1999 10 26 PCOF 1 �'
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
October 26, 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 99-074
Beginning Minute Motion 99-021
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 October 12, 1999
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item ..................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-044
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-655
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29288
Applicant..........
Mark & Dorothy Hastings - First School of the Desert
Location...........
Northeast corner of Adams Street and Miles Avenue
Request............
1. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration o:
Environmental Impact;
2. Approval of the Preschool use within the Low Densit}
Residential (RL) Zoning District;
3. Approval of development plans for a single story preschool
and
4. Approval to subdivide 4.22 acres into two parcels and on(
lettered lot.
Action ..............
Resolution 99-_, Resolution 99-�, Resolution 99-
Resolution 99-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of October 19,1999
IX. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AG:3NDA.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 12, 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 Kirk who asked Commissioner Robbins to lead the flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler,
and Chairman Tom Kirk. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff present: Jerry Herman, Community Development Director, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner 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 September 28,
1999. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Minutes be amended on Page 1 to note that
Vice Chairman Robbins opened the meeting and asked for the approval of the
Minutes. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to verify who seconded the motion to
adjourn. There being no further changes, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Robbins to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously
approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Specific Plan 99-067, Amendment #1; a request of Home Depot for a
recommendation of approval to amend the specific plan to allow 40 days of special
outdoor sales events per year at the northwest corner of Highway I I I and Jefferson
Street.
1. Chairman Kirk 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.
CAMyDocurnents\WPDOCS\PCIO-12-99.wpd I
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1999
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Tyler asked why this project was not restricted from using a public address
system like the Auto Mall. His concern was the use of music and the hours
of operation. Staff stated they would add a condition restricting the use of
public address systems.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to define "special devices". Staff stated it
was the use of laser lights. Commissioner Tyler asked if the permit would
require them to submit a site plan. Staff stated they would be required to
submit a site plan prior to each event.
4. Commissioner Butler stated he too had a concern about the use of laser lights
and similar technology in that the City was allowing a light that would
violate the City's Dark Sky Ordinance. Staff stated the Dark Sky Ordinance
was changed to allow search light use. Commissioner Butler asked if lasers
had been used before. Staff stated no, but the Auto Dealers were required to
use lasers instead of searchlights. Commissioner Butler asked if the laser
lights became offensive could they be restricted. Staff stated they could.
5. Commissioner Robbins stated he had no objection to the use of a music
during the daytime, but would not want them at night. Second, he questioned
the use of ten consecutive days and the use of Christmas tree lots.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Christmas tree
lots were covered under a different Code section.
6. Commissioner Abels stated he did not see any problem with the request and
supported the it.
7. Chairman Kirk asked how much land area would be involved. Staff stated
about three or four rows of the parking lot.
8. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any public comment. There being none,
he closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the issue
for Commission discussion.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
99-068 approving Specific Plan 99-027, Amendment # 1, subject to the
Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
C:\My 'i)ocurnents\WPDOCS\PC10-12-99.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 1999
B. Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment #5 and Site Development Permit 99-660; a
request of Century -Crowell Communities for a recommendation of approval to
increase the unit count, separate "the Seasons" from Specific Plan 83-001, add a new
grading/unit type along the south side of Calle Norte, allow a 10-foot rear setback,
and approval of development plans for two prototype residential condominium units
for construction in Tract 20158 located along the south side of Calle Norte, east of
Avenida Las Verdes, within Duna La Quinta.
Commissioners Abels and Butler excused themselves due to a possible
conflict of interest.
2. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Tyler asked which lots on the south side of Calle Norte would they be
allowed to construct the split level units. Staff noted they would all be split
level homes (Lots 1-26). Commissioner Tyler asked if the top level of the
home would be at the top of the berm. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Tyler
stated the previous homes were constructed in a way that allowed a view
between the homes.
4. Chairman Kirk stated the prior condition did not require the entire project to
be split level. Mr. Kent Armstrong, representing Century -Crowell
Communities stated they designed two different styles of split level units.
The units at the westend will be at grade and as you transition to the east
there is a nine foot differential. One or two units will have a two foot
retaining wall across from the pool area. The remainder of the units will have
a differential of zero to three feet.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked about the requirement for a perimeter wall on the
east side of the project where the City is required to build the wall as part of
the bridge construction. Staff noted this was a requirement of the City and
not the applicant.
6. Commissioner Tyler stated that Condition #9 of the Specific Plan needs to
specify the total count. Condition #5 of the Site Development Permit needs
to have the word "rear" added.
7. Commissioner Robbins asked if the west end of the street elevation was
relatively close to 50 feet. His concern is that the minimum pad elevation for
the garage should be at least one foot above the top of the curb. There are
CAM), Documents\WPDOCS\PC10-12-99.wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
September 2:3, 1999
eight steps going up with a minimum of 4-5 feet plus the other foot resulting
in at least six feet above the berm. This will raise the unit up higher than the
other units. Mr. Armstrong stated the elevations start at grade and transition
down.
8. Chairman Kirk asked staff to explain Condition #5 in regard to where it
would apply. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that it will occur as you
move increasingly to the east. The upper portion of the pad will have a four
foot differential between the patio and berm and to keep the slope at a 3:1
maximum, staff is requesting a retaining wall.
9. Chairman Kirk stated the lots appear to have more than a 15-foot setback.
Mr. Armstrong stated the lots on the east end will be the worst and they can
transition up.
10. Chairman Kirk asked if staff felt comfortable with the elevation variations
given the number of units and the linear nature of the road. Will this create
a repetitive look? Staff stated the Architecture and Landscaping Review
Committee had no objections.
11. Commission Tyler asked if all the lots will be required to have a 10 foot
setback. Staff stated yes.
12. Mr. Ken Armstrong questioned the condition requiring the retaining wall to
be constructed at the end of the slab. His complaint was that this would
restrict him from placing the retaining wall at the property line. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated there was no reason it couldn't be at the property
line. If it gets to be too much of a differential, they will be required to install
handraifs and the applicant does not want to do this, so it is in his best interest
to reach the differential required by the City.
13. Commissioner Robbins asked if the applicant could slope two feet and use
a two foot retaining wall at the property line. Staff would not have any
objection. Condition #5 would be amended to allow either application.
14. There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing
and opened the issue for Commission discussion.
15. Commissioner Robbins questioned Condition #3 of the Specific Plan and that
it be amended to require the applicant obtain CVWD approval for any
drainage prior to installation.
CAMy Docurnents\WPDOCS\PC10-12-99.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1999
16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
069 approving Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #5, subject to the Findings
and Conditions of Approval as amended.
a. Condition #3: CVWD approval shall be required for any drainage
into the Evacuation Channel.
b. Condition#9: The total unit count at buildout shall not exceed 184
residential units, with 40 units permitted on Lots 1 and 2 of Parcel
Map 19730.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES:
None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Abels and
Butler.
17. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 99-070 approving Site Development Permit 99-660,
subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended.
a. Condition #5: "....and with a 3:1 slope ratio or less, shall construct a
two foot high retaining wall/planter wall across the width of the patio
slab at the rear or at the edge of the slab."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES:
None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Abels and
Butler.
Commissioners Abels and Butler rejoined the Commission.
C. Environmental Assessment 98-388 Specific Plan 99-038 and Site Development
Permit 99-658; a request of Eisenhower Medical Center/La Quinta Medical
Development, Inc. for review of the development principles and guidelines for a six
acre medical office complex (two buildings) and architectural and landscaping plans
for a two story high medical office building (Phase 1) consisting of 47,890+ square
feet of floor area to be located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and 48"
Avenue.
Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principol 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 Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Robbins asked staff to expand on the issue raised by the Architectural and
Landscaping Review Committee's (ALRC) concern regarding the use of Date
CAMy Documents\WPI)OCS\PC10-12-99.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 2:3, 1999
Palm and Ash trees. Staff stated the ALRC concern was that the Date Palm
crown has been known to fall off and this project is proposing to use a large
number of the Date Palms in the pedestrian area. The ALRC thought they
should not be used in a high pedestrian area. In regard to the Ash trees
proposed to be in the parking lot, the ALRC concerned was that they have a
root system which can break up the parking lot. Commissioner Robbins
asked why was the condition required the applicant to only study them and
not replace them. Staff stated the condition could be either. Commissioner
Robbins asked if the Ash Tree was water efficient. Staff stated they are
appropriate. Commissioner Robbins stated he had a problem granting the
setback,deviation within 150 feet of Washington Street.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked what the lighting was for the proposed parking
areas. Staff stated it would be 18-feet high within 100 feet of Caleo Bay
adjacent to Lake La Quinta and 24 feet high within the remainder of the
parking lot. Commissioner Tyler asked if the poles should be lowered and
required to be shielded with shoe -box lighting for the entire site. Staff stated
the condition is worded so that all the lighting is shoe -box and shielded.
Commissioner Tyler asked why staff was requiring this developer to pay fees
for a signal a block away. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the people
coming to this site will be using this signal. The condition is written that the
cost of the signal would be prorated depending upon the land mass.
Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #5 of the Site Development Permit
be reworded. Staff suggested it read "...building shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for review and approval."
4. Mr. James Cioffi, architect for the project, stated the project development
team had met with the Lake La Quinta homeowners and showed them their
plan and how they would mitigate any of their concerns, and in particular
their view to the west. In regard to the tree issues raised by the ALRC, they
had checked with their landscape architect and found that with the use of
transplanted, older Date Palm trees there is a potential problem of crowns
dropping. They are proposing to use all new, young trees that are not known
to have the problem as well as being smaller. The issue of the root system of
the Ash tree will be solved by a single piece root barrier with a deep water
system. The Ash tree is one of the few trees that will allow them to meet the
City requirement for shade within five years. In regard to the intrusion into
the setback with the building, the intrusion affects only about half of the
building. If it is a major concern to the Commission they could push the
building back. With regard to paying their fair share of the signal cost, it is
their belief it should be based on land mass. It would be better for them if the
cost was based on the traffic use as they believe their traffic will be minimal.
He went on to review the grading plan.
C:\My Docurnents\WPDOCS\PC10-12-99.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1999
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the facility would be open till 10:00 p.m. Mr.
Cioffi stated it would depend on the doctors who would be using the
building. There would be no emergency room.
6. Commissioner Butler asked if they would be closing their facility on
Highway 111. Mr. Cioffi stated not to his knowledge, as it is a different type
of facility.
7. Chairman Kirk asked if the buildings were originally oriented this way. Mr.
Cioffi stated it had always been their intention to orientate the building as
they are proposed to minimize the affect on the Lake La Quinta homeowners.
They also stepped both ends of the building down to one story. Chairman
Kirk asked if a view analysis was done on both orientations. Mr. Cioffi
stated they were asking for the variance on the setback from Washington
Street to create less of a visual impact by moving the buildings back from
Caleo Bay.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant had any concerns with the
architectural changes being recommended by staff. Mr. Cioffi stated they
had no objections.
9. Mr. David Notrica, 47-905 Via Finenze, stated his concerns were that the
lights be turned off by 9:00 p.m., how the hazardous waste would be handled,
and if the fence could be five feet or six feet in height around the entire site.
The grading is three to four feet above the street, so the building is 36 feet
plus the extra 5-6 feet. As their properties are significantly lower, he is
concerned about the drainage. Staff stated that in regard to the hazardous
waste material they will have to meet any health department requirements
that are imposed on them. It is therefore not an issue addressed by land uses.
10. There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing
and opened the issue for Commission discussion.
11. Commissioner Abels stated he had no issues or concerns.
12. Commissioner Robbins stated that due to the extreme setback from the
property line to the buildings, he is confident that if a single family home
were built behind Lake La Quinta it would impact the view of the
homeowners more than this building with its setback. Relative to the concern
raised regarding the parking lot lights, he can empathize, however, there are
some health and safety issues to be concerned with for those using the facility
therefore he agrees with the 10:00 p.m. The applicant has addressed the
concern regarding the trees so that is no longer an issue. He would like to
hear from the other commissioners as to whether or not to deviate on the
setback.
i'.� a e.. IN- _..._ __ -. wnr fNr'omr, In In nn ..._ a 7
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1999
13. Commissioner Butler stated he thought the setback was to accommodate the
residential concerns and even though they are going against what is in
required by the Code, due to the accommodations the applicant is putting in
place, he supports the project.
14. Commissioner Tyler stated he too agrees with the changes proposed and
moving the building as far away as possible does benefit the homeowners.
15. Chairman Kirk asked if Washington Street and 48' Avenue were both view
corridors. Staff stated they were. Chairman Kirk stated that in his opinion
the applicant has gone a long way to accommodate local concerns whether
or not he is considerate to City concerns by locating a loading zone in view
from Washington Street as well as deviating from the required setback. This
was done to be considerate to the residents and he congratulated the applicant
on the design and the efforts to favor the local concerns, but he is concerned
about the view impact from Washington Street.
16. Commissioner Abels stated that in regard to streetscapes, the design at the
corner will be very adequate to address those concerns.
17. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
071 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Environmental Assessment 99-388) for Specific Plan 99-038 and Site
Development Permit 99-658, subject to all mitigation measures.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 99-072 approving Specific Plan 99-038, subject to
the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 99-073 approving Site Development
Permit 99-658, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as
amended.
a. Condition #5: add the words "reviewed and approved".
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC10-12-99.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1999
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
A. Commissioner Tyler asked Commissioner Robbins to explain the letter they received
from CVWD regarding fees. Commissioner Robbins stated most developers did not
know they were to be charged a fee for reviewing their projects and staff needs to
inform the developers of this fee.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Discussion of issues regarding side street access to arterial streets - Fred Waring
Drive and Miles Avenue - review and comment.
l . Senior Engineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Venice Drive at Fred Waring: Commissioner Tyler stated that when the
development to the west is complete it will help alleviate the traffic problem
in this area. The construction entrance into Palm Royale is heavily used and
drivers are continually violating the turning movement. Will this entrance be
closed off or will they be allowed to continue to use it. Staff stated they were
unsure. The problem results from the transition of the streets from a rural
environment to its ultimate urban configuration. It becomes a question of
having the financial resources to make the system complete. In the near term
we have the issue of motorists seeing the opportunity to violate the pattern
and can occasionally be ticketed. Commissioner Tyler stated the speed limit
is 55 mph and he was surprised to see a statement from the Sheriff's
department stating the traffic is usually 60-65 mph. It seems they should
contain the speed.
3. Commissioner Robbins stated the residents living in this area need an
alternative way to get out to go eastbound on Fred Waring Drive. Staff stated
that when the subdivision is built out and tied into the project to the west they
will have a full turn movement out of the unbuilt portion of the project. Fred
Waring Drive is ultimately to be a six lane street which will make it very
dangerous to make a left turn at this street.
4. Las Vistas Drive and Galaxy Drive at Fred Waring Drive: Complaints have
been received that the left turn pocket is too short turning left into Galaxy
Drive. A left turn pocket with an acceleration lane off of Las Vistas Drive
was provided as a result of the build out of the two subdivisions.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PCIO-12-99.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1999
5. Commissioner Robbins asked if this was the ultimate design. Staff stated not
according to the General Plan. Commissioner Robbins stated everyone that
wants to go north has to go through a residential streets that are not designed
to carry that amount of traffic. It is now a burden because these two streets
are not aligned. If you block the left turn out from Las Vistas Drive it will
create a lot more issues.
6. Commissioner Tyler stated the only restriction on this turning movement was
that it be reviewed. Las Vistas is a unique street because it is a collector
street as defined by the General Plan. It is the only north south street between
Washington Street and Adams Street. There is no straight through street to
either Washington Street or Adams Street and due to this the residents have
no where to go except to leave it as it is currently is.
7. Commissioner Abels complimented staff on their presentation.
8. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to consider painting the curb red due to
the number of parents dropping their children off for the school bus at about
7:30 a.m. as it creates a traffic problem. Commissioner Tyler stated the
problem exists in the afternoon as well.
9. Chapelton Drive: This street which is in the County, currently has full turn
movements as granted by the County.
10. Commissioner Tyler stated this is a very confusing left turn lane. Unless you
know it is there it comes and goes very quickly. Staff stated the City does not
supercede the County striping when it exists.
11. Chairman Kirk asked when the street would be upgraded. Staff stated it is
one of the streets that must be built to its ultimate configuration by the year
2009.
12. La Quinta Palms entrance: The left turn out has been an issue as the concern
is that there is enough pavement for three lanes even though not stripped and
on the County side there is only one lane.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked if Fred Waring Drive will, at its ultimate buildout,
require the County to develop their side. Staff stated the County is a
participant of the Measure A funding and they will be required to do so
within the 20 year plan of which there are nine years remaining. It will be a
five lane street ultimately.
14. Old Harbor Drive: This street which is also in the County, currently has four
turning movements. Staff asked for Commission to comment on the full
turning movements.
11.-4.. 111 nn.-A 1 n
Planning Commission Minutes
September 213, 1999
15. Commissioner Butler stated that Dune Palms Road to the west of this street
will be a very popular street when the proposed schools are built; are there
plans for this intersection? Staff stated the signal is currently being
constructed.
16. Commissioner Robbins stated he had no concerns as the signal being
constructed will assist the people getting out and in.
17. Chairman Kirk stated that staff has indicated this could be a problem due to
the length of the left turn pockets. Staff stated that the City anticipates a
heavy flow of traffic and the left turn pocket will need to be extended to
accommodate the number of cars and some left turning movements could be
restricted.
18. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was quantitative information to prove that
u-turns were safer than a left turn movement. Staff stated that some accident
statistics were found, but nothing specific to the u-turn versus the left turn.
19. Port Maria Road: This street would probably be able to accommodate the left
turn in and the City needs to determine whether to leave the left turn in.
20. Commissioner Robbins stated that if the left turn out was restricted you
would have to go to Avenue 42 to get out which would be a hardship on the
residents. Staff stated it would be better if they went down to Dune Palms
Road to make a u-turn.
21. Commissioner Tyler asked if there couldn't be an acceleration lane. Staff
stated the problem was with the painted lane and trying to move into the lane
with traffic traveling at 60 mph. The left merge lane can be effective
depending on the driving public. Staff went on to give statistics on left turn
movements.
22. Miles Avenue at North Harlan and Coldbrook Lane: This intersection has
been approved with a right turn in and out with a raised median. Coldbrook
Lane now has a left turn in.
23. Vista Dunes Mobile.Home. Park: This area is now restriped to accommodate
the residents at the park. If they had the left turn in and restricted the left turn
out it would accommodate their needs.
24. Commissioner Tyler asked about the new entrance that would be created with
the development of World Development; what restrictions have been put on
it. Staff stated it would have a right in and out only and maybe a left turn in.
C:\Mv:)ocurnents\WPDOCS\PC10-12-99.wpd I I
Planning Commission Minutes
September 2:3, 1999
25. Commissioner Abels asked if when planning for future developments, can the
intersections be lined up. Staff stated they wanted them staggered to keep
from having to install signals.
'26. Commissioner Robbins stated he could understand some of them, but Las
Vistas was not well thought out and has created situations that are worse than
having a signal.
27. Commissioner Butler commended staff on their presentation and would
rather see more signals on Fred Waring and Miles to slow the traffic down.
Staff stated Fred Waring needs more attention in engineering, but it is a street
that if properly stripped and lane width brought down so there is not the wide
open feeling, narrower lanes slow down traffic. It depends on what the City's
goal is.
28. Chairman Kirk stated he was more concerned with mobility and his
recommendation would be for more attention on mobility as it is easier to
change access points than change mobility. He agrees with staff's
recommendation on u-turns rather than left turn movements. He would
however, also like to see safety statistics on left turn outs.
29. Commissioner Butler stated that those who are traveling at high speeds on
these streets do not live in these neighborhoods.
30. Commissioner Tyler suggested staff not only consider looking at each
intersection, but look at the street system behind the intersections. He would
submit his written suggestions to staff.
31. Commissioner Abels stated he concurred with Chairman Kirk.
32. Commissioner Robbins stated he concurred with most of the suggestions, but
believes you have to consider that if the traffic is being forced into the
residential neighborhoods it has an impact.
33. Mr. Jim Humbert 79-409 Horizon Palms, stated he takes issue with Chairman
Kirk's comment not to bend to the will of the residents, when that is the
purpose of the Commission. He has been working on this problem for years.
From Washington Street to east of Dune Palms Road along Fred Waring
Drive, it is a residential street. Staggering the intersections does not make
any sense and it is impossible to stripe. The residents must take priority.
Taking the left turn movement away from Dune Palms Road will cause a
comic opera for u-turns. The mistakes were made in the design of the streets,
and the City cannot now tell the residents too bad. The residents are the ones
that count.
CAMV Docurnents\WPDOCS\PC10-12-99.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1999
34. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that Elkhorn Drive
in Palm Desert was a street that lined up and due to a fatal accident the street
was closed off so streets can be closed.
35. Senior Engineer Steve Speer thanked the Commission for their suggestions
and noted he would take them to the City Council.
36. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Council/Commission needs to
determine whether the City will stay with the General Plan as it is, or revise
the General Plan to make specific exceptions, or do away with the current
distance requirements for traffic signals.
37. Chairman Kirk stated it is mostly a case by case issue.
B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of October 5, 1999.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners to adjourn this
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held October 26, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission
was adjourned at P.M. on October 12, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City oi' La Quinta, California
C:\My l locuments\WPDOCS\PC10-12-99.wpd 13
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1999
CASE NOS.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-044
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-655
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29288
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: MARK & DOROTHY HASTINGS
(FIRST SCHOOL OF THE DESERT)
ARCHITECT: CHRISTOPHER MILLS
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND MILES
AVENUE
REQUESTS: Environmental Assessment
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;
Conditional Use Permit:
APPROVAL OF THE PRESCHOOL USE WITHIN THE LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) ZONING DISTRICT;
Site Development Permit:
APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A SINGLE
STORY PRESCHOOL;
Tentative Parcel Maw
APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 4.22 ACRES INTO TWO
PARCELS AND ONE LETTERED LOT.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382 FOR
THIS REQUEST. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE
PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE
EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT THAT CANNOT BE
P:\perptS D P99-655-C U P99-044FirstSchoo110-26-99.wpd
MITIGATED; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS
RECOMMENDED.
ZONING DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES: NORTH: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL); SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCES
SOUTH: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ACROSS
MILES AVENUE; SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
EAST: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL); SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCES
WEST: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL); FAMILY
HERITAGE CHURCH
BACKGROUND:
The project site consists of 4.22 acres of vacant land at the northeast corner of
Adarns Street and Miles Avenue (Attachment 1). The parcel is surrounded by
residential development on three sides, and a church campus to the west.
Project Request
The applicants propose to develop a preschool facility, to be known as First School of
the Desert, on Parcel 1 (1.28 acres) of the proposed tentative parcel map. The
applicants operate two similar preschools in Palm Springs (2300 E. Racquet Club Road)
and Cathedral City (69-440 McCallum Way) (See photos in Attachment 2). There is
no proposed development -for Parcel 2 at this time.
Environmental Assessment 99-382
An Environmental Assessment was prepared for this project with a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact recommended. Special studies prepared for this
project include biology, cultural resources, geotechnical, traffic, hydrology, and noise.
The assessment discusses those issues identified as having a potential significant
adverse impact and measures needed to mitigate them.
P:\perptSDF'99-655-CU P99-044FirstSchool10-26-99.wpd
Conditional Use Permit 99-044
The applicant has requested the approval of a conditional use permit to allow the
preschool as a conditionally approved land use within the Low Density Residential (RL)
residential zoning district. The preschool will be open on weekdays from 7:00 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m. The school will have a maximum of 126 students and 12 staff members
and over 20,000 square feet of enclosed outdoor play area, and over 7,000 square
feet of building space.
Site Development Permit 99-655
The proposed single -story, 14.5-foot high building (Attachment 3), will contain 7,065
square feet of classroom area, restrooms, office, a teachers lounge, and
storage/janitorial closets. Proposed is a flat roof building with mechanical equipment
screening. The front entry, facing Miles Avenue and Adams Street intersection (west
elevation), features an arched doorway with a glass door and large adjacent windows.
The building elevation closely follows the natural topography of the building site, with
finished floor elevations ranging from 85.3-feet to 90.3-feet. The proposed building
is setback approximately 45-feet from the closest existing residence to the east, and
approximately 470-feet from those to the north.
Proposed building walls will be stucco plastered with a beige -light pink colored
unpat:terned rough finish. The west and east elevations feature several large glass
windows. The south elevation features stationary multipaned inset windows at three
locations, The north elevation features high narrow windows within a slightly recessed
area. Proposed shade structures are over several windows and consist of wood
support posts and cross -member beams highlighted with color accent trim. The
covered walkway along the east elevation will also consist of wood posts and beams.
The wood color is light reddish -brown. Two accent colors (light and dark green) are
used on the west, east, and north elevations above the windows and shade structures.
The color and materials exhibit will be available at the meeting.
The conceptual landscaping plan includes a variety of shade trees, accent plants,
shrubs, groundcover and vines. Decorative beach pebbles, granite boulders, and Palm
Springs Gold Fines are also used for ground cover. Caliper size of the proposed trees
is not specified. Proposed landscaping covers 64% (39,965 square feet) of the project
site, while hardscape consisting of drives, parking area, and walkways will comprise
26 percent (15,939 square feet).
The proposed playground will feature a variety of play equipment within two
designated play areas at the rear of the preschool building. Both will have a sand base,
with the balance of the area planted in Hibrid Bermuda grass.
Access to the preschool is provided by a proposed private driveway off of Adams
Street, 269-feet north of the intersection of Adams Street and Miles Avenue, that
enters into the school's parking lot. The circulation pattern is one way in/out with
P:\perptSDF399-655-CUP99-044FirstSchooI I 0-26-99.wpd !
w
traffic entering off Adams Street. The parking lot will consist of 20 parking spaces and
room for 7 cars to queue around the driveway circle. Parking lot lighting is provided
by three 18-feet tall pole -mounted fixtures with recessed bulbs and flush lenses.
A walled I -rash enclosure is provided along the eastern boundary of the parking lot, and
is designed for pedestrian access at the rear.
Tentative Parcel Map 29288
A subdivision of the 4.22 gross acres (Attachment 4) is proposed to create two
parcels and one lettered lot (Parcel 1 = 1.28 acres, Parcel 2 = 2.44 acres, Lot "A" _
0.26 acres). Lot "A" will create a perimeter landscape area along Miles Avenue and
Adams Street. The preschool project is proposed for Parcel 1. Along Miles Avenue,
a 5-foot wide meandering sidewalk and 20-foot wide landscape easement are
proposed. Along Adams Street, a 5-foot wide sidewalk and 10-foot wide landscape
easement are proposed. Stormwater drainage is designed to flow to the existing basins
within Tract 23913 to the east.
Public Notice:
These requests were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 6, 1999, as
well as mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. One public
comment was received (Attachment 5). Any further 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.
ALRC Action:
On October 7, 1999, the City's Architecture and Landscape Review Committee
reviewed the proposed preschool building elevations and landscape plans (Attachment
5). The Committee adopted Minute Motion 99-019 recommending to the Planning
Commission approval of Site Development Permit 99-655, subject to the
recommended conditions.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit can be made,
and are contained in the attached Resolution.
Findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made and are
contained in the attached Resolution and implementation of Conditions of Approval,
except as follows:
P AperptS DP99-655-C U P99-044FirstSchool 1 0-26-99.wpd
1. Landscape Design. As conditioned, the proposed landscaping, including the
location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been
designed so as to provide visual relief, complement the building, visually
emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views,
provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between
development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to
enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed landscaping is
compatible with the surrounding area in that the variety of the plant palette,
placement of shade trees and decorative plantings, provide an aesthetically
pleasing and well -functioning use of landscaping space, provided that the
applicant revises the landscaping plans to include the required three-foot
landscaping berm pursuant to Section 9.60.240(F) (See Condition No. 6a) along
Miles Avenue and Adams Street, and redesign the sidewalk in conformance with
City standards so that it meanders and is at least three feet from the back of
curb except at the street corners (See Condition No. 7). The proposed
landscaping plans do not indicate the caliper of trees, therefore, Condition No.
6b requires that minimum 10-foot tall tree sizes (1.5-inch to 2-inch caliper
measuring 6-inches from ground level) as per Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Overall the number of trees around the perimeter, adjacent to both
Miles Avenue and Adams Street, is somewhat sparse. Staff recommends that
the: revised landscape plans include the addition of more trees in this area (See
Condition No. 6c)
Findings necessary to approve Tentative Parcel Map 29288 can be made and are
contained in the attached Resolution in compliance with Section 13.12.130, and with
the implementation of Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- certifying a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 99-382;
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- approving Conditional Use Permit
99-044, subject to Findings and the attached Conditions of Approval.
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-_ approving Site Development
Permit 99-655, subject to Findings and the attached Conditions of Approval.
4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- approving Tentative Parcel Map
29288, subject to Findings and the attached Conditions of Approval.
P:\perptSDF'99-655-CUP99-044FirstSchool10-26-99.wpd ,
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Development Plan Exhibits
3. Architectural Exhibit
4. TPM 29288 Exhibit
5. Public comment letter
6. ALRC Minutes of October 7, 1999
Prepared by:
Le§lie Mouriquand, Msociate, Planner
Submitted by:
0 , LI, L"�Iq
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
P:\perptSDF'99-655-C UP99-044FirstSchool 1 0-26-99.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 99-044, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-
655, AND PARCEL MAP 29288
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382
APPLICANT: MARK & DOROTHY HASTINGS/FIRST SCHOOL OF THE DESERT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 26th day of October, 1999 hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 99-382 for Conditional Use Permit 99-044, Site
Development Permit 99-655, and parcel Map 29288, located at the northeast corner
of Adams Street and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as follows:
APN: 604-071-005
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment 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 determined
that although the proposed preschool facility could have a significant adverse impact
on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because
appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in
the Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 99-044 and Site Development
Permit 99-655, 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 certification of said Environmental
Assessment:
1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Permit, and Parcel Map
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.
P AearesoEA99-382H astings 10-26-99.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Environmental Assessment 99-382
2. The proposed Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Permit, and Parcel Map
will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Permit, and Parcel Map
does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on
environmental factors have been identified.
4. The proposed Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Permit, and Parcel Map
will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively
considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the
immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly
affected by the proposed preschool.
5. The proposed Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Permit, and Parcel Map
will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human
population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been
identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
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 preschool, as
proposed will not generate school age children, and in fact may relieve impacts
on local schools.
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 a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental
Assessment 99-382 for the reasons set forth in the Resolution and as stated in
the attached Environmental Assessment Checklist.
P Aea resoEA99-382Hasti ngs l 0-26-99.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Environmental Assessment 99-382
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 26th day of October, 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:\earesoEA99-382Hastingsl0-26-99.wpd Page 3 of 3
2.
0
Appendix G
Environmental Checklist Form - EA 99-382
Project Title: CUP 99-044, SDP 99-655, TPM 29288
Lead Agency Name and Address: CITY OF LA QUINTA
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca 92253
Contact Person and Phone Number: Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner
760-777-7068
4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Adams Street and Miles Avenue
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mark & Dorothy Hastings
2300 E. Racquet Club Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92262
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR)
7. Zoning: Low Density Residential (RL)
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.)
Subdivision of 4.22 acres into 2 parcels, on which a 7,065 square foot preschool
building with parking area and play yard are to be developed on 1.42 acres, with the
other parcel to remain vacant at this time.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North= Single family residences
East = Single family residences
South = Single family residences
West = Church, Single family residences
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
None identified.
P:\EA99-382cliecklistFirstSchool.wpd -1
110
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
X Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination
(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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 11
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "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 further is required. F
Signature Date
Printed Name For
-2-
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference
infr►rmation 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) "I\Iegative—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.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
P AEA99-3 82checklistFirstSchool.wpd
-3
I.
Issues (anal Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Master
Environmental Assessment, Pg. 5-13)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Master Environmental Assessment, Pg. 5-13; Love and Tang, 1999)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Project Site Plan )
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Project Lighting
Plan)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 2-23)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (City Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental
Assessment, pg. 2-23)
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (Master
Environn-,ental Assessment, pg. 5-33 to 5-47)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, Fig. 5-1, Table 6-2)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient c.ir quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ( SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook, pg. 6-1, Table 6-2)
d) Create or contribute to a non -stationary source "hot spot" (primarily
carbon monoxide)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Table 9-5-M)
Potentially
Potentially Significant
Significant Unless
Impact Mitigated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
/:/
X
X
X
X
X
w � i
P:\F A99-382checklistFi rstSchool.wpd
e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Fig. 5-4)
X
f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Fig. 5-4)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications,
any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations (sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title
50, Code cf Federal Regulations (sections 17.11 or 17.12)? (Cornett,
1999:, Fish & Wildlife Service letter; Master Environmental
Assessment, pg. 5-5 )
b) 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? (Cornett, 1999; Master Environmental
Assessment, pg. 5-5)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Cornett, 1999; Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5)
d) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (Cornett, 1999; Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5)
e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites`? (Cornett, 1999; Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5)
f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5)
g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan., Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Cornett, 1999; Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
91
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Love and Tang, X
1999)
P:\EA99-382cl�ecklistFirstSchool.wpd j t I `
VI.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (Love and Tang, 1999)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Paleonotological Lakebed Determination Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (Love and Tang, 1999)
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? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Master Environmental
Assessment, pg. 6-7; Sladden Engineering, 1999)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7)
iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7)
v) Landslides? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7)
vi) Flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam`(Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-13)
vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(Fire Dept. Letter, 6-8-99; USGS Topo map, LA Quinta, 7.5')
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-12; hydrology
report)
c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature?
(Aerial photos of project area)
d) Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsistence, liquefaction or
collapse? (Sladden Engineering, 1999)
e) Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantia: risks to
life or property? (Sladden Engineering, 1999)
X
0
/V
X
94
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water, is X
the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems? (Sladden Engineering, 1999; CVWD
letter)
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
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? ( )
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area'? (USGS topo map, LA
Quinta 7.5')
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (USGS topo map, La Quinta 7.5')
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Application
materials )
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(Fire Dept. Letter, 6-8-99)
VIll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board 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 (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (CVWD letter 6-16-99 )
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site? (Hydrology report 9-2-99 )
91
X
X
X
K1
X
KI
0
X
X
X
P:\EA99-382checklistFirstSchool.wpd
)te
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? (Hydrology report 9-2-
99 )
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control ?
(Hydrology report 9-2-99)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment, 6-7 )
KI
X
X
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7; �{
Application Materials )
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (General Plan, pg. 2-
17)
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? (General Plan, pg. 2-17)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (CV Fringe -toed Habitat
Conservation Plan)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment, pg. 5-29)
b) Result :.n the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-29)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
appl icable standards of other agencies? (Greve and Moon, 1999)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Greve and Moon, 1999)
c) A subs-antial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Greve and Moon, 1999)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Greve and Moon, 1999)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
$!
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public; use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Riverside
County comprehensive General Plan)
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? (Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan)
MI. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
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 materials)
b) Displao.- substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
materials)
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would ':he 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 th.- public services:
Fire protection? (Fire Dept. Letter, 6-8-99)
Police protection? (Riv. Co. Sheriff's Dept. Letter, 6-18-99)
Schools? (DSUSD letter, 6-8-99)
Parks?
Other public facilities? (IID letter, 6-14-99)
RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials)
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Traffic Study
9-8-99)
X
/I
X
0
0
e
X
X
P: \EA99-3 82checkl istFirstSchool.wpd
XVI.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (Traffic study 9-8-99 ) X
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:(Master Environmental Assessment)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment) ? (application materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Zoning Ordinance;
Application materials)
g) Ccnflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? (Zoning Ordinance)
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional N'Vater Quality Control Board? (CVWD letter 6-16-99 )
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? (CVWD
letter, 6-16-99)
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? (CVWD letter, 6-16-
99)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (CVWD letter, 6-16-99)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (CVWD letter, 6-16-99)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solic waste disposal needs? (General
Plan 7-4)
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 the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ( )
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R9
X
P:\EA99.382ch nklistfirstSchoo1.wpd
i�.,� -10
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)? ( )
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ( )
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
1506.3(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where
they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the
above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whet:ler such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which
were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
REFERENCES CITED ON FOLLOWING P,4 GE)
E.4
U
P:\EA99-382checklistFirstSchool.wpd
:EFERENCES CITED
,CAQMD
Draft CEQA Air Quality Handbook, May 1992.
.ove, Bruce and Tom Tang
Cultural Resources Report: First School of the Desert, February 5, 1999,
CRM TECH.
,omett, James W.
Biological Inventory and Impact Analysis of the proposed Hastings Nursery School Site, July 26, 1999.
riverside County Fire Department
Letter dated (5-8-99.
,oachella Valle), Water District
Letter dated ]March 31, 1999.
iladden Engineering
Geotechnical Investigation: First School of the Desert, NE corner Adams Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California.
August 23, 1999.
ireve, Fred and Tanya Moon
Noise Assessment or First School of the Desert, City of La Quinta. August 24, 1999,
Mestre Greve Associates.
tiverside County
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
)e LaTorre, Julian
First School of the Desert/La Quinta
Preliminary 1-lydrology Report. Sept. 2, 1999,
Mainiero Srr.ith & Associates.
First School of the Desert/La Quinta
Traffic Analysis Report. Sept. 8, 1999,
Mainiero Smith & Associates.
�ity of La Quinta
General Plan, 1992.
�ity of La Quinta
Master Environmental Assessment, 1992.
P:\EA99-382checklistFirstSchoo1.wpd
Addendum to Environmental Checklist EA 99-382
IV. c, g) The project site is within an area designated as potential habitat for the Coachella
Valley Giant Sand Treader Cricket and the Flat Tailed Horned Lizard. A
comprehensive biological survey of the project site (dated July 26, 1999) was
conducted by James W. Cornett, Ecological Consultants. The survey found no
evidence of the cricket and states that it is unlikely that this species would be found
on the site due to the sand stabilization, habitat isolation, and human disturbances.
An intensive effort was made to locate the flat -tailed horned lizard, however none
were found. The site is also within the Habitat Conservation Plan fee area for the
Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. While no evidence of this species was found,
the mandated $100 fee per acre will be required as mitigation. This mitigation
measure reduces impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance.
VI aii) The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed preschool is located
within a Zone IV groundshaking zone, within a half -mile of an inferred and inactive
fault. The City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for
seismically active areas. The project will be required to conform to these standards.
This mitigation measure will ensure that impacts from seismic activity will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
IX b) The Community Development Director has found that the proposed preschool land
use may be permitted as a conditional use, provided that a conditional use permit is
approved by the City. These findings can be made and are found in the resolution.
XI. c) A noise study was prepared for the proposed preschool facility by Mestre Greve
Associates, August 24, 1999. Schools are considered noise sensitive land uses, along
with residential areas, hospitals, and churches. The City's daytime noise ordinance
limits are 60 dBA (1,50) and 80 dBA (Lmax). The noise study showed that there is
a potential for temporary construction noise impacts and long term noise generated
by the proposed playground and parking lot activities. The projected noise levels
generated by the playground at 100-feet from the eastern residential area are 58.3
Lmax and 41.7 L50; 135 feet from the northern residential area are 55.8 Lmax and
39.2 L50. Noise generated from the proposed parking lot at 230 feet from the eastern
residential area is measured at 51.3 Lmax and 353-feet from the northern residential
area is 47.7 Lmax. The proposed preschool is projected to comply with the noise
ordinance standards. No mitigation measures are necessary for off -site noise impacts.
For short-term construction noise impacts, the following mitigation measure is
required and adequate for this project: 1) To be consistent with the City of La Quinta
Municipal Code Section regarding construction activities near existing residential
development. should be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Construction will not be permitted for
on Sunday or Federal holidays.
P:\addE;ndunniEA99-382Firstschool l 0-26-99.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 PRESCHOOL
FACILITY AND A RELATED PARKING LOT, LANDSCAPING
AND OUTDOOR PLAYGROUND WITHIN THE LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) ZONING DISTRICT AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND MILES
AVENUE.
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-044
APPLICANT: MARK & DOROTHY HASTINGS/FIRST SCHOOL OF THE DESERT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26th day of October, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the
request of Mark & Dorothy Hastings, to consider a Conditional Use Permit for a
preschool facility with a related parking lot, landscaping and outdoor playground within
the Low Density Residential (RL) Zoning District, located at the northeast corner of
Adams Street and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as:
A Portion of APN 604-071-005
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. Consistency with General Plan. The proposed land use is consistent with the
policies, goals, and intent of the General Plan in that such services and activities
within a residential neighborhood enhance the quality of life in the adjacent
community and the City of La Quinta.
2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The proposed preschool land use is consistent
with the intent of the RL Zoning District, subject to an approved conditional use
permit and the attached conditions of approval. The Community Development
Director has found that the proposed preschool land use may be permitted
provided that a conditional use permit is approved by the Planning Commission.
3. Consistency with CEQA. Environmental Assessment 99-382 was prepared for
the proposed preschool facility with a recommended Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact. With the implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures, impacts will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
PAperesCL P99-044Hastingsl 0-26-99.wpd Page 1 of 2
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditional Use Permit 99-044- Hastings
October 26, 1999
4. Consistency with Surrounding Uses. The proposed preschool land use will be
consistent with the existing and planned surrounding uses in that there is a
church campus adjacent to the west providing comparable activities and desired
community services to the neighboring residents. The operation of the preschool
will be limited to weekday daytime hours, and will not interfere with the lower
nighttime and weekend noise levels of the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Also, the site grading, massing, and scale will be compatible with surrounding
residential 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
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 26th day of October, 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:\pereesCUP99-044Hastingsl0-26-99.wpd Page 2 of 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-044
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
HASTINGS - FIRST SCHOOL OF THE DESERT
OCTOBER 26, 1999
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
(the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding
to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this 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. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is subject to compliance with Sections
9.210.020 and 9.170.010 of the Zoning Code, as applicable.
3. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits approved
and contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 99-044, unless amended by the
following conditions.
4. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be used within one year from City
approval date of October 26, 1999; 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. One
year time extensions up to a total of two extensions may be requested pursuant to
City requirements.
5. This Conditional Use Permit shall be used in conjunction with Site Development
Permit 99-655.
6. Parking lot lighting shall have recessed or flat lens, be shielded, and use a
maximum 18 foot high light pole.
P:\pccoaCUP99-044Hastings10-26-99.wpd Page 1 of 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE APPROVAL FOR A
PRESCHOOL FACILITY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
MILES AVENUE AND ADAMS STREET
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-655
APPLICANT: MARK & DOROTHY HASTINGS (FIRST SCHOOL OF THE DESERT)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26" day of October, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing at the request
of Mark and Dorothy Hastings to consider approval of architectural and landscaping
plans for a preschool facility to be constructed on the northeast corner of Miles
Avenue and Adams Street, more particularly described as:
A Portion of A.P.N.: 604-071-005
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee of the
City of La Quinta, California, did on the 71h day of October, 1999, hold a duly -noticed
public meeting to consider approval of architectural and landscape plans for a
preschool facility to be constructed on Miles Avenue, and did, by Minute Motion 99-
019, recommend approval of the request subject to conditions; and,
WHEREAS, Environmental Assessment 99-382 was prepared for Site
Development Permit 99-655 with a recommendation for certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of
said Site Development Permit:
1. Consistency with General Plan. The proposed preschool facility is consistent
with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the use's design, low
height, scale, and mass is compatible with the Low Density Residential (LDR)
designation of the surrounding properties, and the project is required to provide
meandering sidewalks of 6-feet width along Miles Avenue (a primary arterial
with Class II bike route) and 8-feet width along Adams Street (a secondary
arterial with Class III bike route) pursuant to the General Plan Circulation System
Policy Diagram and the Bike Route Plan.
P AperesSD P99-655Hastings10-26-99.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-655
October 26, 1999
2. Consistency with Zoning Code. With the implementation of the recommended
conditions of approval, the proposed preschool project is consistent with the
development standards of the Low Density Residential (RL) Zoning District
including, but not limited to building heights, setbacks, parking, landscape
design, and exterior lighting.
3. Consistency with CEQA. The proposed project is consistent with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, in that Environmental
Assessment 99-382 was prepared for this project with a recommendation for
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
4. Architectural Design. The architectural design of the proposed preschool
building, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass,
materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural
elements, is compatible with existing surrounding development, in that it lacks
the bulky mass of a commercial building due to the articulation, has stucco
exterior finish, trim colors, and post and beam window shade structures; the
proposed building is adequately setback with multiple wall planes so as to
minimize the appearance of a large structural mass.
5. Site Design. The site design of the proposed preschool, including but not
limited to project enteries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access,
pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior
lighting, and other site design elements such as scale, mass, appearance, and
amount of landscaping are compatible with surrounding development and quality
of design prevalent in the City.
6. Landscape Design. As conditioned, the proposed landscaping, including the
location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been
designed to provide visual relief, complement the building, visually emphasize
prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a
harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development
and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual
continuity of the project. The proposed landscaping is compatible with the
surrounding area in that the variety of the plant palette, placement of shade
trees and decorative plantings, provide an aesthetically pleasing and well -
functioning use of landscaping space.
PAperesSDP99-655Hastings10-26-99.wpd ;
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-655
October 26, 1999
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 99-655 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached
hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 261h day of October, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYE'S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAperesSDP99-655Hastings10-26-99.wpd Page 3 of 3 , ; ,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-655
MARK & DOROTHY HASTINGS - FIRST SCHOOL OF THE DESERT
OCTOBER 26, 1999
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
(the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding
to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development 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
• Coachella Valley Water District
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from
those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans,
applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the
plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES
construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB
acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or
site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water
Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site.
3. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits approved
and contained in the file for Site Development Permit 99-655, 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.
'l 9
Page 1 of 10
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-655 - Recommended
First School of the Desert
October 26, 1999
5. This Site Development Permit shall be effective in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit 99-044.
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, final landscape plans shall be revised to
include:
a. a three foot landscape berm along Miles Avenue and Adams Street.
b. minimum 10-foot tall tree sizes (1.5-inch to 2-inch caliper measuring
6-inches from ground level).
C. additional trees in the vicinity of the southwest corner and along
Adams Street for appearance and to comply with parking lot shading
requirements;
d. a step in the height of the northern end of the perimeter garden wall
along to 30-inches.
7. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the sidewalk along Miles Avenue and Adams
Street shall be redesigned per City standards.
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the material and method of construction of the
parapet screen wall shall be provided to the Community Development Department.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
9. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2,000 gpm for a
2 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
10. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2 '/z' x 2
'/2") located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the building(s)
as measured along approved vehicular travel ways.
11. 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 2,000 gpm fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20
psi 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.
12. 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.
IJ
P:\occoaSDP99-655FirstSchoo110-26-99.wod Pale 2 of 10
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-655 - Recommended
First School of the Desert
October 26, 1999
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue
line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet
the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and
the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside
County Fire Department".
14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational
prior to the start of construction.
15. 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.
16. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and
fir department connection shall be located to the front width 50' of a hydrant, and
a minimum of 25' from the building.
17. Install a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the UBC/Riverside
County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 72.
18. All fire sprinkler systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval
prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Planning & Engineering
office for submittal requirements.
19. Install a fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code for the
appropriate occupancy classification and designed according with National Fire
Protection Association Standard 72.
20. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fir lanes with
appropriate lane painting and/or signs.
21. 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.
22. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 440, 3200 or 1300, mounted per
recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards.
Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this
form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to
be purchased.
P:\r)ccoaSDP99-655FirstSchool10-26-99.wpd Pap-c 3 of 10
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-655 - Recommended
First School of the Desert
October 26, 1999
23. If the building/facility is protected with a fire alarm system or burglar alarm system,
the lock boxes will require "tamper" monitoring.
Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when
building permits are not obtained within twelve (12) months. Final conditions will be
addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire
Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding the meaning
of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff
at (760) 863-8886.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
24. 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.
25. 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 de minimus impact Fees
and administrative handling fee.
26. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the infrastructure fee
program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
27. The applicant shall dedicate or 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.
28. Right of way geometry for cuts de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall
conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
29. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and
along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet
with the express concurrence of IID.
30. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows
(listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved):
a. Miles Avenue - 20 feet
b. Adams Street - 10 feet
� r
P:\oc(;oaSDP99-655FirstSchool' 0-26-99.wr)d Pwze 4 of 10
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-655 - Recommended
First School of the Desert
October 26, 1999
The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
31. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and
common areas.
32. 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.
33. 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
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.
34. 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.
35. 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. j ;
PADccoaSDP99-655FirstSchool10-26-99.wod Page 5 of 10
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-655 - Recommended
First School of the Desert
October 26, 1999
36. When final plans ark 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.
IMPROVEMENTS
37. The applicant shall construct perimeter improvements (landscaping and sidewalk)
prior to final inspection or occupancy of any permanent building on the parcel. If the
parcel is further subdivided, the improvements shall be constructed as required in
the conditions of approval for that subdivision.
GRADING
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
The limits given in this condition are not an entitlement and more restrictive limits
may be imposed in the public hearing or plan checking process. If compliance with
the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize
safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with
the grade differential.
r
P:\pccoaSDP99-655FirstSchool10-26-99.wpd Page 6 of 10+ j
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-655 - Recommended
First School of the Desert
October 26, 1999
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each
pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the
difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be
organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the
following:
44. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the
design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of
adjacent public streets.
45. 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% acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable.
If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot
retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
46. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated,
unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route.
47. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site
or passed through to the overflow outlet.
48. 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.
PApccoaSDP99-655FirstSchoo110-26-99.wpd Page 7 of 10
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-655 - Recommended
First School of the Desert
October 26, 1999
49. 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.
50. 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 leachfield shall be designed to contain surges of
3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
51. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g.,
the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department),
retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be
constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development
Director and the City Engineer.
UTILITIES
52. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and
telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic
purposes.
53. Existing aerial 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.
54. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in
existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration
requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
STREETS AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
55. Public access shall be limited to a single driveway at the north end of the parcel.
56. 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"
J
P:\pcc:oaSDP99-655FirstSchoo110-26-99.wpd Page 8 of 10
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-655 - Recommended
First School of the Desert
October 26, 1999
57. 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.
58. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only
when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to
publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control
devices, pavement markings and street name signs.
LANDSCAPING
59. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots, and park areas.
60. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan
checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the
City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City
Engineer.
61. 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
62. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline
Transit and/or the City.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
63. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
r l f
a.
P:\pccoaSDP99-655FirstSchoo110-26-99.wpd Page 9 of 10
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-655 - Recommended
First School cf the Desert
October 26, 1999
64. 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.65.
65. 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.
66. 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.
MAINTENANCE
67. 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.
ry�
'..15
PApccoaSDP99-655FirstSchool10-26-99.wpd Page 10 of 10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE 4.22 GROSS ACRES IN THE LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT INTO
TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND ADAMS STREET.
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29288
APPLICANT: MARK & DOROTHY HASTINGS (FIRST SCHOOL OF THE DESERT)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 269' day of October, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing at the request of
Mark and Dorothy Hastings to subdivide 4.22 gross acres in the Low Density Residential
Zoning District into two parcels generally located at the northeast corner of Miles Avenue
and Adams Street, more particularly described as:
APN: 604-071-005
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to approve said Tentative
Parcel Map 29288:
Finding Number 1 - Consistency with CEQA
Environmental Assessment 99-382 was prepared for the proposed preschool facility
with a recommended Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. With
the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, impacts will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Finding Number 2 - Consistency with the General Plan
The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with the City's General Plan with
the implementation of Conditions of Approval to provide for adequate stormwater
drainage for both parcels.
Finding Number 3 - Consistency of Design and Improvements
The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
City's General Plan, with the implementation of recommended conditions of
approval to ensure proper sidewalk widths and location, and timing of their
construction.
PALESLI E\peresTPM29288Hastings1 0-26-99.wpd j
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Tentative Parcel Map 29288
Finding Number 4 - Consistency of Public Easements
As conditioned, the design of the subdivision and type of improvements, acquired
by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision are consistent with General Plan requirements for such easements.
Finding Number 5 - Public Health and Safety
The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems, in that this issue was considered in Environmental
Assessment 99-382, in which no significant health or safety impacts were identified
for the proposed project.
Finding Number 6 - Suitability of Site
The site of the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the proposed
preschool facility development and any future residential development as slopes do
not exceed 20% and there are no identified geological constraints on the property
that would prevent development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required for
Tentative Parcel Map 29288;
3. That it does approve Tentative Parcel Map 29288 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 26th day of October, 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
P:\LESLIE\peresTPM29288HastingslO-26-99.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Tentative Parcel Map 29288
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\LESLIE\peresTPM29288HastingsIO-26-99.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29288 - HASTINGS
OCTOBER 26, 1999
GENERAL CONDITIONS
The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the
"City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack,
set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder.
The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall
cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This tentative parcel map and any final maps thereunder shall comply with the
requirements and standards of §§ 66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government
Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC).
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain
permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the
applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of
Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure
that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the
project site.
4. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the infrastructure fee
program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
2 4
A.d
PAPCC0Atpm29288hAST1NGS10-26-99.wpd Printed October 22, 1999 Page 1 of F
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other
property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or
proper functioning of the proposed development.
6. The applicant shall dedicate or 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.
7. Right of way geometry for culs de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform
with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
8. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along
both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the
express concurrence of IID.
9. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed
setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved):
A. Miles Avenue - 20 feet
B. Adams Street - 10 feet
The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder
parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
10. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility
lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas.
11. 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
tentative map.
12. 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.
13. The applicant shall dedicate an easement or easements as necessary and as approved
by the City Engineer allowing Parcel 1 to install and maintain drainage facilities on Parcel
2.
4
P:\PCCOAtpm29288hASTINGS10.26-99.wpd Printed October 22, 1999 Page 2 of 8
14. 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.
15. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this
property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the
date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such
easements are approved by the City Engineer.
FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S)
16. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the
complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media acceptable to
the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be
fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to
AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
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.
17. 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.
18. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of
construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard
plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
P:\PCCOAtpm292118hASTINGSI0-26-99.wpd Printed October 22, 1999 Page 3 of 8
19. 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.
IMPROVEMENTS
20. The applicant shall construct perimeter improvements (landscaping and sidewalk) for each
parcel prior to final inspection or occupancy of any permanent building on the parcel. If
a parcel is further subdivided, the improvements shall be constructed as required in the
conditions of approval for that subdivision.
GRADING
21. 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.
22. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside
the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
23. 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.
The limits given in this condition are not an entitlement and more restrictive limits may be
imposed in the public hearing or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is
impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns,
maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
24. 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.
;4
P:\PCCOAtpm29288hAST1NGSI0-26-99.wpd Printed October 22, 1999 Page 4 of 8
25. 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.
26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications
stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification
shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if
any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed
cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the
following:
27. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish an approved design for
conveyance of stormwater between parcels one and two and, if allowed, for conveyance
to off -site facilities.
28. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design
storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public
streets.
29. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins
or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2'/2 acres in size
or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention
is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter
13.24, LQMC.
30. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated,
unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route.
31. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or
passed through to the overflow outlet.
32. 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.
33. 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.
PAPCCOAtpm29288hAST1NGS10-26-99.wpd Printed October 22, 1999 Page 5 of 8
34. 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 leachfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of
landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
35. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La
Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriffs Department), retention basins
shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around
basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
UTILITIES
36. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility
lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited
to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure
optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
37. Existing aerial 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.
38. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in
existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements
maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports
of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
39. Public access to Parcel 1 shall be limited to a single driveway at the north end of the
parcel.
40. 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"
41. 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
4
P:\PCCOAtpm292SRASTINGSI0-26-99.wpd Printed October 22, 1999 Page 6 of 8
gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule
construction operations until mix designs are approved.
42. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when
the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained
streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement
markings and street name signs.
LANDSCAPING
43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common
lots, and park areas.
44. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department
prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete,
the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not
approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
45. 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
46. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit
and/or the City.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
47. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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
4
PVCCOAtpm29288hASTINGSI0-26-99.wpd Printed October 22, 1999 Page 7 of 8
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.
MAINTENANCE
51. 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
52. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction
inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for
plan checking and permits.
P:\PCCOAtpm29288hASTI NGS10-26-99.wpd
ATTACHMENT 1
4DMao, smm arm x%ocr m, ixc.
?" Ent Totem Cm m %*, wft m, Fdm *iqm C mow"
Tekoow('"72 *Ii/FAXCM)U.,lW3/cMM oi;m
ATTACHMENT # ,'
E
Q P
L P
I
U
a
F
051
01
052
I
053
c -.r n z- z- 7-
253
£ £15
86
I
Tx 6
c
00
9�'6 '
its
b,"£6X
914
i
• 08C\ � � C�`` � � r I
X
b '9L
i- - .------------��`
r
9g
S6
C
J:
74
L '8L
gg
� X
SB�
i
I
( �
�•
b 86
\
X
X
- --
27V
8 28
wFpw3w
X 8 'E8
. b
u
96
I
d
91
I
�o
JA I-Rg
I
ATTACHMENT #;
79-130 Ladera Drive
La Quinta, CA 92253
October 19,1999
Community Development Department
c/o City of La Quinta
78-495 C:alle Tampico
La Quim, CA 92253
Gentlemen:
This letter is to raise before you issues regarding the requests of Mark and Dorothy Hastings, with regard to
the property at Miles and Adams, to be heard by the planning commission on October 26, 1999:
Tentative parcel map 29288
Conditional use Permit 99-044
Site Development Permit 99-655
We are property owners on Ladera Drive, which now terminates at the boundary of the subject property.
We do not oppose the proposed development, provided certain restrictions, designed to maintain. the quality
of life in and around the Quinterra subdivision, are placed upon it. Accordingly, we urge you to take
whatever measures are appropriate to ensure:
• That no access to Ladera Drive be permitted any parcel occupied by other than a single-family home.
• That outdoor lighting be restricted to low -intensity fixtures below the level of the existing privacy
fences, excluding any mercury-vapor, halide, or high- or low-pressure sodium fixtures.
• In the case of a preschool facility, which experiences high volumes of traffic at certain hours, that
access to both Miles and Adams be restricted to nondisruptive patterns, for example, separate entry and
egress, both by right turn only.
That no outdoor nighttime activities be permitted.
Thank you for your consideration. We take pride in our city and our local community, and we hope you
share our dedication to making La Quinta and Quinterra an even better place to live.
Sincerely,
C
H. C. (Neil) Ludlam and James C. Hanson
(760) 342-0424
ATTACHMENT I
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee
September 1';, 1999
7. Committee Member Cunningham stated the roof design as shown by the
rendering looks nice.
8. Mr. Cioffi stated they would review the trash element and if st-ould give
them some leverage with the parking they will see what,6n be done to
remove parking that may be in the way. However, the adjoining residents
were adamant about not having to hear the trucks coming and going.
9. Committee Member Cunningham asked if th# concurred with staffs
recommendation. Mr. Cioffi stated yes, but he as questioning the window
treatment. Staff stated that what was wanted was a variety of size and shapes
to bring interest to the building. /
10. Committee Member Bobbitt asked wl}fat the response was from the Lake I,a
Quinta residents. Staff statYoneroperty owner had been in to see the
project and they were not oncerned with the project. Mr. Cioffistated they had met with thwners' Association (11OA) who were
pleased with the design, and with the HOA for Rancho La Quinta.
11. Committee Member Bob ttt stated he supported the look as displayed in the
rendering and believe the structure should go along with the look of the
church and the shop ng center.
12. Mr. Coiffi stated ey would look at the use of lintels, as well as the roof line,
window locati s and shapes.
13. Planning ager Christine di Iorio stated the only change to the conditions
is removi the recommendation for a parapet roof. The plant palette is fine
except the use of Date Palm and Ash trees. Discussion followed
regard' ti the different trees.
14. Th e being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee
mbers Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 99-018
commending approval of Site Development Permit 98-658, subject to
conditions as recommended. Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 99-655; a request of First School of the Desert for approval
of architectural and landscaping plans for a preschool facility located at the northeast
corner of Adams Street and Miles Avenue.
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
,J r
CAMN I)ocum--nts\WPDOC'S\A1,RC'10-7-99.%N'pd 3
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee
September 15, 1999
2. Mr. Mark Hastings, representing the School, stated the architectural elements
would be the same as those contained in the pictures submitted of their
Cathedral City and Palm Springs Schools. Discussion followed regarding the
different architectural and landscaping elements on the different schools.
3. Committee Member Cunningham stated he thought the use of the property
is excellent and very attractive.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed.
5. Committee Member Reynolds asked how the property would drain. Ms.
Margo Williams, with Mainiero Smith and Associates, stated it would drain
down Ladera Street into the existing basins to the east.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the City intended to install any left turn
lanes at the signal at this intersection. Mr. Hastings explained their drop off
procedure. The children will be taken to the classroom and dropped off with
the teacher and all the play areas are in the rear of the property.
7. Committee Member Cunningham asked the hours of operation. Mr. Hastings
stated 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. five days a week When they started their
Cathedral City they were in an existing residential area and they had to
address issues regarding circulation and traffic.
8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how many students. Mr. Hastings stated
128 students.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 99-019 approving
Site Development Permit 99-655 as recommended. Unanimously approved.
C. .te Develo ment Permit 99-660; a request of Century -Crowell Communities for
appr lof architectural and landscaping plans for two new prototype residential
condommlu`rng units within Tract 20158, along the south side of Calle Norte, east of
Avenida Las VerJes;' within Duna La Quinta.
1. Associate Planner Leslie M&w and presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is -chile in the Community Development
Department. Staff noted the correction in square footage for the units.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this site was currently being graded. Mr.
Armstrong stated yes and the differential is nine feet causing tli&-sp4t level
unit design.
CAMy I)ocuments\WPDOCS\AI,RCIO-7-99.wpd 4 ' 5 3
ROM : PHONE NO. :
Oct. 26 1999 01:47PM P1
WORLD DE DEL OPMENT, INC.
LAND DEVELOPMENT
LIC # 743867
October 26, 1999
CITY OF LA, QUINTA
Leslie Mouriquand
Via Facsimile 777-1233
RE: ''T')RNTATY''VE PARCEL MAP NO.29288
Dear Leslie,
74-333 Highway 111, PI UJ
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Office, (760) 568.2955
Fax (760) 568-4335
RED-IVED'
ft26"
We would like to take this opportunity to formally announce our support for the above
referenced project.
As you are aware, we are commencing construction down the street from this project at
Wildflower. After a thorough discussion with Mark Hastings regarding his project, We
have come to the conclusion that the school will have a significant positive benefit in the
area. We feel that the approval of this project will further the eity's goal of creating a
quality, single family neighborhood — along with satisfying the considerable demand for
excellent schools. As you may be aware, "First School" has an impeccable reputation in
the west end of the valley for providing a superior education_
It is our hope that the city will welcome "First School" with open arms.
Sincerely,
WORLD DEVELOPMENT, INC.
J-rz,1)'Cz-
Scott Stokes
Executive Vice President
in-96-99 13:37 RECEIVED FROM: P-01
ADDENDUM TO
THE LANDSCAPE PLAN
for
FIRST SCHOOL OF THE DESERT
o w n e r s: MARK AND DOROTHY HASTINGS
CITY OF LA QUINTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
ATTENTION. • LESLIE MORIQUAND
......... ..... ......0.... ......... ....... ....PLA1 \ a MATE LIST .............................................
PLANT NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
FRIDAY OCTOBER 2291999
BOTANICAL NAME SIZE REMARKS
ACACIA SALIGNA
ARECASTRUM ROMANZOFIANUM
PROSOPIS CHILENSIS'REESES HYBRID'
SCHINUS TEREBINTHIFOLIUS
WASINGTONIA ROBUSTA
WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA
BRACHYCHITON POPULNEUS
CERATONIA SILIQUA
ACACIA BAILEYANA
AS PER CITY: MIN. 10 FT.HT W/ 1/12 - 2" CALIPER
20
CHAMAEROPS HUMILUS
15 GAL
21
CYCUS REVOLUICA
15 GAL
22
STRELITZIA REGINA
15 GAL
23
YUCCA GLORIIOSA
15 GAL
24
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
5 GAL
25
ACACIA SMALLI BUSH
5 GAL
26
PRUNIS CAROLINIANA
5 GAL
30
BOUGANVILLEA
5 GAL
31
CARISSA GRANDIFLORA
5 GAL
32
HIBISCUS ROSA-SINENSIS
5 GAL
33
PHOTINIA FRASIERI
5 GAL
34
PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA
5 GAL
35
RAPHAELEPSIS iNDICA
5 GAL
40
BOUGANVILLEA
5 GAL
41
CALIANDRA
5 GAL
42
ZYLOSMA SENTICOSA
5 GAL
43
LANTANA SELLOWIANA
5 GAL
44
ASPARAGUS SPRENGERI
5 GAL
45
ACACIA REDOLINS
5 GAL
50
GAZANM ET AL
BEDDING VARIETY
It It
( ALL TREES )
GILBERT E. FRAIDE
ARCHITECT ........ 760/329-3584