2000 03 28 PCPLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
March 28, 2000
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2000-01 1
Beginning Minute Motion 2000-008
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 of the regular meeting on March 14, 2000
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
IN
VI
A. Item .................. CONTINUED - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29613
Applicant.......... RJT Homes, LLC
Location........... Between Calle Rondo and Cypress Point Drive, south of
Avenida Ultimo in La Quinta Fairways.
Request............ Approval to subdivide 0.58 acres into one residential lot anc
one common lot within the boundaries of Specific Plan 83-
001.
Action .............. Resolution 2000-
B. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 29624, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERM11
99-675
Applicant .......... World Development
Location ........... Westerly of Ladera Drive, east side of Adams Street, nortl-
of Miles Avenue.
Request ............ Approval to subdivide 2.44 acres into ten single family
residential lots, one street lot, and three landscape lots
Approval of architectural and landscape plans for foul
prototype residential units.
Action ............... Resolution 2000- Resolution 2000- Resolutior
2000-
BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of March 21, 2000
IX. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
March 14, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03
P.M. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Steve Robbins,
Robert Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner
Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to reorganize
the agenda to take Business Item A first. Unanimously approved.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
February 22, 2000. There being no further changes, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as
presented. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Temporary Use Permit 2000-244 and Minor Use Permit 2000-195; a
request of Chris Clarke for the Auto Centre at La Quinta for approval to
hold a Grand Opening Celebration on March 24-26, 2000 within the Auto
Centre at La Quinta, on and south of Auto Centre Drive, between Auto
Centre Way South and La Quinta Drive.
(':\Mv I)ocuments\WI'DOC'S\I'C'3-14-20.wpd
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
1 . Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan
Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a
copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff noted corrections in the staff report and
conditions: Condition #18 modified to read "Commercial food and
beverage vendors that are not selling prepacked food items, shall
obtain a permit from the Riverside County Health Department and
all commercial vendors will be required to obtain a City business
license." Condition #19 modified to delete the last part of the
sentence, "Prior to the opening, the applicant would be required to
pay a license fee of $780."
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if this is the same event the Chamber
of Commerce has been working on. Staff stated it was.
Commissioner Tyler stated he objected to the search lights, but
they are allowed per the City's Zoning Ordinance and in light of
the Tennis Stadium lights, these are minimal. He further noted the
nonstandard signs in the back of pickup trucks parking along the
curb for one of the auto dealers.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Christine Clarke, Stamko Development, stated
this was the grand opening for the Auto Mall and she has been
working with staff and the Chamber to hold this event. She went
on to explain the event.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if the anyone would like to speak regarding
this project. There being no public comment, Chairman Kirk closed
the public participation and opened the issue for Commission
discussion.
5. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-005,
approving Temporary Use Permit 2000-244, subject to the
attached Findings and Conditions of Approval, with the
modifications to Conditions #18 and #19.
a. Condition #18: Add, "Commercial food and beverage
vendors that are not selling prepacked food items, shall
obtain a permit from the Riverside County Health
Department and all commercial vendors will be required to
obtain a City business license."
CAW I)ocuments\WPDOCS\PC3-14-20.wpd 2
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
b. Condition #19: Delete the last part of the sentence: "Prior
to the opening, the applicant would be required to pay a
license fee of $780."
Unanimously approved.
6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to
adopt Minute Motion 2000-006, approving Minor Use Permit
2000-195, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as
amended.
a. Condition #18: Add, "Commercial food and beverage
vendors that are not selling prepacked food items, shall
obtain a permit from the Riverside County Health
Department and all commercial vendors will be required to
obtain a City business license."
b. Condition #19: Delete the last part of the sentence: "Prior
to the opening, the applicant would be required to pay a
license fee of $780."
Unanimously approved.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Site Development Permit 2000-667; a request of M & H Realty Partners
for approval of development plans for a 6,600 square foot commercial
pad building located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and
Highway 1 1 1, within Plaza La Quinta.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Abels stated the site plan on display was riot the
same as what had been submitted to the Commission„ The
parking stalls on the east side are not indicated on their site, Staff
stated parking stalls will be added to the east elevation:
Commissioner Abels asked if the total number of stalls noted in
the staff report was correct. Staff pointed out the additional stalls
on the site plan.
CAM}' I)ocuments\WPDOCS\I'C3-14-20.wpd 3
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
3. Commissioner Tyler noted his site plan denotes parking spaces
next to Highway 111 and asked how many parking stalls were
being added. Staff stated three parking spaces were being added.
4. Commissioner Butler asked if the 50-foot landscape setback, could
be used for additional parking. Staff stated it could not.
5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. David Geiser, M & H Realty Partners, asked if he
could speak after the public comment period.
6. Mr. James Elmer, 78-477 Highway 1 1 1, representing the
Beachside Cafe, stated he is allowed 15 parking spaces according
to the parking study. He seats 60 patrons outside and 115 inside
and has 22 employees per shift. There are not enough parking
spaces even for his restaurant. Then, the Beer Hunter utilizes
parking spaces all the way to Downey Savings and his customers
are complaining about how far away they have to park. To add
this building with additional parking demands to an already bad
situation, is something he does not want to see happen.
7. Ms. Freddie Hall, Broker Associate of Fred Sands Realty, stated
she has been at this Center since 1974, and the best use of this
site would be a parking lot. She requested this item be continued
to allow time to notify all the tenants of the Center. One of the
problems is that the restaurant parking starts before the
businesses are closed. She asked if the parking requirements were
the same requirements used when approving similar projects.
There are parking spaces behind the buildings for the employees,
but they do not feel safe and do not use them. She went on to
note the number of parking spaces allotted to each of the tenants.
8. Chairman Kirk asked if this project met the current parking
standards. Staff stated that based on the current requirements,
it does. With regards to shopping center requirements, if the
shopping center contains 50,000 square feet or more, the
requirement would be one space per 260 square feet. As this is
a mixed use site shared parking standards apply. Staff went on to
explain how the parking requirements are determined.
9. Ms. Holly Escobedo, the Book Rack, 78329 Highway 1 1 1, stated
her concerns about the parking. She is allowed five parking
spaces and has four employees. She does park in the rear of the
(':\My I)ocuments\WP1)(X'S\I'C3-14-20.wpd 4
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
building and even there she has a hard time finding a parking
space. She is a retail business and if she has to look in the back,
where are her customers parking. Customers have stated they will
not come in because they will not carry their books from across
the parking lot. She asked if anyone had checked to see how
many of the parking spaces are currently being used and why
wasn't underground parking considered.
10. Ms. Kathy Smith, TL Millers and Associates, 78-451 Highway
1 1 1, stated she works two doors down from the Beachside Cafe
and would like to request the Commission come to the site and
review the parking. There is no parking. When her job required
her to go to court she is concerned there will not be a parking
space available when she gets back. In the back, the parking is
limited. There has been vandalism and cars stolen, so it is not
safe.
11. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission at this time. Mr. David Geiser, Director of Design for
M & H Realty Partners, stated he knew there was a parking issue
at this Center, but that is due to it being a successful Center.
Pads 5 and 7 are both available for development. They have no
plans to develop Pad 7 as the Beer Hunter desires to install a patio
on a portion of this location. As pointed out in their parking study
the Code does allow the development as proposed. He went on
to review the parking requirements. Because of the parking
problem they have brought a manager on site to handle the parking
issues and the new development. They are considering developing
Pad 7 for parking. The issue is the tenant mix; they have two
popular restaurants at the same end of the Center. The idea they
hope to implement is enforceable employee parking in the rear of
the buildings. If safety is an issue, the property manager needs to
be informed to address the issue. The site is allowed to be
developed based on the requirements of the Center, per the Code
and law. The Vons Supermarket remodel is to expand the back
and east side of the store and will impact the parking minimally.
Their concern is that this store will leave the Center if they cannot
generate more business. They need an additional 9,500 square
feet for them. He noted the site plan in the Commission packet is
correct and there is no additional parking proposed for the east
side of the building. In regard to staff's statement that any tenant
could modify their sign is incorrect; this is a multi -tenant in -line
building. The design of the building does not allow for a hanging
CAM}1)ocuments\WPM)CS\PC3-14-20.kepd 5
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
sign as there is in some portions of the Center. This sign program
is consistent with what is there because there are a variety of
signs currently being allowed in the Center. They did not want to
apply for any variances, but only to build what is allowed by the
City Code. The design of the building was a function of what is
there at the Center. He went on to note the similarities between
this building and the other buildings and show the changes made
to their plans based on the Architecture and Landscaping Review
Committee's (ALRC) recommendation. Lastly, staff is requesting
Von's Shopping apply for their remodel under their own site
development permit. It helps them in their negotiations with Vons
to have a site approval by the Planning Commission.
12. Commissioner Abels stated he had no objection to including the
Von's expansion, but what happens to the existing tenants. Mr.
Geiser stated they will move them possibly into this new building.
Commissioner Abels stated he was glad to hear they are willing to
take the parking into consideration. Perhaps this should be
continued to a future date to consider the parking. He had spoken
to people at the Vons Shopping market and they stated they did
not have any idea about an expansion. He asked how many
parking spaces would be supplied by converting Pad 7. Mr. Geiser
stated about 15 more stalls.
13. Commissioner Robbins asked if the applicant would have any
objection to making the development of parking on Pad 7 a part of
the conditions. Mr. Geiser stated he would have no objection if
the application is not continued. If the Commission wants a
parking plan as part of the approval, he has no objection.
14. Commissioner Butler stated the drawing does show the changes
as recommended by the ALRC, but he believes staff's
recommendation is also valid. The raised parapets do allow signs
to be installed at this location. His concerns about these issues as
well as the parking, and seeing that the tenants are notified are
enough to warrant a continuance of the project. The tenants have
a right to know what is proposed here. Mr. Geiser stated they
know there is a problem with parking and they are working to
resolve those issues. If the Commission is going to continue the
project for issues other than parking, then he is in favor. In regard
to the notification of the tenants, it is unfortunate but the City
only requires a developer to notice property owners.
Commissioner Butler stated that in addition to this, the
C':AMN Documents\WPDOC'S\I'C'3-14-20.wpd 6
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
architectural detail has not been addressed as recommended by
staff. Mr. Geiser stated they have addressed everything except
the mansard roof, which the ALRC agreed with them. Staff has
now changed their opinion and brought a new issue. Staff's
recommendation is not possible.
15. Commissioner Tyler asked if the parking study included the parking
spaces in the rear. Mr. Geiser stated yes. Commissioner Tyler
asked if there were enough parking spaces in the back for the
number of employees. Mr. Geiser stated they have not done an
employee parking study, but have provided the number of parking
spaces required by City Code. Commissioner Tyler asked if the
Von's expansion would eliminate any of the parking spaces. Mr.
Geiser stated yes and it was included in its study. Commissioner
Tyler asked what tenants would be going into this new building.
Mr. Geiser stated Rubio's Baja Grill, a pet business and dry cleaner
are proposed. Discussion followed regarding the parking plan.
Commissioner Tyler stated he, as well as the other
Commissioners, have all looked at the area and agree with the
parking problem. He too, is concerned with the design. From the
south you see a building design throughout the Center that
contains tile roofs and this building has no tile, which does not
blend with the Center. Mr. Geiser stated they do not want a row
of clay tile roofs, but rather a variety to the site by the use of the
details used in the building. He gave examples of those details.
Commissioner Tyler asked if there were any examples of the Von's
expansion. Mr. Geiser stated the architectural portion of that
permit would come back to the Commission.
16. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing
for Commission discussion. Staff showed pictures of the
architectural style of the existing building. Chairman Kirk asked if
there were pictures of Downey Savings as well. Staff displayed
additional pictures of the Center.
17. Commissioner Abels stated the biggest problem is parking and
even though it conforms to Code, it is a problem. He is glad to
see the owner is willing to turn Pad 7 into parking.
18. Commissioner Robbins was also concerned with the parking and
that one of the proposed tenants for this new building is a
restaurant which will increase the intensity of the parking problem.
CAMv I)ocumcnts\WPDOCS\PC3-14-20.wpd 7
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
T-he only way he could resolve this is to make the conversion of
Pad 7 into parking. In regard to the architecture, he personally is
not drawn tc the red tile. The design of the building allows for
several locations for signs and to him it would detract from the
building to have them hanging. He asked if the Commission could
deny the project even though it conforms with the Code. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Commission can look at the
environmental considerations. Even though the Zoning Code is
met, the issues raised have to be mitigated, which is how the
problem with parking could be addressed. Commissioner Robbins
stated he had no problem with the addition of the Von's
expansion.
19. Commissioner Butler stated his issues were the parking and
architectural design of the building. He concurs with staff's
recommendations and even though the applicant noted his opinion,
he thinks the covered walkways and tile should be included.
20. Commissioner Tyler stated it was nice to consider Pad 7 for
parking, but even that additional parking will create problems with
access. He asked staff if they could add the Von's expansion if it
had not been a part of the public hearing notice.
21. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the
applicant if the front elevation of Von's, or the .empty pads that
would be used for the expansion, would have be changed. Mr.
Geiser stated that since the elevations of the shop buildings are
lower the front would change. Staff noted this would have to
have a condition added to the approval requiring these elevations
to be approved by staff, or they would have to be submitted as a
different application.
22. Commissioner Tyler stated he has no problem with the trellis, but
in order to blend in the south elevation, the building needs to add
the roof tile.
23. Chairman Kirk stated he agrees there is a parking problem. He
also agrees with Commissioner Butler in that the architecture is an
issue. He is not pleased with the Downey Savings building as it
also does not fit in with the rest of the Center. Signs are a real
issue as weil. As this is not a single tenant, but a multi -tenant,
problems are raised. Perhaps the building could be reduced) in size
to add the additional parking.
C':AMv Documents\WPDOC'S\PC'3-14-20.wpd 8
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
24. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this project to April 1 1,
2000. Staff noted that with the continuance, staff would notify
the tenants of the hearing. In addition, this will allow the applicant
time to submit the elevations for the Von's expansion.
25. Commissioner Butler stated there are unanswered questions
regarding the Beer Hunter outdoor seating as well. Staff noted
that was not part of this application.
26. Chairman Kirk asked the applicant if he had any questions. Mr.
Geiser stated the Commission has identified the issues, but
provided no direction for him to address. He would therefore,
prefer they act on the project at this time and allow him to appeal
their decision. Chairman Kirk asked staff if they had any
suggestions.
27. Commissioner Abels stated he thought the applicant should obtain
approval by the Planning Commission.
28. Commissioner Robbins stated the applicant should respond to the
same issues he would appeal to the City Council. Mr. Geiser
stated the parking issue cannot be resolved. If the Commission is
going to vote no because of the parking, then let him go forward
on an appeal.
29. Commissioner Tyler stated ALRC is a recommending body to the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is a
recommending body to the Council except in some cases such as
Site Development Permits, where the Commission has the final
action.
30. Chairman Kirk stated he did not believe the parking issue was the
real issue, and if the applicant came back it probably could be
resolved.
31. There being no further discussion, the Commission voted on the
motion.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
Chairman Kirk recessed at 8:43 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
(':AMN [)ocumcnts\WPDO(.S\PC3-I4-20.wpd 9
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
B. Site Development Permit 2000-669, a request of James R. Paul for
approval of architectural, site, and lighting plans for multi -tenant
industrial/office building within the La Quinta Corporate Center.
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.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins questioned Condition #47 in that planting
the trees 10 inch on center is not possible. Staff noted it should
read 10 feet on center. Commissioner Robbins stated he did not
approve of the use of Yellow Oleanders as it is not a good plant
material for a hedge. Staff stated it was chosen as being the best
for screening from the list of approved plants for the Specific Plan
are Commissioner Kirk stated his concern was also for the
security in relation to the bike path. Staff noted the planter was
on the inside of the block wall and the bike path was on the
outside. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated the hedge
could be removed, but as in Home Depot, the Commission
approved the use of trees to soften the view. Commissioner
Robbins questioned the use of the hedge. Staff would delete the
hedge and leave the trees.
3. Commissioner Robbins asked staff how the City could condition
an applicant to do something on someone else's property. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated this was based on the premise that
the land can be approved for bike path use. They cannot install
those improvements unless the permission is acquired. The City
is the applicant for the purpose of the easement.
4. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees with the planting of the
trees on the rear elevation to buffer the view.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the street name would continue to
Adams Street. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Tyler asked how
the project would be built in two phases. Staff suggested the
applicant explain. Commissioner Tyler asked about the
landscaping along the wall. Staff stated that according to the
Code they are required to provide berming for setbacks along Dune
Palms Road.
C':\M,,, Documents\WPDOCS\PC'3-14-20.wpd 10
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Bob Ricciardi, Architect for the project, noted
the phasing on the site plan, and explained the landscaping plan
and circulation plan.
7. Mr. Scott Gaynor, representing the owners of the La Quinta Center
stated the Center had recently been hit with taggers causing them
to repair their signs. In light of that, he is concerned about a wall
with no foliage to deter the taggers.
8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing
for Commission discussion.
9. Commissioner Tyler stated that the concern about tagging is a real
and he would recommend the hedge, but the trimming coulA be a
problem. If the wall is removed, they should consider more than
ten trees.
10. Mr. Riccardi suggested the City plant the trees and the applicant
provide the irrigation. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated
the slumpback wall as proposed does not lend itself to being able
to be tagged because it is not easily readable.
11. Commissioner Robbins asked if the bike path would have any
landscaping. Staff stated this has not been considered yet. Staff
noted the storage facility has already provided plant material by
recessing the wall so the planting is on their property. Openings
could also be provided in the wall to provide a view of the
landscaping.
12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-009 approving Site Development Permit 2000-
669, approving architecture, landscape, site, and lighting plans, for
a multi -tenant industrial/office building within the La Quinta
Corporate Centre, subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval as amended/:
a. Condition #47: staff work with applicant to soften the wall.
b. Condition #, subject to City and CVWD requirements. The
City will acquire the Bike Path easement.
C. Condition #5: fix
(':\MN1)ocumcnts\WPI)O('S\PC'3-14-20.wpd l l
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
ROLL COLL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
C. Zoning_ Ordinance Amendment 2000-065; a request of the City for a
recommendation of approval regarding an Amendment to Section
9.50.020 of the Zoning Code regarding height limits and setbacks near
Image Corridors.
1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio 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 if Washington Street was the only
street that would be affected. Staff stated they have checked all
the other Image Corridors and this is the only area of concern.
3. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about adopting a change
to the Zoning Code for one area of concern in that it could set a
precedent. He asked if there was any other means to approve
these houses without amending the Zoning Code. Staff stated
there was not.
4. Commissioner Robbins asked if there would be some style in the
roof line. Staff noted the roof would have a pitch and trees would
be planted along Washington Street to break it up.
5. Chairman Kirk asked how this problem was discovered. Staff
noted there was an error in the plan check process and it was not
found until the framing was under way.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding this
issue. Mr. John Kalogeris, 51-215 Calle Quito, builder of the
houses, stated they began plan check for the houses in June,
1999 and pulled building permits in November. They did not begin
framing until January, 2000. In order to resolve the issue, they
have agreed to modify the roof line 30% and plant mesquite trees
to mitigate the noise levels on Washington Street.
(':AMy I)ocuments\WP1)0C'S\I'C'3-14-20.NN,pd 12
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
7. There being ro further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing
for Commission discussion.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-010, recommending approval of Zoning Code
Amendment 2000-065, modifying Section 9.50.020 regarding the
side yard setbacks for existing lots adjacent to Image Corridors, as
recommended.
ROLL COLL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
B. Master Design Guidelines 2000-009; a request of Tribble Construction
for approval of guidelines for construction of single family homes
throughout the Cove.
1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Director.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. William Tribble stated he was available for any
questions.
3. Commissioner Butler suggested some popouts be added to Plan E3
for detail around windows and garage doors. Mr. Tribble stated he
had no objections and would work with staff. He noted Plan E5
contained the details noted by Commissioner Butler and the
photographs were of earlier units. The current units have popout
treatments. Discussion followed regarding the different plans.
4. Commissioner Tyler questioned the 20-foot front yard setback.
Mr. Tribble stated there is a 12 foot easement in addition to the
20-foot front yard setback, but all the garages will have roll -up
sectional doors. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Guidelines
have page numbers added as well as note the case number on the
front.
C AMy I)ocuments\WPDC)CS\PC3-14-20.wpd 13
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 2000
5. There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public
participation portion and opened the case for Commission
discussion.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-007,
approving Master Design Guidelines 2000-009, as amended.
Unanimously approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Abels gave a brief report on the League of California Cities
Planners Institute.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner
Robins/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held March 28, 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:43 P.M. on March 14,
2000.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
CAM}' I)ocuments\\l'PI)OC'S\PC3-14-20.wpd 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 (CONTINUED FROM FEB. 22, 2000)
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29613
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: RJT HOMES, LLC
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 0.58 ACRES INTO ONE
RESIDENTIAL LOT AND ONE COMMON ONE WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001.
LOCATION: SITUATED BETWEEN CALLE RONDO AND CYPRESS POINT
DRIVE AND SOUTH OF AVENIDA ULTIMO IN LA QUINTA
FAIRWAYS
ENGINEERS: M.D.S. CONSULTING
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE
REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 83-061305) FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001
CERTIFIED ON MAY 15, 1984. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE
PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT EIR PURSUANT TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING/
SPECIFIC
PLAN
DESIGNATIONS: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR); RM (MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL); RESIDENTIAL PER SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001
STTPM29613 - 39
CONDTPM29613 - 38 1
BACKGROUND:
On February 8 and 22, 2000, the Planning Commission heard public testimony on this
request from adjacent property owners. Copies of the Planning Commission Minutes
are attached (Attachments 1 and 2).
Site History
The project location is within the La Quinta Fairways community, which is generally
bounded on the east by Park Avenue, on the north by 50t" Avenue, on the south by
the Calle Tampico and Avenida Ultimo, and on the west by Calle Rondo and La Quinta
Evacuation Channel. La Quinta Fairways is a part of Specific Plan 83-001.
Tentative Tract Map 25389 (previously TTM 23292), representing the La Quinta
Fairways community, was approved by the City Council in 1990 allowing 254
residential lots on 63.6 acres with access to the development from Park Avenue
(Attachment 3). Emergency access was required on Calle Rondo at its intersection
with Avenida Tujunga pursuant to Condition #9 of City Council Resolution 91-1 15.
Site Information
The vacant site is graded for development and a six foot high wall exists along Calle
Rondo, a public street to the west. Parkway landscaping along Calle Rondo is planned
for installation this year.
Project Request
On February 25, 2000, the applicant withdrew their request to have "exit only" access
on Calle Rondo for the La Quinta Fairway homeowners.
This Map requests to subdivide Lot 33 of Tract 25389-4 by creating two parcels on
0.58 acres (Attachment 4). Site access occurs on Cypress Point Drive, a future
private street. A summary is as follows:
Parcel 1 = 18,458 square feet (Residential)
Parcel A = 6,933 square feet (Common Lot)
Public Notice: This Map application request was advertised in the Desert Sun
newspaper on January 27, 2000. All property owners within 500-feet of the site
STTPM29613 - 39
CONDTPM29613 - 38 2
were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by Subdivision Ordinance
of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
Public Agency Review: The applicant's request was sent on December 16, 1999, to
affected public agencies and any pertinent comments received have been incorporated
into the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve this request pursuant to Section 13.12.130 of the
Subdivision Ordinance can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 2000-_ approving Tentative Parcel Map 29613, subject to findings
and conditions.
Attachments:
1. Feb. 8, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes (Excerpt)
2. Feb. 22, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes (Excerpt)
3. TTM 25389 - Reduced
4. TPM 29613 - Reduced
Prepared by:
usdell, Associate Planner
STTPM296'.-3 - 39
CONDTPM29613 - 38 3
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29613 THE
SUBDIVISION OF 0.58 ACRES INTO ONE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND ONE COMMON LOT
IN LA QUINTA FAIRWAYS (SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001)
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29613
APPLICANT: RJT HOMES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 8th and 22"d days of February, 2000, and 281h day of March, 2000, hold
duly noticed Public Hearings for the subdivision of a 0.58 acre site into one single
family lot and one common lot generally located between Calle Rondo and future
Cypress Point Drive generally south of Avenida Ultimo in La Quinta Fairways, more
particularly described as:
Being a subdivision of Lot 33 of Tract 25389-4, County of Riverside,
State of California
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:
A. California Environmental Quality Act: Tentative Parcel Map 29613 is within
Specific Plan 83-001 for which an Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse Number 83-061305) was certified by the City Council on May
15, 1984. This Map is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
per Public Resources Code Section 65457(A) because no changed
circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a
subsequent Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21166.
B. General Plan/Specific Plan/Zoning Consistency: The property is designated
Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the General Plan Land Use Element which
allows residential land uses. The project is consistent with the goals, policies
and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) because
residential and common lots are proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan
Circulation Element.
RESOPCPM 29613 RJT - 38
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Tentative Parcel Map 29613
RJT Homes
The proposed lots are consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that
development standards and criteria contained in the Duna La Quinta Specific
Plan supplement and/or replace those in the City's Zoning Code. Conditions are
recommended ensuring compliance with both the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan
and Zoning Code.
C. Public Easements: As conditioned, the design of the proposed subdivision and
improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large,
for access through, or use of property within the proposed parcel map since
legal access has been provided to each parcel from Cypress Pointe Drive, and
public utility easements and landscape setback areas have been designated or
required as a condition of approval.
D. Design of the Subdivision: The design of the subdivision complies with the
requirements of the specific plan and zoning district in which the proposed
parcels are located with respect to minimum parcel size, access, and
improvement issues, including adequate traffic circulation and emergency only
access to the subdivision from Calle Rondo.
E. Suitability of the Site: As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the
proposed subdivision as there are no steep slopes or other physical constraints
for future development. Stormwater runoff will be diverted to the existing golf
course to ensure off -site properties are not impacted by seasonal storms.
F. Public Health: The design of the proposed parcel map will not likely cause
serious public health problems as the proposed subdivision has been reviewed
by other public agencies for health and safety issues, with none identified.
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 reconfirm the conclusions of Final Environmental Impact
Report 83-061305; and,
3. That it does approve Tentative Parcel Map 29613 for the reasons set forth in
this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
RESOPCPM 29613 RJT - 38
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
Tentative Parcel Map 29613
RJT Homes
PASSED,
Quinta City Planning
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Commission, held on this 281h day of March, 2000 by the
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPCPM 29613 RJT - 38
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29613
RJT HOMES
MARCH 28, 2000
CONDITIONS:
1 . Upon their approval by the Planning Commission, a memorandum noting that the
City Conditions of Approval for this application exist and are available for review
at City Hall shall be recorded against the property with Riverside County.
2. 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.
3. This tentative 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).
4. This Map shall expire on March 21, 2002, unless extended pursuant to the
requirements of the City Subdivision Ordinance.
5. Applicable Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 83-001 and Tract 25389
shall be met.
6. Public agency comments on file with the Community Development Department
are made part of this case for plan check review during final map consideration.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
7. Fire hydrants in accordance with CVWD Standard W-33 shall be located at each
street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no
portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire
flow shall be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot reflectors
shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with fire hydrants.
Cond TPM 29613 RJT - 38 Pagel of 2
8. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer will furnish one blueline
copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval.
Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the
system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed/approved by
a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following
certification: / certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department.
9. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
10. Gated access on Calle Rondo for this Map shall be approved by the City's Fire
Marshal, and include either a power supply with Knox key operated switches or
an approved manual means to release mechanical control of the gate(s) in the
event of loss of primary power. Operation of the Knox key switch shall
simultaneously open and control the gate(s) in both directions of travel. Plans
must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting
location/position and operating standards.
Cond TPM 29613 RJT - 38 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2000 .
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Attachment 1
A. Tentative Parcel Map 29613; a request of RJT Homes, LLC for approval of the
subdivision of 0.58 acres into two residential and other common lots within the
boundaries of Specific Plan 83-001. Parcel B proposes emergency and exit only
access onto Calle Rondo, a public street located between Calle Rondo and Cypress
Point Drive and south of Avenida Ultimo in La Quinta Fairways.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio gave a brief review of the request and
informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a continuance to
the Commission's meeting of February 22, 2000.
2. Chairman Kirk informed everyone that even though the applicant had
requested a continuance, due to the number of people present the
Commission would go ahead and take public comment at this time.
3. Mr. Richard Moreno, 50-825 Calle Rondo stated he would hold his
comments for February 22, 2000.
4. Mr. Manny Marmer, 78-740 Tujunga, stated the proposed gate is 1.50 feet
from his house and he does not understand why they would want to have a
gate at this location when there is already a construction gate on Calle
Tampico. He does not want them driving down his street when they already
have a gate off Tampico.
5. Mr. Fred Rodriguez, 50805 Calle Guaymas., stated they had purchased a
home knowing that an emergency access had been approved for this site.
They have lived there with no problems and now this developer is wanting
to change the rules. Their concerns are additional traffic in the neighborhood
with children playing in the area. They do not have sidewalks so children
play in the street. There is nothing to prevent the developer from coming
back again to request an entrance. The pedestrian traffic will increase.
Additional traffic adds to a less seclusive neighborhood which diminishes
property values. RJT already has adequate access on Park Avenue. If an
emergency exit is needed could Calle Tampico be used instead? He then
submitted a signed petition by the residents objecting to the gate. He asked
how many times the developer could ask for a continuance. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated there is no limit. In this case there is a portion of the
report that is not prepared and this is why it is being continued.
6. Mr. Doug Gillund 78-710 Naranja, stated they do have a planned statement
they would like to present at the next meeting in opposition to this request.
They are not against the development and understand the need for an
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC2-8-20.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2000
emergency exit and the need for the City to work with them to come up with
a solution. With 50 homes it is simple, but with 300 there is a need for access
and exits. They do understand the exit that is used for construction is not a
viable as it is near a corner, but there could be a right turn at this location.
They also understand that the exit onto Calle Tampico could be a dangerous
left/right turn, but could be a right turn to separate the traffic which needs to
be done. They are working with the project to make it work for everyone, but
will make a more formal presentation at the next hearing.
7. Mr. Dane Hooper, 78-620 Calle Tujunga, stated that in the event he is not
able to attend the meeting on February 22", stated that when the street
improvements were being made, the residents at that time in the Desert Club
Estate went to the City and requested restricted access to their streets. The
City built a wall and closed the access to Washington Street. For this they
paid a substantial assessment to achieve seclusion. This achieved their goal
of reducing the traffic to those who live there. He knows of no country club
that dumps its traffic onto a residential street. They all exit onto major
arterials as they should. In his opinion Park Avenue is an adequate street to
handle the traffic flow.
8. Ms. Kahnema Melkesian, 50-795 Calle Guaymas, stated she loves the
neighborhood because of the serenity. There is no traffic except for the
residents and their guests. Kids have the freedom to ride bikes and
rollerblade all around on Calle Tujunga and Calle Rondo and feel they are
safe. People walk and jog as well and they feel it is safe. She cannot :imagine
an access at this site which would accommodate anyone wanting to make a
quick trip to the market going through their neighborhood. This exit could
increase the traffic by 25 to 100 cars a day. It is unfair to dump another
neighborhood into theirs when they moved there for the safety and quiet they
currently have.
9. There Being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners AbelsButler to continue the public hearing on Tentative
Parcel Map 29613 to February 22, 2000. Unanimously approved.
B. Environmental Assessment yy-szsy, ku nerai riun titian uii-uL »- —r. 1—al. �.aaw�cv
99 092 Specific Plan 99-04 /and Tentative Tract Man 29323; a request of Wade
Ellis/Wamer Engineering requesting Certification of a Mitigated negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of a Pre -Annexation General Plan
Designation from County Designation 2b (2-5 units per acre) to Low Density
Residential (2-4 units per acre), Zone Change from County Designation of r-1-9000
to Low Density Residential, a Specific Plan for development standards and design
guidelines for a residential development; and Tentative Tract Map to allow 379
residential units on 117 acres, to be located on the northwest corner of Fred Waring
Drive and Jefferson Street.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC2-8-20.wpd 3
Attachment 2
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
February 22. 2000
I. CALL TO ORDER
IV.
7:00 P.M.
A. "Phis meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by
Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler,
and Chairmafi Tom Kirk.
C. Staff p sent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Hon ywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Pr' cipal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
CONFIR-MATION OF THE AGENDA:
CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if
2000. Commissioner Ty
near a corner...". Thor
Commissioners Abelsf
approved. 7
B. Department Report:
te h9(were any corrections to the Minutes of February 8,
h
1 r asked that Page 3, Item 6 states, "...is not viable as it is
eing no further changes, it was moved and seconded by
utler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously
1. Commissioner Tyler asked the status of Site l
development plans for a pad building at P
Corporate Center. Staff stated it was tental
2000. Commissioner Tyler asked when the
Center would be before the Commission.
the Commission on March 14'
Xa
ment Permit 2000-667,
Quinta as well as the
,ly scheduled for March 14,
it buildings for the Corporate
stated it too would be before
V. IC HEARINGS:
A. 'ontinued - Tentative Parcel Map 29613; a request of RJT Homes, LLC for approval
of the subdivision of 0.58 acres into two residential and other common lots within
the boundaries of Specific Plan 83-001. Parcel B proposes emergency and exit only
C WN, I)ocuments\WPIX)CS\PC' 2-22-20.wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2000
access onto Calle Rondo, a public street located between Calle Rondo and Cypress
Point Drive and south of Avenida Ultimo in La Quinta Fairways.
Chairman Kirk noted this was a continued public hearing and the public
comment portion was open. He then asked for the staff report. Planning
Manager Christine di Iorio stated the applicant is preparing a traffic study at
the request of staff. As of this date it is not completed and the applicant is
anticipating its completion within a week and therefore, the applicant has
requested a continuance to the Commission's meeting of March 14, 2000.
2. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern that this project was being co.ritinued
again and suggested a limit be placed on the time extension so as not to cause
a hardship on the residents. Staff stated the Commission could take action
on the project at this meeting and not continue it.
3. Commissioner Abels stated the Commission should review the traffic study
in fairness to the applicant before taking any action.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone would like to address the Commission at this
time. but noted the project will be continued.
5. Mr. Seth Etinger, 78-720 Avenida La Fonda, stated that if this traffic study
is made, will the residents who will be affected by the project, have an
opportunity to review the study and prepare comments regarding it. Staff
stated they are welcome to come to the Community Development
Department to review the document.
6. Mr. Dane Ilooper, 78-620 Avenida Tujunga, stated he too would like to see
the results of the traffic study. Also, one of the primary tactics for making
application of an unfavorable project is to out stall the opposed. I le requested
the Commission see that this application go forward in a timely manner so
the residents can make their views known.
7. Mr. Peter Rodholm, 50-640 Calle Paloma, asked who is paying for the traffic
study, is it RJT and if it is them, could they be in a conflict of interest. Staff
stated the traffic study is submitted to the City and the City's traffic engineer
reviews the document. The applicant, RJT, will select its traffic engineer and
pay them to do the study. Mr. Rodholm stated this is a conflict of the
interest. The City should have their own traffic firm prepare and submit the
study. Chairman Kirk stated it is a general requirement that the applicant pay
for the required reports.
CAMy I)ocuments\WPDOCS\PC 2-22-20.xapd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2000
8. Mr. Doug Gilland 78-710 Naranja, stated the traffic study is only one of his
concerns. If a traffic study is to be done, Calle Rondo should not be the only
street studied as other streets will be used as well.
9. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they are counting the traffic on Calle
Rondo right now with the understanding that other routes would considered
as well. He has talked with the traffic engineer selected and this is the same
engineer the City is using for its own General Plan as well as the City of
Indio, and is a highly recognized firm.
10. Mr. Gary Flanders, 51-345 Calle Paloma, asked how many homes are
proposed for this development. Staff stated 254 homes. Mr. Flanders stated
he was a painting contractor specializing in the exterior painting for
homeowners' associations. There are many other HOA much larger than this
development who have only one gate. At PGA West, the Palmer side has one
gate for approximately 600 homes; one gate for the Stadium course which
covers two golf courses and approximately 800 homes. I f other
developments approved by the City have two or three times as many homes
and only one access/exit, on a major thoroughfare, why does this developer
of a small development need to have an access/exit gate in a residential
neighborhood where there are children.
11. Mr. Jeffrey Withers, 50-790 Calle Guaymas, asked how many times the
applicant would be allowed to continue this project. Why do the residents
have to continue to go through this process. This is not reasonable on the
developers part and wanted to get this resolved. There is public outcry
against this project. Chairman Kirk stated that everyone is interested in the
results of the traffic study which will give some true numbers on the impact
of project. Mr. Weathers stated he is not interested in the traffic study; he
wants to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. Having more cars
running in and out of there is not in the interest of anybody at this meeting.
This is why they are at the meeting. To keep this dragging on is unfair to the
residents.
12. Ms Kahiani Leaches, 50825 Calle Guaymas, stated she had heard this exit
was proposed "Sy the HOA. Why are they not at this meeting stating their
case. They are at the meeting and do not want their neighborhood ruined by
their traffic. They want the privacy, seclusion they have now and do not want
their traffic filtering through their neighborhood.
13. Mr. Frank Ogallinaro, 78-705 Avenida La Torres, stated they had purchased
their home six months ago because it is quiet with no through traffic, so their
kids could play safely in their yard or street. This traffic study is going to be
CAMy Documents\WPDOC'S\PC 2-22-20.�Npd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2000
slanted because they will make it look anyway the developer wants it -to look.
Currently, the report is only for Calle Rondo; when will the report be done
on the other streets. This means the Commission will missed an accurate
count on what the impacts will be.
14. Mr. Dean Juist 50-795 Calle Quinto, stated he has a nine year old son who
skateboards in front of his house and traffic is a concern to them. The levels
of traffic right :now are a concern. They have visitors coming in and out as
well as the residents. They asked City to put up a "Children Playing" sign,
slow speed to 25mph six months ago and the City refused. Now, the City
wants to add more traffic to what is currently there, and his children are out
there playing with their friends, one more car is one more too many. If the
Commission approves this, they are angry enough to sue. So this is a
warning.
15. Mr. Peter Rodholm, 50-640 Calle Paloma, stated they have had a number of
problems in this area, such as height limitations, two story homes being built
in a one story community, without the community being told. The
neighborhood is banded together and it is not unreasonable to ask the
Commission to look at a secondary egress being placed on Calle 'Tampico
and not into their community. There has been no traffic metering on Calle
Tujunga which is directly off the proposed exit. If everyone believes the
traffic from this project will only go onto Calle Rondo, that is mistaken. The
developer currently has two exits; a construction exit on Park Avenue and
their main entrance. Why can't that second exit remain as their secondary
egress?
16. Mr. Phillip Bruce, 50-800 Calle Quinto, asked if anyone was there
representing RJT Homes, or the homeowners' association, it seems that this
is a pretty common answer that nobody is at the meeting representing these
people, but the Commission.
17. Mr. Joe Garza, 50-550 Calle Quinto, stated there were empty lots that will be
built on in their area and traffic will also be generated by those lots as well.
18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abels to continue the public hearing on Tentative
Parcel Map 29613 to March 28, 2000, with the knowledge that this would be
the final continuance. Unanimously approved.
19. Commissioner Robbins asked if the traffic study was requested by staff.
Staff stated it was. Commissioner Robbins stated that because the report was
requested by staff, the continuance was not necessarily the applicants fault.
C':\M,,, Documents\WPDOCS\PC 2-22-20.wpd 4
E)CHIBIT B
SITE PLAN
Attachment 3
!CJK
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 29613
n�4�•�A I�(SY59•TI-��b III `I� .1 ,�- - __;' .�.
ji
�A6EMENT
40
'UJIJd A i I 1
✓ i #1
1
41
42 �' I ' N•
III' �i�
ti I �h
o
Lj
44
—� - Ali 'I'•.� V 1@ � r. %••v.
...•N Lei, ''Vv� rWT T I,� ._a�,.
NB959"i9,
"TR,4CT N(7. 28380-4� „,032
l III - `• .:,,�.•.{
H
O
Z
20 40 80 160
EVSEO: DECEMBER 27. 1999
of REVISION: FEBRUARY 7. 2000
nd REVISION. FEBRUARY 25. 2000
ti
I
4
VK;M" MAP
NOT TO SCALE
Attachment 4
I
LEM DESORPTION
BOND A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 33 OF TRACT NO. 2538)-4 AS FLED
IN BOOK 2B4. AT PAGES 9 THROUGH 11. INCLUSIVE OF NAPS, IN THE
CRY OF LA OUINTA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CAUFORNU
WATER COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
SEWER - COACHEL A VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
CAS - SOUTHERN CAUFORNI4 GAS COMPANY
TELEPHONE - GENERAL TELEPHONE
ELECTRICITY - IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
TELEVISION - TIMES WARNER
0.58 ACRES
ASSESSOR'S PARM NUABFAS
769-050-M
�TL TARO
MDS CONSULTING
79-799 OLD AVENUE 52
.;7' S J e
LA QUINTA, CA 92253
=4'i
u u �
�h` 0'
CHRS J. BERGH
_ gL1F�
DATE
TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAT'
NO. 29613
OMMOWDEM
RJT HOMES, LLC;
50842 Grand Traverse (760) 584-6555
P.O. BOX 810 FAX (760) 564-6505
La Quinta, CA 92253
MDSNo$
CONSUL TING
NITOt 110 M 1IpY7!<
>9-10A oN aww sz pso) m-,mn
b Qul%q G B 3 FAY IYl�
zzwi �.M
PLANNING ouludz 1Mz9 RURY"M
t\43900,PMAJ\ G9M1134p z/D/Z
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 28, 2000
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-675
APPLICANT: WORLD DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTY
OWNER: HASTINGS FAMILY TRUST
REQUEST: 1) APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 2.44 ACRES INTO 10
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE STREET
LOT, AND THREE LANDSCAPE LOTS, AND,
2) APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND
LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR FOUR PROTOTYPE
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
LOCATION: ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, WE' T OF
LADERA DRIVE AND APPROXIMATELY 360 FEET NORTH
OF MIKES AVENUE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2000-675 ARE WITHIN TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
29288, FOR WHICH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382 WAS CERTIFIED
FOR TPM 29288, CUP 99-044, AND SDP 99-655 (FIRST
SCHOOL OF THE DESERT) UNDER PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-074. A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED
TO ADD NEW INFORMATION ON POTENTIAL NOISE,
HYDROLOGICAL, AND GEOTECHNICAL IMPACTS AND
THEIR MITIGATION. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS
RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION.
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING
DESIGNATION AND
LAND USE: ON SITE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR); VACANT
SURROUNDING
USES: NORTH: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS (TRACT
23913-QUINTERRA)
EAST: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS (TRACT
23913-QUINTERRA)
WEST. CHURCH, VACANT, WELL SITE
SOUTH: VACANT (FIRST SCHOOL OF THE DESERT
SITE)
BACKGROUND:
The proposed subdivision is located north of the First School of the Desert preschool,
approved on Parcel 1 of TPM 29288, in October, 1999. The proposed subdivision is
located on Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 29288.
The proposed subdivision is bordered on the north and east by Quinterra, a single family
residential development. Ladera Drive is stubbed for future extension to the west as
required under Tentative Tract Map 23913 with the condition that the street stubs (Ladera
Drive, Ocotillo Drive, and Nuevo Drive) shall be barricaded to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department. It was determined by the City that the best way to barricade the
stubbed streets was with masonry block wall which would be removed at the time of future
extensions.
The applicant proposes to construct on the lots four residential prototype plans previously
approved for construction in Tract 25691 (Wildflower), approved by Planning Commission
Resolution 99-067, located on the north side of Miles Avenue, east of Dune Palms Road.
Project Proposal
Subdivision
The proposed subdivision consists of 10 single family residential lots, three lettered lots
for landscaping, and one private street lot. The street lot will be an extension of Ladera
Drive (from Tract 23913) and will terminate in a 45-foot radius width cul-de-sac near the
north boundary of the tentative tract. A 33-foot right-of-way width with a 5-foot wide utility
easement on each side is proposed for the extension of Ladera Drive. No access is
proposed from Adams Street, or to the First School of the Desert project. The subdivision
will be ungated.
C:\Mydata\perptTTM29624World3-28-OO.wpd
The proposed lot data is as follows:
Average lot size 8,750 sq. ft.
Minimum lot size 7,439 sq. ft.
Maximum lot size 10,661 sq. ft.
Lot A (street) 106,235 sq. ft.
The perimeter of the subdivision will have masonry walls, provided by the existing wall
along the east and north boundaries and proposed slump block masonry walls with
pilasters and decorative cap along Adams Street and the southern boundary. The
perimeter wall will be curved at the southwest corner in order to provide better visibility for
the preschool driveway and design/landscape interest.
Generally, the proposed residential pads are at a lower elevation than that approved for
the preschool campus to the south, and slightly higher, 1 to 2 feet than elevations of the
existing homes to the east. To the north the proposed elevations will be less than one foot
than the existing house elevations. Short segments of retaining walls are proposed for Lot
1 (4' high), and a dual retaining wall system along a part of the southern boundary
adjacent to Lot 10 and Lot B, to transition between the preschool and the proposed
residential lot.
Unit Architecture
The four proposed single -story floor plans are those approved for "Wildflowers" on the
north side of Miles Avenue, east of Dune Palms Road and vary from 1,704 square feet to
2,520 square feet of liveable area. Units will range in height from 167' to 17'9", excluding
chimney projections. Roof heights within each plan vary due to the different roof planes
and sizes. Each plan is laid out with a front entry courtyard with either single or double
front doors. The plans feature two and three car garages, with both front and side loading
options.
A Mediterranean architectural style is proposed, utilizing exterior plaster walls and
concrete tile roofing. Color and materials exhibits featuring four color schemes will be
available at the meeting. Plans 1, 2, and 4 include two different facades, while Plan 3
offers three options. Side and rear elevations are the same within each plan.
Plan 1 Option A 2 bedroom
3 baths
2-car garage, front loading
1,704 square feet liveable
475 square feet garage
2,179 square feet total
Option B (Only roof lines changed)
Plan 2 Option A 4 bedreoms
C:\Mydata\perptTTM29624World3-28-OO.wpd
2 baths
3-car garage, front loading
2,100 square feet liveable
700 square feet garage
2,800 square feet total
Option B (Only roof lines changed)
Plan 3 Option A 3 bedrooms
3 baths
3-car garage, front loading
2,200 square feet liveable
695 square feet garage
2,895 square feet total
Option B 3 bedrooms
3 baths
3-car garage, side loading
2,200 square feet liveable
695 square feet garage
2,895 square feet total
Option C 3 bedrooms
3 baths
2-car garage, front loading
2,200 square feet liveable
600 square feet garage
2,800 square feet total
Plan 4 Option A 4 bedrooms
3 baths
3-car garage, side loading
2,520 square feet liveable
688 square feet garage
3,200 square feet total
Option B (Only roof lines changed)
The material for the garage doors is not specified. Window frames will be white enameled
aluminum. Earth tone trim colors for window shutters, lintels, etc., will be provided. Exterior
finish will include terracotta -style concrete the roofing with various color flashing, earth
tone color -coated stucco walls and fascias. Architectural features include, but are not
limited to arches, shutters, stucco window and door surrounds, decorative attic vents, glass
block windows, and stucco trims.
The applicant proposes to construct the following mix of units:
Plan 1 Lot 5
C: \Myd ata\perptTTM29624 W o rl d 3-28-00. wpd
Plan 2
Lots 1 & 4
Plan 3
Lots 3, 7 & 9
Plan 4
Lots 2, 6, 8, & 10
Landscaping
The typical front yard landscaping plan is included in the proposal that includes a minimum
of two shade trees, palm trees, and numerous shrubs highlighted by lawn. A varied plant
palette is proposed. Caliper size of the proposed trees is not specified.
Perimeter landscaping is proposed along Adams Street that will match that approved to
the south for the preschool facility, including 3-feet high continuous berming, and a 5-foot
wide meandering sidewalk.
Public Notice
The requested subdivision was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on March 6, 2000
and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. To date, no
correspondence has been received.
Agency Comment
These requests were transmitted to responsible agencies for review and comment. All
pertinent comments have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
(MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve Tentative Tract Map 29624, pursuant to Subdivision
Ordinance Section 13.12.130, can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
Findings necessary to approve Site Development Permit 2000-675, pursuant to Zoning
Code Section 9.210.010(F), can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution,
with the exception of the following Finding:
1. Landscape Design: As conditioned, the proposed front yard landscaping has been
designed to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize
prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a
harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and provide a unifying influence
to enhance the visual continuity of the project. However, the proposed landscaping
C:\Mydata\perptTTM29624World3-28-OO.wpd
along Adams Street is not consistent with the landscaping plan approved along
Adams Street for the First School of the Desert. In order to ensure consistency,
staff recommends SDP Condition No. 2 which requires that the landscaping match
that approved along Adams Street for the First School of the Desert (SDP 99-655).
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- recommending certification of a
subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for EA 99-382 to the
City Council.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- recommending approval to the City
Council for Tentative Tract Map 29624, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions
of Approval
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- approving Site Development Permit
2000-675, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
2. Location Map
3. TTM 29624 exhibit
4. Architecture and Landscape exhibits
5. Site/Grading Plan
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
fo
Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, PI nning Manager
C:\Mydata\perptTTM29624World3-28-OO.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624 TO ALLOW THE
SUBDIVISION OF 2.44 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE STREET LOT, AND THREE
LANDSCAPING LOTS, AND SDP 2000-675 FOR
ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPING, SITE AND GRADING
PLANS FOR FOUR PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 28th day of March, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing as requested
by World Development on the Subsequent Environmental Analysis for Tentative Tract
Map 29624 and Site Development Permit 2000-675, located on the east side of
Adams Street, approximately 360 feet north of Miles Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, said Subsequent Environmental Assessment complies with
the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director
has conducted an 'Initial Study and has determined that although the proposed
subdivision and residential units 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 conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
was certified for EA 99-382, by Resolution No. 99-074, prepared for CUP 99-044,
SDP 99-655, and TPM 29288, for the First School of the Desert, to be developed on
Parcel 1 of TPM 29288; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is on Parcel 2 of TPM 29288; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following
facts to justify recommendation for certification of said Subsequent Environmental
Assessment:
1 . The proposed tentative tract map and site development permit will not have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation
of mitigation measures, as the noise, biology, geotechnical, hydrological, and
cultural resources studies prepared for this project did not identify any
significant impacts that could not be reasonably mitigated to levels of
insignificance.
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development
March 28, 2000
2. The proposed tentative tract map and residential units will not have the
potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals,
with the successful implementation of mitigation, as the noise, biology,
geotechnical, hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for this
project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
3. The proposed tentative tract map will not have impacts which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as the noise, biology, geotechnical,
hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for this project did not
identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
4. The proposed tentative tract map and residential units will not have
environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or
indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation, as the noise, geotechnical,
and hydrological studies prepared for this project did not identify any
significant impact with regard to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby concur with the environmental determination, mitigation
measures, and certification of Subsequent Environmental Assessment 99-382
for the proposed Tentative Tract Map 29624 and Site Development Permit
2000-675.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28' day of March, 2000, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
P:\PCEARESttm29624wORLD3-28-2000.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development
March 28, 2000
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\PCEARESttm29624wORLD3-28-2000.wpd
2
M
0
SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist Form - EA 99-382
Project Title: TTM 29624 & SDP 2000-675
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
Project Location: Northeast corner of Adams Street and Miles Avenue
Project Sponsors Name and Address: World Development
74-333 Hwy. 111, Suite #103
Palm Desert, CA 92260
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR)
7. Zoning: Low Density Residential (RL)
Z
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 2.44 gross acres into 10 single family residential lots, one street lot, and
three landscape lots on Parcel 2 of TPM 29288. On Parcel 1 (1.42 acres) a 7,065 square
foot preschool building with parking area and play yard (approved under SDP 99-655,
CUP 99-044, & TPM 29288) are approved for development. The Planning Commission
certified the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 99-382),
which included the entire map area with the exception of issues relating to the proposed
tract units. The applicant also requests approval of architectural, landscaping, and
site/grading plans for four prototype single family residential plans.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North= Single family residences
East = Single family residences
South = Approved preschool campus
West = Church, Single family residences across Miles Avenue
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
None identified.
PAEA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-00.wpd
-1-
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Determination
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and I lousing
(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 SUBSEQUENT 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. O
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 analvsis 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.
11
Signature Date
Printed Name For
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
-2-
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening
analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -
site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the
checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
S) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less 'than
Significant Unless Signilicant No
Impact :Mitigated Impact Impact
PAEA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-OO.wpd
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista'? (Master
Environmental Assessment, Pg. 5-13, EA 99-382, architectural and
landscaping exhibits)
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;
EA 99-382)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (EA 99-382, Architectural and landscaping
exhibits)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (TTM 29624)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the Cal.fornia 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, EA 99-382)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (City Zoning Map, EA 99-382)
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; EA 99-382)
IIL 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
Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-33 to 5-47, EA 99-382)
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, EA 99-382)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ( SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook, pg. 6-1, Table 6-2, EA 99-382)
d) Create or contribute to a non -stationary source "hot spot"
(primarily carbon monoxide)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Table 9-
5-M; EA 99-382)
X
X
1/
KI
E/
X
X
X
X
P:\EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-00.wpd -`
e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Fig. 5-4. EA 99-382)
X
f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Fig. 5-4; EA 99-382)
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 of Federal Regulations (sections 17.11 or 17.12)? (Cornett,
1999; Fish & Wildlife Service letter; Master Environmental
Assessment, pg. 5-5, EA 99-382)
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; EA 99-382)
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; EA 99-382)
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;
EA 99-382)
c) 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: EA
99-382)
f) Conflict with anv local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance'? (Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5, EA 99-382)
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: EA 99-382)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
M
X
/:/
X
X
M
KI
9/
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 X
Tang, 1999: EA 99-382)
P:\EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-00.wpd
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, EA 99-382)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Paleonotological Lakebed Determination Map; EA 99-382)
d) Disturb an}, human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (Love and Tang, 1999-, EA 99-382)
Vl. 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, EA 99-
382)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Master Environmental
Assessment, pg. 6-7, Sladden Engineering. 1999, Anderson, 2-29-
2000)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7; EA 99-382; Anderson, 2-29-
2000)
iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami. or mudflow? (Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7; EA 99-382)
v) Landslides? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7, EA 99-
382)
vi) Flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam'? (Master Environmental Assessment. pg. 6-13; EA 99-382)
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'; EA 99-
382)
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-12, de la Torre, 9-
2-1999- hydrology report; EA 99-382)
c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature'?
(Aerial photos of project area: EA 99-382)
9
X
X
X
0
►1
V.1
X
X
14
0
1:1
VII.
VIIL
d) Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would X
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsistence, liquefaction or
collapse? (Anderson, 2-29-2000. EA 99-382)
c) Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to
life or property'? (Sladden Engineering, 1999: EA 99-382)
f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water, is
the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems? (Sladden Engineering, 1999. CVWD
letter, 2-16-2000; EA 99-382)
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; Ea 99-382)
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: EA 99-382)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application materials, EA 99-382)
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? (EA 99-382)
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% EA 99-382)
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': EA 99-382)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Application
materials; EA 99-382)
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; EA 99-382)
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Application Materials;
EA 99-382)
X
X
X
0
E1
X
0
91
X
0
P:\EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624World3-28-OO.wpd
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 2-16-2000;
Ea 99-382)
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? (De la Torre, Hydrology report 9-2-99; EA 99-382)
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 cf surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (De la Torre,
Hydrolog) report 9-2-99; EA 99-382)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control ? (de la
Torre, Hydrology report 9-2-99, Ea 99-382)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplam, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment, 6-7, EA
99-382)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplam structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7,
Application Materials, EA 99-382)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
X.
a) Physically divide an established community'? (General Plan, pg. 2-
IT, Ea 99-382)
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, EA 99-382)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (CV Fringe -toed Habitat
Conservation Plan; EA 99-382)
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, EA 99-382)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan'? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-29;
Ea 99-382)
M
X
III
11
91
I _t__ I X I
X
X
M
X
X
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
applicable standards of other agencies? (Greve and Utsler, 2-29-2000)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels'? (Greve and Utsler, 2-29-2000)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Greve and Utsler, 2-29-2000)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Greve and Utsler, 2-29-2000)
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; Ea 99-382)
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; EA
99-382)
MI. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ?
(Application materials. EA 99-382)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
materials; EA 99-382)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
materials, EA 99-382)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts. in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios. response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection? (Fire Dept. Letter, 2-15-2000)
Police protection? (Riv. Co. Sheriff's Dept. Letter, 6-18-99; Ea 99-
382)
Schools? (DSUSD letter, 2-4-2000)
Parks? (EA 99-382)
Other public facilities'? (EA 99-382)
X
X
X
/:1
ON
X
X
X
X
F14
X
X
!X'
P1EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-00.wpd
XIV
XV.
XVI.
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; EA 99-382)
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, EA 99-382)
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: EA 99-382)
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: EA 99-382)
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. EA 99-
382)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment) ? (application materials: EA 99-382)
c) Result in inadequate emergency access'? (Application materials: EA
99-382)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Zoning Ordinance;
Application materials, EA 99-382)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g.. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Zoning Ordinance: EA 99-382)
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (CVWD letter 2-26-2000. EA
99-382)
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, 2-16-2000; EA 99-382)
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, 2-16-
2000: Ea 99-382)
R
04
X
X
X
x:
X
X
X
X
P:\EA99-382chec<IistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-00.wpd
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (CVWD letter, 2-16-2000)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (CVWD letter, 2-16-2000)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs'? (General
Plan 7-4: EA 99-382)
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'? (EA 99-382)
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals'? (EA 99-382)
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)? (EA 99-382)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly'? (EA 99-382)
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
15063(c)(3)(D) In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where
they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the
above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
(XI T'ERI: 'CE''.S CITED ON P-OLLOTVING PAGE)
►1
ro
X
X
X
►1
X
P:\EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-00.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.
'ornett, James W.
Biological Inventory and Impact Analysis of the proposed Hastings Nursery School Site, July 26. 1999.
I
iverside County Fire Department
Letter dated 2-15-2000.
'oachella Valley Water District
Letter dated 2-16-2000.
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 Keith Utsler
Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract 29624. Feb. 29,2000.
Mestre Greve Associates
tverside County
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
)c LaTorre, Julian
First School of the Desert/La Quinta
Preliminary Hydrology Report. Sept. 2, 1999,
Mainiero Smith & Associates.
First School of the Desert/La Quinta
Traffic Analysis Report. Sept. 8, 1999,
Mainiero Smith & Associates.
itN of La Quinta
General Plan. 1992.
City of La Quinta
Master Environmental Assessment, 1992.
Anderson. Brett L.
Geotechnical Addendum: Tract 29624.
Feb. 29,2000
Sladden Engineering
Architectural and landscaping exhibits
P:\EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624World3-28-OO.wpd
SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
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, for the area within the
parcel map, including the subject parcel for the proposed subdivision. 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
mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. While no evidence
of this species was found, the mandated $100 fee per acre of disturbed land 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 subdivision is located
within a Zone IV groundshaking zone, within a half -mile of an inferred and inactive
fault. The potential for seismic activity should be considered in structure design. As
a minimum, the Uniform Building Code requirements for Seismic Zone 4 should be
considered in design. The Geotechnical Addendum to the Preliminary Soils Report
provides seismic design criteria for the proposed subdivision. 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.
XI. c) Single family residential communities are considered noise sensitive land uses, along
with schools, hospitals, and churches. A noise study was prepared for the proposed
subdivision by Mestre Greve Associates, February 29, 2000, wherein it was
determined that noise mitigation is required. The primary noise source in the project
area is traffic noise from Adams Street. Exterior living areas adjacent to Adams Street
will be exposed to worst case traffic noise levels of 68.2 CNEL at Lot 6. Therefore,
in order to meet the City's 60 CNEL exterior noise standard, a noise barrier of up to
6-feet in height will be required. The required noise barrier locations are listed in the
noise study. The barrier may consist of a wall, berm, or a combination of the two,
with no openings or gaps. The City's interior noise standard for single family
residential units is 45 CNEL. All homes throughout the project will meet the City's
45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades, with closed windows and
mechanical ventilation. The noise study showed that there is a potential for temporary
construction noise impacts. To mitigate short-term construction noise impacts,
construction shall comply with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code Section
regarding construction activities near existing residential development which are
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 on Sunday or Federal holidays.
P:WddendumEA99-382TM29624World3-28-2000.wpd
These mitigation measures will ensure that identified impacts will be reduced to a level
less than significant.
P-.\Addend u rnEA9 9-382TM29624World3-28-2000.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA$
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE 2.44 GROSS ACRES IN THE LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT INTO
TEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, ONE STREET LOT,
AND THREE LETTERED LOTS LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, APPROXIMATELY
360 FEET NORTH OF MILES AVENUE
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624
APPLICANT: WORLD DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 281h day of March, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing at the request of
World Development to subdivide 2.44 gross acres in the Low Density Residential ;honing
District into ten single family residential lots, one street lot, and three lettered landscape
lots generally located on the east side of Adams Street, 360 feet north of Miles Avenue,
more particularly described as:
Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 29288
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
Tract Map 29624:
Finding Number 1 - Consistency with CEQA
Subsequent Environmental Assessment 99-382 was prepared for the proposed
residential subdivision with a recommended Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact. Special studies for noise, geotechnical issues, biology,
cultural resources, and hydrology were prepared for the environmental review. With
the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures for noise and
biological issues, impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Finding Number 2 - Consistency with the General Plan
The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the City's General Plan with the
implementation of Conditions of Approval to provide for adequate stormwater
drainage for each lot, and the appropriate cul de sac radius width of 45 feet. The
P:\LESLI E\peresTTM29624World3-28-2000.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Tentative Tract 29624- Recommended
March 28, 2000
project proposes 4 dwelling units per acre which is consistent with the Low Density
Residential land use designation of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre.
Finding Number 3 - Consistency of Design and Improvements
The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the
Clty's General Plan, with the implementation of recommended conditions of
approval to ensure proper sidewalk widths and location, and timing of their
construction.
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 will not conflict with 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 and Subsequent 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 proposal as
slopes do not exceed 20% and there are no identified geological constraints on the
property that would prevent development pursuant to the geotechnical study
prepared for the subdivision.
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 Tract Map 29624;
3. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 29624 to the City Council
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
P:\LESLI E\peresTTM29624World3-28-200C.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Tentative Tract 29624- Recommended
March 28, 2000
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 28th day of March, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY MERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\LESLI E\peresTTM29624W orld 3-28-200C.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
MARCH 28, 2000
GENERAL
1 . 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 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 (LCIMC).
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. Final maps under this tentative map shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of final map approval.
P .I.ESUH129G24-c.ofa.wpd Printed :March 23. 2000 Page I of 1(
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development
March 28, 2000
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. Conferred rights
shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of
essential improvements.
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. Rights of way and easements required of this map include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Adams Street: 44-foot half of an 88-foot right of way.
2) Ladera Drive: 37-foot width. For cul de sac bulb, use Riverside County
Standard 800 with 45-foot radius, unless the General Plan requirement is
changed to allow a smaller radius.
B. LANDSCAPE LOTS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
1) The applicant shall create lettered common landscape lots at the north end
of the cul de sac (approximately 60 feet wide) and of the easterly 75 feet,
plus or minus, of Lot 10 for maintenance by the homeowner's association.
The applicant shall grant a permanent easement across the latter lot or a
portion thereof, as necessary, to accept and convey drainage from Parcel
1 of Tentative Parcel Map 29288.
8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with
Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
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. Adams Street - 10 feet.
The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder
parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
P LESI.IE 29G24-c.ofa.wpd Printed March 23, 2000 Pagc 2 of l(
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Developmen-:
March 28, 2000
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.
1 1. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to Adams Street.
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. 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
14. 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 MAPS) AND PARCEL MAP(S)
15. 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,"
If tice their
surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to prac
respective professions in the State of California.
16. 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 &
P: LF,SHE\29624-c.ofa.wpd Printed March 23, 2000 Pagc 3 of l (
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development
March 28, 2000
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.
17. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements
of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire
standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
18. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the
City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be
fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and
prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to
reflect as -constructed conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted
to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
19. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map
and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required
to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to
reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are
obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future
construction by others, or a combination of these methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the
City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or
building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements.
2C. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an
executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations
required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a
P l.rsr.lr729624-c.ofa.wpd Printed March 23, 2000 Page 4 of l (
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approve - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development
March 28, 2000
certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security
provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing
structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
21. If improvements required herein have been previously secured with the underlying
Temporary Parcel Map 29288, the applicant will not be required to duplicate that
security. However, final inspection and occupancy of homes in this tract will not be
approved until the improvements are complete unless the applicant has an approved
phasing plan and is in compliance with the provisions of the plan.
22. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement
costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with
the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not
listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved
by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable
improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agerdized for
final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that
the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the
development.
23. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals
(e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements
(e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or
secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed
and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings
within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is
approved by the City Engineer.
24. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement aclreement,
the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building
inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call
upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
25. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard
Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may
P: LESUP. 29624-c.ofa.wpd Printed %larch 23, 2000 Page 5 of 11.
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approval - Recom!rnended
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Developmen`
March 28, 2000
be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate
Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the
foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are
compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which
are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the
above conditions have been met.
26. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary
geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified
engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils
report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist.
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.
27. 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.
28. 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 and the previous condition are not entitlements and
more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process.
If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider
alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neilahboring-
owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
29. 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.
30. 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.
P J.F.SLIE 29624-c.ofa.wpd Printed March 23. 2000 Page 6 of 10
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development
March 28, 2000
31. 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
32. This tract and the adjacent Parcel 1 from Temporary Parcel Map 29288 will be
allowed to convey runoff along existing streets to retention basins constructed for
Tract 23913 (Quinterra). The design of this site shall include provisions for surface
flow of runoff from Parcel 1 to the surface of Ladera Drive.
UTILITIES
33. 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.
34. All new utility lines shall be installed underground with the proposed development.
35. 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
36. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall
conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Adams Street - Construct eight -foot sidewalk.
B. ON -SITE PUBLIC STREETS
1) Ladera Drive - 36-foot travel width (between curb faces). The cul de sac
bulb shall conform to Riverside County Standard 800 with a 44-5-foot
radius, unless the 3eneral Plan is amended to allow a smaller radius.
P: LF,SLIF.\29624-c.ofa.wpd Printed March 23. 2000 Page 7 of l (
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development
March 28, 2000
37. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -
block street lighting is not required.
38. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with tho LQMC,
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the
City Engineer. Improvement plans shall be stamped and signed by qualified
engineers.
39. Streets shall have vertical curbs which convey water without ponding and provide
lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. Unused curb cuts on any
lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent
building(s) on the lot.
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" c.a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
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 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. If on -site streets are initially constructed
with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to
final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed
by the City, whichever comes first.
I': LESLIE(29624-c.ofampd Printed March 23. 2000 Page 8 of l(
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approva - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development
March 28, 2000
LANDSCAPING
43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks and common lots.
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 approved by the City Engineer.
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 arid 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 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.
P:\I,ESI.IE\29624-c.ofa.wpd Printed March 23, 2000 Pagc 9 of l (
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development
March 28, 2000
MAINTENANCE
51. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released
from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. The applicant shall make
provisions in the CC&Rs for continuous, perpetual maintenance of the perimeter wall
and landscaping and the common landscape lot required herein.
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.
MISCELLANEOUS
53. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, final perimeter landscaping plans shall be
revised to include:
A. A three foot high continuous landscape berm along Adams Street.
B. Minimum 10-foot tall tree sizes (1.5-inch to 2-inch caliper measuring 6-
inches from ground level).
C. A plant palette that matches that approved for SDP 99-655 (First School
of the Desert) along Adams Street.
54. At locations where the proposed development shares a common property line where
an existing wall encloses properties in the adjacent development, the Applicant shall
accomplish the Zoning Code required 5-foot minimum wall height in accordance with
one of the following methods:
A) If permission from the adjacent property owner is received, and if additional
wall height can be structurally achieved, add additional courses) of
matching block to the existing wail. This alternative shall be rejected by the
adjacent landowner before utilizing the second alternative.
B) If the adjacent property owner does not consent to the first alternative, the
Applicant shall achieve the 5-foot minimum wall height by constructing a
new wall with matching block, as close as physically possible, adjacent to
the existing wall, and fill the empty space between the two walls with pea
gravel and slurry cap. The two walls shall be structurally bound together
with tie rods.
P:,I.E,SI.IE\pccoaTTM29624World3-28-00wpd.wpd Printed March 24, 2000 Page 10 of 1(
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING
ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPE, & SITE PLANS APPROVAL
OF FOUR PROTOTYPE UNITS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN
TENTATIVE TRACT 29624 ALONG A WESTERLY
EXTENSION OF LADERA DRIVE, EAST SIDE OF ADAMS
STREET, NORTH OF MILES AVENUE
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-675
APPLICANT: WORLD DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 28' day of March, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
approval architectural, landscaping, & site plans for four prototype residential plans
to be constructed, along a westerly extension of Ladera Drive, east of Adams Street,
north of Miles Avenue, more particularly described as:
Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 29288
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit is within Tentative Parcel Map
29288, for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for
Environmental Assessment 99-382 was certified for TPM 29288, CUP 99-044, and
SDP 99-655 (First School of the Desert) under Planning Commission Resolution 99-
074. A subsequent environmental assessment has been prepared to add new
information on potential noise, hydrological and geotechnical impacts and their
mitigation. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended
for certification; 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 . With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed units provide a
varied and aesthetically attractive view within the tract, as the four prototype
plans provide a minimum of two front elevations with structural changes to
insure a varied and marked difference. No more than one plan features a
continuous roof when viewed from the front and rear of the unit. The units
utilize varied architectural features such as the roofs, exterior plaster, shutters,
popout window and door surrounds, and arches.
2. The proposed landscaping plans will provide a minimum of one 24-inch box,
1.5- to 2-inch caliper, size tree in the front yard area. All units will have at
P:\peresSDP2000-675World3-28-OO.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
Site Development Permit 2000-675
March 28, 2000
least one additional 15-gallon tree, 3/4-inch to 1-inch caliper, and other :shrubs
and groundcover in the front yard.
3. The final plot plan will ensure compliance with the requirement that identical,
or similar, front elevations shall not be placed on adjacent lots or directly
across the street from one another.
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 99-675 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 28th day of March, 2000, 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:\peresSDP2000-675World3-28-OO.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-675 - WORLD DEVELOPMENT
MARCH 28, 2000
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Final front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Community
Development Department iorior to issuance of the first building permit for these
units. The plans shall provide at least one specimen tree (i.e., minimum of a 2.4-inch
box, 10-feet tall size (1.5-inch to 2-inch caliper measured 6-inches from ground
level) shall be provided in the front yards and three in street side yards as per
Section 9.60.300(I)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance, and 15-gallon trees with a minimum
caliper size of 3/4- to 1-inch.
2. Garage doors shall be constructed of metal, composite, or wood and be sectional
roll -up style. Lites are optional.
3. Air conditioning mechanical equipment shall not be installed in the 5-foot sidle yard
setbacks.
4. Decorative chimney caps shall be provided for all plans.
5. The window and door surrounds shall be a minimum of 3-inches in depth for
continuous single plane side elevations.
P:\LESLIE\pccoaSDP2000-675WorldQuintera3-28-00.wpd Page 1 of 1
a,
- - -- --off •
5
GF OF9ti
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: MARCH 21, 2000
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY
Attached please find a copy of the Community Development Report which outlines
the current cases processed by staff for the month of February.
PAMonthly Department Repo_-t.wpd
H
Z
W
H
Q
a
W
Z
W
a
O
J
W
W
}
Z
C=
G
O
U
O
H
U
Q
O
F-
a
U
W
N
a.
O
U
U)
a)
W
N
N
(D
a)
0
0
a)
41
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
.0
.0
.0
.D
.a
-0
.0
.Q
.0
C
fn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
_
to
to
cn
O
M
N
N
.0
O
Un
Ucn
C
!—
c
CD
E
N
E
u)
W
p
.-
+N,
C
a�
-p
C
O
-�
to
N
®
O
E
:
CD
cn
CD
C7
E
Q
cr.
U
cn
E
v
c
Q
cn
Q)
>
CD
o
co
0
L
Q
U
a�
>
U
aci
E
cn
c
cn
a�
U a
CL
o
°c_
a
cn>
E
rn
c
>
a.
C
�,
J
v
w
LL
U
F-
U
(A
U)N
O
U
rn
c
.+'
cn
s
�,
cu 0
O
0
U
ua0
a)
>
0
a) Q
oQ
O O
00
Op r-
N N
I I
aU
o )
m >
a -a
C Q
o.-VQ
ao 1 O
Q 0 0 0
, ON
N N CV li)
.- N ll • c-
r- .--• V-- CV
C
O.000
CD
o0
00
p0 N
CV r
N N
N M
CL
M C O_
N N
C O 0 m I,
`+- W N O
0 O
0 N
NO O E" o +i
+
N -j Q
N LO O N M
- O
C1 C L
O
ct►
0� O Q (n 1>
,~
o p
..O C' O O
C'�
F- p�
co
c0
Q
0) 0> .� — c0
O
Q'
+•�
.N
C
p Gj
O O c ,>
'O C) ++
C L > •C
C.. 0 0
p L c
U
p cC
m 0
N
O n
C O C p vi 0
c0 C �C
E
CL)
0)
O) o O C
c0 ++ M O
NCL)
c. 0 +-' p
O
O c
E
+ +
U c 0 a. Q Q
p
C
N
c0 CA L
V o)
e0 O U
v-
~ 0 0=
O
O -C .. -
O
co
N C
'C o
O O O O
j L O
N C
E
E+
co U `F- O CM .a
*" c
+'
=
vj
E
-0 ca
°�
N N O N r,
O N E �=
E
ai
E
+.j ;+= o >, >
c 4- O L7 .
o
N
+'
i
w-
O
m +°
+, I O m
cn M
e- C �-
a o 0
C O
co
CD
Q
a `p
O
a
O O a)
C: 1O
w- O
x N
c
E O >
'O +j O 0
p
E c u-
O— L O O
E t 00 -p
vi
o a O
O
m
Co >
>M v�i
C
cn _C
O
c'+_��'�0�30>_
�
L`
o=Cccn
C
o�a;�
C N
aci`°acno�a)�`o+��
E p O N C
O
C1
N C
0 m 0 C
,. p
E
c N
C C c0
+�
N
E c c0 N
Q' I�
Co +" cC a
-
en
ton CO
'C
cif N•
co
N
p
0 CA L
-0 c +
a) n C-
0
0
00
E O
N 0 C CN
`
E=
cco!
r
c r. E4-
t6
cy)
CN 3
V +C'`-
EM
O f
a +p, c0 O CO
>
+'
C > c (n
O C
`�"
t6 C C
`) N
f0 L
c`o c r- C
—
C r-
p
cu a
O O O O
r O
(n +'
N o
w
a)
cu o
p a)
ro m c
o
O
O a) O 0 +, 0 C
ti-
Q
C U �-
CL CD N ++
C .� C 1�
>O
N L
0 CO a)
c0 a Q
°�
C
M
L
a) CL) a)
CD-0 T1
*' cn r m CO
N O O
.6 C
a -E
N
>•• Z)
o
O Q
O N O N'
o)
c
+,
`�
V
N
L++ ►. +�
E-
M
O c
C.
C0 n
U fn
O
4. Q O O c o
N
O
cn =
O ►�. O
+ N it w
w-0 —
O Q— co
O a
*' U CO
0 E
cN O
� � c`o
C
>
v
+-J > o
� +_�+
CD
O O
y . � E � '+ c
+ + to N
CL
O
O
y v -
G) '
Co
O cn T3 M O
N �'
E`
'+-�
0
Cu
O
0
O N O
E
N cp tCf N
O > +
p 0
O L-• O
O
O O
>
.0 -0-0
cr c
c: LO= c
M
a
'o +-�
Q c C=
o v m a) c
Q E> U)
is a)
E a co
OC co n _ E cn
a)
cti
C1 a
oc c� U
�' �n t— �'
a� C) �° -v oc
oc ;
a, V, oc
CA
F - 00
>
F-
cl
a)
M lP) C1
C. a)
M C0 =
M Q
liJ
e—
N
c
a• o
C.
°� �
0
0
CL
Cn to
N 0
+1
rn
a)
O
�
o
0
o
U
0)0
10
aM
(3
pj
MOCL
M
N
to >
t�
LC)"
>
aM p
N'�
CL �'N
fN Q
N a)
0u
0C-4
F-0
F-U
O
n
Q
O
O
O
N
�-
`.
•—
U
a.
OC
w
C]
O
>_
coo �
>
N
c`
p:
a :3
>
ao>
a
c
a
o
00
CN
N
N
U N
-j U
as
O
CL a
0
O
00
��
M
U M
-j U
aCL
v
>
o>>
a.a
a
aOL
a s
0
000
N��
�NM
e-
N V—
U e-- N
-j U U
ACLU
a)
0
c
c
O
U
a
a
a)
m4-
a`c
0
C
c
O
U
a
a
a
a) O cn co
LA m
0 c
° U) _;
(1)
a) a) co
a
N Q +_' co
0'
r
co j
+O' �' co
a)
.�. >
a)
N j
to
CO r-
+, � V)
O
U
c �
O R) O U L
co
Co >
+' c
O
U
O O
.- c.
++
c a) c O p
O co
O L
""
II a
+J O
�-0
O O a)
_0 c
.coEymcn
vE°��
y�
�+�
cn
cucnCo
��
Ucn
°tea)
c
O "p L U
-0 U cn co
co
U
cco ••.
Q O
`'p
M
U �.
C >
a
c +, O a) I�
`° o
E ,-
°
c w am
O
* ' �
c C O
(ncc
co O
�t c
O
v) o
CL
+4 a)
U
E F- N 0 p
c 0
p r
L
CL C
►.O O
O
ca
�
co
O c M`
6• p)
O U
N
c a)
a)
O t3
.0
N a) c
M
C co -0
-0n CD
ciU`N
CIO
cn c
CD
a
N
t6
FL
N
+-+ co
p
Cl
0
N 4N-
Nco
°c
a. >o
U
�
O >
�°°
O+
4-U
aC
o U ai
> v
o U
o co
m T .-
�c-
U)
acn cn
CL 0
4,0
c p
coO m
> a)
> a O>c
O
N
C +,
[n 4) co C
0 O a)
G2 n
0 co
L-
`° .0
�
U L
0 c co � N
cn
a 0�
� Q�
C- � O
Z Q
Co C
O
� 'Q
U
O Q
`- 0 p, N
+.j co
0 O a
p °
"" O d
v
0� a) a
�.
L U
� U w
4O +1
W
a) J cn a) =
D
Oco U) a)
N --)
a) c °
O >,
N CU as
CT cn
i
CT E N
O co U
a
O CO co
7 c L +L+
�
O
a
a) a)
m m
a) O N O
CC �`- co U ;;=
Q
m cn cn
6
m cn FL
O
cr co � c
0
CC
p O
OC co in C�
w .
cn
O
M
M
O
L
CL
U
a)
O
U)
000
O
a>)
-
CD
CO
1-
CO
>
O
O
co
O
Y
o6
0
o
0
0
N
C
E
Y
Na
co
in
CL
00
L� °
CD
w
N
U)O
0
of"
to co
0
U
>
O
O
Ls +•'
0 M
CN
0
000
LO >'
a)
C0
M
N
M E
M
M
a-
M �-
0..
a.
N •0
N
N C:
c
O
N
0
U)
C7
con
con
f~-
F~—
I~—
z
0
H
°
O
a
a
00
V-
C") 't
r-
U (M
as
co
N_
M
a.
CO M
CN
cy)
CLu
e—
r - N
► o
aU
.—
. - N
M M
0-C)
�f
U
+" +D Q)
rn co co
O
m
co
-j
N aD
m e
c O
rn O
(D o) -a
W
o
+
c
= o o
c
c
c 0
C]cu
N 0
c
CL s
w
0
y a
•0 cro
���
0
N
NUU
C>
M co m
+�
°
Cp
°
O
in
m
°�
c
C
co
�-
`c'
aio
M
°c
C
C
v,3
'O
0
M
•_
m
d
o
Q)
>
a
M +..
-0 c
C 0
—
f°
c
a)
c
c
6
co O O
0
0
cn
0
0 cn
co 0
O
C
m
o
0
Q)
°
+
c
c
U)
CD
CL
0
_V
O co
c
a)
>
•t_
E
+1
a)
V J
fn
O
O
�
>,
U
r
+1
=
0 co
� n-
0
O
L
to co
Q. °
O
O
�_ `-
Q) Q)
� E
++
cn
O
co
l
c
�
c
fC
Q)
°
C
Q E
Q)
Q)
Q)
•
cn
O
+-+
O
ccn
0
o
�aoi 0
c
aci
u
a
U
>
Q)
co
U'
c
0)
U .X
fir= U
O
+'
E a.
a. O)
O
cn
O
E
v) +,
cn
co
>,
"O +_+
Q)
U
Q)
N-
a)
cn
U)
"p co
O c 0)
o
f
O
+'
v- c
0 0
4=
+-
0 +�
w
U
O -0
E u
+�-
c
n
O
E°
+' a
c
cn
°
>
4)
0
a)
o
o0 ca)
Qo Uo
aco
Qm
cn
CD
0
�o
vi
c
�cu
�
04-
CD
CD
CL CL)
E
`°
c
u
o
m
+r
c>
m°n
a�
0
"- 0 o°0)oc
cn
c
c
>
y
O
N cr
N C
�-
+'
O
Q)
�-+ �
N
0
o*-'a)Q)
m>,U
a)>�,
m-�
ai>.E0
�c
in
a)
E
N(o
Q .
ca
>
co
V
a)
Q C O Q)
a .— U v
oc
O
�►- J
N
cc , a.
Q) O
cc 6)
v,
� ,,
0 y
E -a
a)' X
cr Q)
a.
co
M
c
d.
M
75
N
E
c
a
0-
V 0
C�
o
.
co
CM
cn
O 0
>
a)
It
U co
CD
C]
0
N
a)
E
0 a~.
t--
co cn
co
N --
F -
E
-C
d7
j
>
a O
LU cn
Ln cn
Q)Ln
O
a
cl
ai
M
c 0
0
p
.-
N
-t
0 2
O E
a
0
co
O
00 (n
Op
0
a)
M
N
N
N
p O
N
N c
0
'a)
o
CL
n.
a- a0o
O
u
to
i—
F-
to N _1
(D M
N M
U
W)
a
F-
ix
O
IL
W
Q
F-
F-
V
W
7
O
w
a
_Q
U
a
r
o
c
c
o
0
0
�
P
P
O V
7
L
O
CD
M
pOj
O
cn
P
P
d
y
O.
o
c
\
c
o
0
p p
V �
et
tt
N
N
coo
M
O
O
0,
d =
w �
�
C
E p
o
�001
o
o
o
0
0
U
o
lA
O
O
Ln
O
O
ai
o
LO
P
c
CNo'=
o=
c=
o=
0
000
C
^
O
o o
O
Q o
0 0
d;
O
O
C
O
N
o
M
to
N
J
W
c
Y
C
O
v-
t0
cc
N
CD
.0
o
a
N
be w
.•
m
5
m
a
c
s
.°
°
_
••
a
LT =
a�
a
N
c
CL
o
W
°
O
*'
o
c
c
d
o
m
o
c
m
V
H
m E
a
a
CD
c
�
�
—
d
Q1
vp-
wp-
C d
p
w
y
O
C7
cot0
Q
W
W
W
N C
C7
us
a
a
v
O.
.°
O ()
C
C
y
Gl
C
W
c
>
E J
C.)U
C
Ci
LJ.
r
p
m
cn
y
tM o
o,
c
o
V
c y
t-
_=
a
a
a
a
a
O
v
Ci
0
March 20, 2000
Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,
We recently received a notice in the mail regarding
Tentative Track. 23624 and the extension of Ladera Drive to the
west. We oppose any extension to Ladera Drive.
We purchased our residence on Ladera Drive because we
have two small children, and we were interested in a quiet street
with no through traffic. While we were purchasing our house,
we contacted The City of La Quinta regarding whether Ladera
Drive would some day be a through street. We were told that a
church was planned on the site next door and no extension of
Ladera Drive was planned. Seeing the 7 foot high block well at
the end Ladera Drive and keeping in mind the discussion we had
with the City of La Quinta, we assumed that* the street would
never be extended.
We feel a road connecting the site to Adams Drive would
impact our neighborhood less and would not create any safety
issues on our street.
We also have concerns with the height of the neighboring
property and any retaining walls which may be place next to the
existing wall at the west end of our tract. A retaining wall was
designed along the east end of our tract and it is quite unsightly
and could have been avoided. We hope the planning commission
will review our concerns relating to these matters. We appreciate
the opportunity to voice our concerns.
SEC OVE
Kr ,7 2 4 2000
CITY OF LAQUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Sincerely,
Alex and Diana Londos
79090 Ladera Drive
La Quinta, CA 92253