report doesn't call for
action, but Mayor Mike Wilson,
along with the council members
who have visited the develop-
ment recently, express an interest
in getting involved.
But Gentry says city staffers
were slow to respond to his com-
plaints.
eiaSM,5nn SATURDAY, JUNE 27, 1998
'ennis lawsuit to get day in court
each of contract?
imeowners of Laguna De
Paz in La Quinta have
Red three years to make
;ir case.
'HRISTINE MAHR
Desert Sun
.ARSON JUSTICE CENTER —
trial of a lawsuit filed by home-
iers in a La Quints gated communi-
vhere tennis courts look like they
e been ravaged by an earthquake is
-duled to begin Monday.
"he lawsuit filed on behalf of the
una De La Paz. Homeowners
ociation. seeks damages for breach
contract and negligence against
initas-based Peter Pursley Tennis
irts. Inc.
3ecause the company reportedly is
krupt. the claim is being pursued
iugh its liability insurance. said
n Desert attorney Robert Gilliland.
is representing the homeowners.
i'he lawsuit was filed in 1994 alleg-
various deficiencies in the Laguna
La Paz development. where homes
in the $200.000 range and amenities
ude a 61/2-acre lake and nine tennis
rts.
3ut because of their condition. the
its courts are rarely used. said Don
trascio. president of the homeown-
association.
'None of them can be used for any
i of tournament play." he said.
'We're using one court for people
just want to ;play occasionally, but
have to be careful. so we don't
ourage them to use it." Guarascio
1.
ierious tennis players have joined
°r clubs. he said.
Court Case: Joe Vdanza, board member of the Laguna De La Paz homeowners association, examines one of sic dam
aged tennis courts which remain closed at the La Quinta community.
Concrete on the most seriously -
damaged courts has severely buckled.
forming huge cracks. bulges and
chunks of loose concrete.
The lawsuit alleges the damage is
due to faulty construction that did not
allow for the expansion of concrete in
hot weather.
"Heat causes concrete to expand.
but there's nowhere for it to go. so it
buckles. Gilliland said.
The concrete also should be thick-
er. he said.
The suit seeks damages to remove
and repair the tennis courts estimated
at about $500.000, Gilliland said.
Initially. the homeowners sued for
damages in conjunction with other
problems at the project. but the devel.
oper and subcontractors settled out o
court. Gilliland said.
But the tennis courts are the pro
jest's key amenity and they're the pri
mary proble* .. he said.
The Lag;..ta De La Paz development wa
built in phases, starting in 1984. and the ten
nis courts were a part of the first phase.
There were problems with the tennis
courts from the very beginning an(
they've gotten worse over time
Gilliland said.
San Diego attorney Peter Hughes
who represents the tennis courts com
party. could not be reached Friday.
THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE • Friday February 20, 1"g
Homeownerssettle suit for $1 million
414W ; Kp 11
By Susan Thurston
The Press-Enten7nse
VALLE VISTA
The Lincoln View Homeowners'
Association has received nearly $1
million to settle a lawsuit filed a-
gainst the developers alleging a vari-
ety of building defects, including
leaky roofs.
The settlement will allow the
association to make improvements to
the condominium complex in Valle
Vista and resolves the bulk of the
complicated legal battle.
"The good news is that every
one of the construction defects can be
improved," said Robert Gilliland Jr.,
the association's lead attorney.
The settlement reached Jan. 7
comes at an ideal time for residents
whose condos have been leaking due
to the wet winter associated with El
Nino. They hope the improvements
will increase property values, which
have dipped as a result of the contro-
versy and economic woes of recent
years, he said.
Mildred Lynn, president of the
association's five -member board of
directors, said she was relieved.
The association filed suit against
now -defunct Lincoln View Associates
and Sharp Construction in March
1996, alleging faulty construction.
William Sharp, owner of Sharp Con-
struction, died eight months later.
Mark Kelegian, an attorney hired
by the developer's insurance company,
said Thursday that Sharp, who lived in
the complex, world have been disap-
pointed by the settlement.
"To the man's dying day he swore
by that construction. Absolutely," said
Kelegian. "He took a lot of pride in
the construction of that project."
Jay Raaz 1 The Press -Enterprise
A roofer works on the clubhouse at the Lincoln View condominiums.
But settling the case was in the
best interest of all concerned and came
without any admission of liability, said
Kelegian of Newport Beach based
Kelegian & Thomas.
"These cases have gotten com-
pletely out of hand. They are incredi-
bly expensive to defend and very bur-
densome," he said.
Still pending are claims against
several subcontractors involved in the
project. The claims are scheduled for
trial May 1 in riverside Superior Court
in Indio. The association is seeking
additional damages of between
$150,000 and $300,000, said Gilliland
of Palm Desertbased Guralnick &
Gilliland.
In the lawsuit against the develop-
ers the association alleged defects in
the roofs, floors, walls, ceilings, balco-
nies, patios, walkways, sliding glass
doors, windows, cabinets, gates and
fences. It also cited problems with the
drainage, landscaping and pavement,
and electrical, ventilation and heating
systems.
Because the case involved so
many defendants, a judge was ap-
pointed last May to sort through the
facts and manage mediation efforts.
The lawsuit covered 56 units built
in 1989, 37 units built in 1992 and
areas used by all residents of the com-
plex. it did not include the first 73
units.
Gilliland said the association will
pay construction experts to inspect the
buildings and property to determine
which areas need immediate attention.
GURRLEICKf;GILLILRNO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Q60) 340-1515
T-wf 4 4a"
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, PLANNING MANAGER
DATE: JULY 27, 1999
RE: MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR JACK CLARK JR. (MDG
99-007)
The Zoning Code requires additional development standards for the Cove Residential
area called Master Design Guidelines. Design Guidelines are required for any
developer/applicant constructing five or more houses in the RC District. Therefore
when a developer wants to pull a permit for the fifth house, the guidelines must have
been reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission.
Jack Clark Jr. seeks building permit approval for his fifth plus house. He is
submitting Master Design Guidelines for Planning Commission review. The attached
Guidelines contain information as to how the developer/applicant intends to vary the
exterior of the unit which includes, but is not limited to, roof types, window and entry
treatment, stucco and paint colors, and roof the colors.
Applicant is proposing one floor plan with three separate design elevation options
including three separate roof plans. The design package includes three elevations and
three roof plans for the proposed floor plan, color palettes, and roof tile samples.
Staff determined the guidelines provide adequate deviations to the elevations such as
varied architectural designs, roof lines, and architectural details. In addition, upon
Planning Commission approval, staff will use the guidelines to evaluate each building
permit application from this developer for compliance with the approved guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission accept the Master Design
Guidelines (MDG 99-007) as presented.
C:\WPDdocs\MDG 99-007.wpd